Son of Mulder.

quote:

I can't take seriously such an article... there is no mention of clouds as a moderating factor.

That's one of the reasons that I thought you and muf would like to "get your 'teeth' into it"!

The "blog miester" at tamino is a statistical mathematician (to the best of my knowledge), and uses whatever material they find at hand. They also seem to support warmers (if this permits me to remain "PC"). However, the choice of material leaves the blog-spot in the category of "corrupted allegorical truth" by way of obfuscation!

The blog thread is about WV feedback, but the blogger introduced a graph that has little to do with any "feedback scenario" and is unconnected with the blog-thread subject (in fact the partner to the paper that the graph included advised of the graphs misuse). More to this, the legend that accompanies the graph describes an impossible observation (much to the regret of Isaac Held I would imagine [of Held & Soden]). My comment relating to this is at #14 in the "responses" que.

I'm glad that I'm an engineer and not a scientist!

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Suricat

quote:
There is something that you and muf can get your "teeth into" on tamino! Look at this; http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...-lock/#comment-32836
It's all about WV feedback.

It would appear that it has disappeared into the ether now suricat

Muf

quote:

It would appear that it has disappeared into the ether now suricat

No it's still there. I think there's a bug in copying the URL see http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...-lock/#comment-32836

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Muf

quote:

It would appear that it has disappeared into the ether now suricat

No it's still there. I think there's a bug in copying the URL see http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...-lock/#comment-32836

They've taken my comment out!!
Obviously 'wankery' is a word that they take exception to

mufcdiver.

quote:

They've taken my comment out!!
Obviously 'wankery' is a word that they take exception to

There isn't much that they don't take exception to on that site muf.


Have you guys seen this on RC yet?
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...natural-variability/
I think the guest presentation is good, but what is the recent "variability"? All I can think of is a weaker solar cycle 23 that followed cycle 22, and our new solar cycle 24 that doesn't seem to "spark" much! I can't seriously believe that ice from the North Pole has kept Earth cool, so this must either be due to solar variability, or ocean to atmosphere temp hysteresis : insolation to ocean temp hysteresis (ocean insolation to atmosphere temp change lag : lead).

Surely, this must be either a forcing change, or a lead/lag variability?

What are your thoughts?

BTW, wasn't Skippy a kangaroo muf?

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

I can't seriously believe that ice from the North Pole has kept Earth cool, so this must either be due to solar variability, or ocean to atmosphere temp hysteresis : insolation to ocean temp hysteresis (ocean insolation to atmosphere temp change lag : lead).

Try this.

I found the Realclimate article you quote a hoot. If you look at their 2nd chart that shows the record from continuously monitored sites from 1900 to 1998 where they have excised the 1998 "Super El Nino" (don't you love the evolving phraseology) the trend looks pretty flat from 1930 to 1997. When they show the first chart that has all the record (full hadcrut3 from 1950) it's pretty clear that the growth has been introduced by the non-continuously monitored sites. My scepticism just grows and grows.

They claim the continuous graph is not global but anthropic CO2 is meant to be a global signature so should be clear in the continuous non-global record.

suricat (just noticed the SoM spells your name with a capital 'S')

quote:

Surely, this must be either a forcing change, or a lead/lag variability?

Coming from a school of thought where by liquid bodies of water are by far and away the biggest climate drivers, then I'd hazard a guess at both (Though it depends on what your definition on 'forcing' is!)

Son of Mulder.

quote:

I found the Realclimate article you quote a hoot.

I only quoted it "a hoot" (as you say) because the region that the "red spot" is expected in is open to TOA where IR energy is "expelled" into space. Thus, it won't get warm (or red)! That is, unless the troposphere expands by a hitherto unforeseen extent (and in that event I'd expect that region to have chaotic tendencies also, unlike the "no weather strat analogy" that the tropo extends into).

quote:

My scepticism just grows and grows.

Hardly surprising SoM, but remember that language (use of the "tongue") is always evolving. Don't know about you, but I have trouble keeping up with it. This must be either the onset of senility, or the realisation that there is a need for a basic standard. Don't worry, I'm sure you are only looking for a basic standard (there doesn't seem to be one with climate science)!

quote:

Try this.

And.

quote:

They claim the continuous graph is not global but anthropic CO2 is meant to be a global signature so should be clear in the continuous non-global record.

