Raven drew my attention to something posted at NASA GISS, which implies that, for all practical purposes, normal variations in solar irradiance don’t affect their predictions of future warming trends.
On their web site discussing 2007 temperatures, NASA GISS displays a figure showing the variation in solar irradiance measured over time. I’ve reproduced […]
Archive for February, 2008
What Does NASA Mean by Solar Variations Don’t Matter?
Filed in: Uncategorized
Chicago ‘Burbs February ‘08.
Last November, when visitors at
Unthreaded at Climate Audit were claiming that it was not unusually warm, on Nov. 16, I responded:
Bernie: It is darn warm in Chicago. I’ve got pepper plants that aren’t dead! My tomato plants are alive — but the tomatoes themselves are just green and lingering. It’s an eyesore, but I am […]
Filed in: Weather Pictures
Yet More on Falsification.
Roger Pielke Jr. and David Stockwell both asked… can we use 2001-2010 data to falsify IPCC values.
Now, as it happens, I don’t like to use already collected before a prediction to test a prediction. I don’t like that the IPCC does that.
But, oddly enough, the IPCC seems to do this all the […]
Filed in: global climate change
Can IPCC projections be falsified? Sample calculation
In my most recent post, I discussed hypothetical weather trends over the upcoming 5, 8 or 10 years that could, falsify the consensus position of climate chance, should they occur. In this post, I’ll discuss how I came up with the numbers statistics.
The steps to coming up with numerical values require me to:
Identify a […]
Filed in: Statistics global climate change
What weather would falsify the current consensus on climate change?