I've linked these two together because it leads back to many moons ago when we were discussing a "pump hunt" scenario.

Unless centrifugal effects are accepted (as well as the coriolis effect) it is impossible to rationalise PDO, or AMO with the attractors that generate their existence (or to differentiate PDO and AMO as attractors, or separate systems). Earth is still "over-spun". Thus, is not in an equilibrium of any description in the long term.

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

quote:

suricat (just noticed the SoM spells your name with a capital 'S')

Yes, but I don't make issue of this anymore muf. Many word processors replace a lower case letter with upper case automatically when the word is at the beginning of a sentence, or paragraph. For example, I need to make exceptions in my "word pro" word processor to be able to address you with a lower case first letter in my response. That's life! Some people need to keep a log of things and word processors tend to just get in the way sometimes. I'm OK with this (but it reflects on the other part's ability to properly communicate on the site and I know this from "Tamino").

quote:

(Though it depends on what your definition on 'forcing' is!)

Well, that has to be mostly solar. Though "other disciplines" would include attractors as "forcings" as well.

Best regards, suricat.

suricat (notice the lower case, apols such sensitivity has never been my strong suit).

Anyway have you seen this interesting aerosol article . Makes one feel warmer and warmer as it cools.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

suricat (notice the lower case, apols such sensitivity has never been my strong suit).

No problemo! There isn't much comms traffic here anyhow.

quote:

Anyway have you seen this interesting aerosol article . Makes one feel warmer and warmer as it cools.

High five SoM! This brings back memories of ocean liner "smokestack IR tracings".

I've read the article, and most of the comments, now. How come nobody even mentions "global dimming" in conjunction with black carbon?

The 'global dimming' (GD) effect of 'black carbon' (BC) is an important factor for insolation biasing. Not only does BC prevent the landfall of insolation that interacts with Earth's surface, BC also prevents the landfall of insolation that doesn't interact with Earth's surface and would normally just "bounce in and out" through the "atmospheric window".

What is more, BC gets two chances of absorbing this "bounced" energy with both "incoming" and "outgoing" (after "the bounce") radiation. This makes BC one heck of an attractor for adding energy to the atmosphere and surface, whilst at the same time reducing "cloud cover" by way of increased local temp (CC relationship for humidity) it also supplies a CCN that won't facilitate precipitation. Thus, I believe, could be an attractor that increases the altitude of the tropopause (this is speculation on my part).

The "chemist joke" caused a wry smile. "Because you're worth it", or "that'll be the bounce" (based on UK adds)?


"Makes one feel warmer and warmer as it cools"? I presume you refer to ocean heat content!

This would also be a factor of the shorter wavelengths of insolation that would make Earth-fall being attracted to the atmosphere by BC and not being permitted to penetrate to ocean depths.

Astute comment!

Best regards, suricat.

Son of Mulder.

Cutting back to TSI variability, have you seen this?
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...-official/#more-5820
It's a pity there isn't a link to the paper yet. The nearest relevant paper I can find is this pdf (less than 300kB).
http://www.nasa-news.org/resou...Soden_manuscript.pdf
The graphs on page 10 & 12 are quite "illuminating". When read with TSI in mind, it does seem that the TSI level may well tip events in "NINO" terms (both for "pump hunt" [due to WV load] and cloud cover). What's your opinion?

Best regards, suricat.

suricat, it doesn't get more empirical than this

I don't see how the AGWers will answer this new Linzen paper unless the physical measured record is completely wrong.

It looks like it's through peer review and about to be published.

It will be fascinating to follow.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

suricat, it doesn't get more empirical than this

Ha (lol)! I do believe you've now taken the place of M Batchelor (only your posts are more realistic).

Yes, I saw this on WUWT earlier. Read the post, but haven't read the paper yet.

Well frankly, it could get more empirical if the source of the main forcing could be identified beyond doubt. However, it's just as well that I got cancer, got remission and then mum got ill, because I'd otherwise have a lot of capital invested in my concept car engine which looks like it isn't going to be needed! Though a road vehicle that can run at 90 MPH for an hour, then 40 MPH on petrol/diesel/paraffin/gas/whatever (coke if you like) until the battery is recharged/replaced still looks good on paper when the fuel economy is virtually doubled against contemporary vehicles.

Back to reality. Nice curves on the graphs and I notice that SW is more positive, whereas LW is more negative in the "feedback" category for observations. Bearing in mind trends that cover roughly a decade (a popular current subject), this looks like a positive feedback from SW "insolation" and thus the (11 year) "solar cycle" could well be involved (who am I kidding, I think this is it)!

quote:

I don't see how the AGWers will answer this new Linzen paper unless the physical measured record is completely wrong.

We've seen arguments on the physical measured record before. Be prepared for argument.

quote:

It looks like it's through peer review and about to be published.

More power to Lindzen et al for credibility?

I'm not one that puts confidence in published papers, though I think that this paper deserves to be published.

quote:

It will be fascinating to follow.

It'll certainly be interesting to see how this paper is received by the science community!


As an aside, you realise how it's virtually impossible to find a source for a global UV trend? Just look at this:
http://www.meteoschweiz.admin....ojekte/cost_726.html
The longest UV record known. I know this isn't a "global" record, but it's a local record of UV insolation. Let's face it, any "local record" is a record of TSI at surface and can be corrected for any local perturbations (like ozone and particulates) when the perturbation is known.

This source is a plump source for global UV levels to my mind.


Why am I interested in the UV factor of insolation? Because it factors in the deep ice and deep ocean part of insolation per se. This relates to the paper that you just posted for my awareness.

Can you see the relationship?

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

As an aside, you realise how it's virtually impossible to find a source for a global UV trend? Just look at this:

FFS tell me about it suricat

Me thinks the otherside don't take this seriously Lol
:sarcasm:

Global Temperature Increase Linked to 1976 Climate Shift in Pacific Ocean
Abstract

mufcdiver.

quote:

Global Temperature Increase Linked to 1976 Climate Shift in Pacific Ocean

Yes muf, this has diverted my attention from the paper by Lindzen et al.
Here's a copy of the paper:
http://nzclimatescience.net/im..._carter_jgr_2009.pdf
Kindly supplied by a poster at Tamino's site, which seems wholly dedicated to destroying the paper (Tamino's site that is). It seems they don't like Bob Carter there. If the download stops, just push your browser's refresh button (it happened to me).

Although the paper is quite short I haven't had time to digest it yet, but you can read my site comment @ 1:29 am. How do you feel about manipulating data to better present an effect?

Best regards, suricat.

Tamino seems to dislike me and keeps deleting my posts which wouldn't bother me if it weren't for some of the insanity that they let-by!
I think Tamino may have been either TS of LegJoints in a former life

mufcdiver.

quote:

I think Tamino may have been either TS of LegJoints in a former life

LegJoints? Perhaps! "True Sceptic" continues to post there, so can't be an incarnation. However, it's "weird" ain't it!

Best regards, suricat.

More of a question really but in This paper from Hansen et-al, what are the mechanics for the transference of heat caused by co2 from the 'airier' portion of the atmosphere into the oceans to cause [with hind-sight] the "increased ".." likelihood of strong El Niños"?

quote:

"increased ".." likelihood of strong El Niños"?

This is a quote from the paper that I edited so that, grammatically it more sense in my post. I don't think change it so much as to misrepresent the paper(to be sure please follow the link )

mufcdiver.

quote:

More of a question really but in This paper from Hansen et-al, what are the mechanics for the transference of heat caused by co2 from the 'airier' portion of the atmosphere into the oceans to cause [with hind-sight] the "increased ".." likelihood of strong El Niños"?

I don't know which part of the paper your question relates to (a more exact ref would be appreciated), but for a general overview.

Earth's oceans and seas attract energy in a variety of ways and by varying degrees. I suppose the easiest way for me to explain this would be by considering the ocean as an "attractor" of energy. If I limit this to "heat caused by CO2" it isn't going to amount to much of a post, all GHG's would amount to a reasonable post, but the whole enchilada (including the logic behind the "Els and Las") would be a long post (all explanations would also be in "engineering speak", I'm not conversant enough with "papers" diversity yet).

Make your choice and I'll post what I can. Though, Jennifer's post here may help, as it's along the same line of reasoning as the paper you reference. An SRES:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...-ian-read/#more-6017

Best regards, suricat.

From the first paragraph
"Global surface temperature has increased
0.2°C per decade in the
past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in
initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse
gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific
than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños , such as those of
1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this
critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is
approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and
within
1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.
We conclude that global warming of more than
1°C, relative to
2000, will constitute ‘‘dangerous’’ climate change as judged from
likely effects on sea level and extermination of species."

I've bolded the relevant sentence.

Is this more Butterfly effect?

mufcdiver.

quote:

Is this more Butterfly effect?

Quite the opposite. It's the upper point of stability for ocean surface temperatures. That's why they also claim "Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.", so it doesn't really get any warmer!

The "Butterfly Effect" is to do with "chaos theory", where the predictability of an outcome from a given set of start point data can result in multiple outcomes (the problem with climate models and why they need to be "tweaked").

As I said, this paper is an SRES paper (Special Report on Emission Scenarios). Which means that the paper's conclusion is biased by uncertainties in many areas (see the link in my last post). I suppose that you could say the conclusion of the paper includes a Butterfly Effect.

Having said that it doesn't really get any warmer, it can get cooler. History has shown this with our understanding of cool periods like the Dalton Minimum and Maunder Minimum etc. (associated with low TSI).

WRT "strong El Niño". This is the result of cyclical weather systems that come into phase. When they are out of phase they are given the label of La Niña because they are weak and effeminate (just how macho can you get)!

Hope this helps and if I haven't covered everything, please post again.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
More of a question really but in This paper from Hansen et-al, what are the mechanics for the transference of heat caused by co2 from the 'airier' portion of the atmosphere into the oceans to cause [with hind-sight] the "increased ".." likelihood of strong El Niños"?

Been digging around suricat and I think the the only way that the reflected energy from GHGs could effect the El Niños events with any balls would be if it was stored within the oceanic conveyor system and was released thus.
Wouldn't this take decades? even centuries?

Son of Mulder.

I recently saw an article on the WUWT site to do with solar cycle 24 being overtaken by cycle 25, thus no change of polarity.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...5-has-already-begun/
Which led me to a guest post by David Archibald indicated on another page of the WUWT site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...-repeat-is-possible/
Where I found a link to; theglobalwarmingnow.wordpress.com site, which also linked (eventually) to:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=181
Now I'm interested!

Thus, I decided to address the source of the anomaly. NASA! The nearest subject that I found to this anomaly was this page;
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...ws/solarcycle24.html
but it isn't the full anomaly. There is a link at that page that suggests greater clarity, but the link is "broken" (the Apache server returns an Error 404, "URL not found").
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/sunspotcycle.shtml

By now I'm beginning to think that NASA, with its large budget, is skimping on the budget for their comms net stuff, but then I found this!
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/res...es/pubs/savc0707.pdf
By courtesy of the first page I saw at WUWT!

Is NASA winding the spring, then ducking out to avoid implication? I suppose I could be deluded into thinking of a "conspiracy theory" on this! There again, there is also pertinent evidence of a slide into some sort of sunspot minima period that includes low maxima level, seems to be initiated by NASA, but is somehow removed from NASA.

What are your thoughts SoM (either on solar activity, or NASA policy)?

Before you say it. Yes! I would also like the opinion of Steve_M on this!

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

quote:

Been digging around suricat and I think the the only way that the reflected energy from GHGs could effect the El Niños events with any balls would be if it was stored within the oceanic conveyor system and was released thus.
Wouldn't this take decades? even centuries?

Well, Yes! However, it'll take a lot of ocean "mixing" to get ocean surface temps (or near surface depth temps) down to a depth where it can be included with the oceanic conveyor system.

GHGs (which radiate IR) only radiate to a few metres of ocean depth. Thus, any GHG "feedback" to ocean temp can only affect ocean surface temp, which also affects the "El's and La's" (bad grammar for emphasis).

UV directly infuses depths, that include the oceanic conveyor, with energy. What of this?

Best regards, suricat.

Son of Mulder.

And then I found this paper describing a "lost cycle" at the start of the Dalton Minimum.
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalev..._SP477_lostcycle.pdf

Best regards, suricat.

suricat

quote:

What are your thoughts SoM (either on solar activity, or NASA policy)?

I've got to the stage now where there are so many cycles interacting with each other i'm not even convinced that the effect of any one can be identified in the global temperature record (even if it were reasonably accurate).

It may help Svensmark draw some empirical conclusions about cosmic ray efects.

There was a nice article on WUWT today which just about sums up the impact side of things as we've often discussed.

It makes me think more and more that the science and models is a sideshow to distract from solid, realistic planning vs artificial panic considerstions.

I particularly the perspective created by this quote from the essay.

""Consider that the global population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion this year. Among other things, this meant creating the infrastructure for an extra 4.3 billion people in the intervening 59 years (as well as improving the infrastructure for the 2.5 billion counted in the baseline, many of whom barely had any infrastructure whatsoever in 1950). These improvements occurred at a time when everyone was significantly poorer. (Global per capita income today is more than 3.5 times greater today than it was in 1950). Therefore, while relocation will be costly, in theory, tomorrow’s much wealthier world ought to be able to relocate billions of people to higher ground over the next few centuries, if need be.""

mufcdiver.

I was hoping that you would come back with a post saying that perhaps deep ocean forms the main "backdrop" for ocean surface and near ocean surface temps. Thus. During 'extended low UV insolation' scenarios the "backdrop" is "kicked away" and ocean surface and near surface temps are left solely to their own energy levels for temp maintenance.

This may well be a reason for the apparent correlation between solar sunspot proliferation and surface temp, but there is more to this, the 10 cm flux and solar wind speed may also factor (as well as shorter wavelengths of insolation "percolating" down as half, of quarter, wavelength pulses).

Best regards, suricat.

Son of Mulder.

quote:

I've got to the stage now where there are so many cycles interacting with each other i'm not even convinced that the effect of any one can be identified in the global temperature record (even if it were reasonably accurate).

Following a couple of rants on the C4 site on this very subject, I can only concur SoM!

That's why I proposed the tropo column WV and water content as a metric for climate (with an elastic altitude for the tropopause).

quote:

It may help Svensmark draw some empirical conclusions about cosmic ray efects.

Let's hope so. Though I think that his expected effect is restricted to regions of WV saturation. Thus, mostly nocturnal effect.

quote:

There was a nice article on WUWT today which just about sums up the impact side of things as we've often discussed.

To be honest, I can't recollect any of our discussions on "impact". Perhaps this is because I don't consider the result of "impact" to be beyond our ability to "respond" in all but the most unlikely circumstance.

However!

quote:

It makes me think more and more that the science and models is a sideshow to distract from solid, realistic planning vs artificial panic considerstions.

I particularly the perspective created by this quote from the essay.

I'm all for it. China has been castigated for its action to limit population growth, but China is really the first to recognise the real problem and make some attempt to deal with it. I know this sounds callous, but at least China has evoked an honest policy (albeit a callous one) (but this is politics, not science).

Personally, I think that "education of the masses" on the subject of "over population" is more humanitarian, as it allows for personal preference and comes up with roughly the same population reduction as "The China Model" in the final equation.

But of course "science and models is a sideshow"! Just like we engineers find, no government can allow a "mad scientist" (modeller, or engineer) to control "POLICY"!

Best regards, suricat.

suricat

quote:

UV directly infuses depths, that include the oceanic conveyor, with energy. What of this?

I don't know if you remember suricat, but I was looking into UV effects on water (both frozen & liquid) on C4s boards with out a great deal of success. I even had an email exchange with Dr Paul Crutzen which came to nothing.
Have you had better luck?

mufcdiver.

quote:

I don't know if you remember suricat, but I was looking into UV effects on water (both frozen & liquid) on C4s boards with out a great deal of success.

Ah yes, Ah reemembeur eet well.

quote:

I even had an email exchange with Dr Paul Crutzen which came to nothing.

Yes, and again, I'm sorry if you had a bad time over this.

quote:

Have you had better luck?

Prefer chance, or hapstance, to luck.

Because UV is high energy it has a tendency to alter chemistry during its absorption, thus UV was dubbed "chemical rays" during the 19th century, so much of the research into its increased inclusion within insolation (mainly because of the O₃ hole) has been levelled at health issues and not GW issues.

There seem to be few papers that deal with GW by UV from what I can find online. However, the science seems sound enough to me. Water doesn't absorb much UV insolation:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html#uv
Stands to reason that if it's unimpeded by waterborne particulates (blue line), it'll get to about 700m of ocean depth (depth to extinction).

During this ocean penetration the energy must transit to some place, or other, and is probably "subdued" by means of a harmonic interaction (½, or ¼ wave depletion [reference radio aerial technology, it confirms both macro and micro admittance for EM absorption]). An "incomplete interaction" of this type wouldn't impart the total (chemical altering) energy of UV, just some of its value. Thus, longer wavelengths can gain from an incomplete interaction with a shorter wavelength (and vice versa, but not investigated in the case under discussion). Perhaps this is what "some people" call absorption "wings", or a "pressure broadening" type observation!

As it happens, the "deep ocean temperature" lower boundary is 750m. Is this to include the possible factor of UV insolation? It's just unfortunate that it hasn't been logged accurately yet (ces't la vie).

I still put my reputation on everything that I've posted here and on the old C4 site (that's one reason why I keep copies of all my posts, I'm just a "sincere engineer" in the "help and learn" loop).

Best regards, suricat.

Does UV have any interaction with water vapor in this way suricat?

Takes me back to ice melt and UVs role in it!

mufcdiver.

quote:

Does UV have any interaction with water vapor in this way suricat?

Do you know what, I don't know. It's a good question though.

OK! I've spent most of the night searching and I've turned up a few links. Google Books turned up an interesting title;
http://books.google.com/books?...v=onepage&q=&f=false
Don't ask me anything about the link, I've yet to read it. I also found this;
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1706486
A paper that suggests a change in the absorption spectra of WV when UV is also present. I'm not sure if this is instrumental biasing, or a change to the attractor (WV), but it looks to be connected to this Russian paper;
http://resources.metapress.com...1380464&size=largest

It's late and it looks like I've a lot of reading to do (when I'm able to get around to it), so it's beginning to look as though there could be another "biasing effect" caused by UV. Interesting!

Best regards, suricat.

I found this from Australia which is bothered solely with clouds and refraction. It possibly asks more questions that it answers on here but it also begs the question; Are the right questions being asked?

mufcdiver.

quote:

I found this from Australia which is bothered solely with clouds and refraction. It possibly asks more questions that it answers on here but it also begs the question; Are the right questions being asked?

I think your link is about "atmospheric lensing" of insolation (thus, local) and not the effect of insolation per se. It's 03:30 here and I really need some sleep. Though, I also doubt that the right questions are being asked.

Best regards, suricat.

Do you think this could stand a thread of its own suricat?

suricat here's another potential empirical falsification to follow over the next few weeks. It's easy to understand and plausible.

it's essentially looking at monthly raw temperature data and looking for temperature trends in long lived stations vs short stay stations. Very Interesting results. Shame he hasn't graphed them. I have and it looks a convincing result.

mufcdiver.

quote:

Do you think this could stand a thread of its own suricat?

I don't think so. I only have the Internet for research and I've already knocked myself out trying to find info. The Google book was pointless and the papers were only part papers, but it does look as though UV causes a similar effect to pressure banding on radiative absorption spectra in the scant info I've seen. Nothing concrete.

Best regards, suricat.

Know how you feel suricat, its like a metaphoric desert out there!
I'll let you know if I find anything

Son of Mulder.

quote:

suricat here's another potential empirical falsification to follow over the next few weeks. It's easy to understand and plausible.

Of course it is, this is an old trick. It's how The House of Commons won power over The House of Lords in the UK. The House of Commons just kept making Peers until the Commons sympathisers in The House of Lords held the majority. Average biasing is rooted in politics, following a General Election the first thing the new government does is alter the constituency boundaries to bias future elections in their favour (all under the presumption of greater stability).

I saw this earlier and pondered on the point of dividing the globe into pentagonal sectors (like a football), then grid each pentagon evenly. You would still be faced with grid biasing due to differing populations within the grid. It's a bit like trying to see a digital picture with only a random 40%, or less, of the clamped texels showing in the whole picture.

Do you remember me saying to Steve_M that "I wouldn't believe global ave temps unless we had a 'one kilometre' square grid" and his response "I wish"?

Even with the '+c offset' differences on the graph between satellites, I still think the satellites are more believable.

Best regards, suricat.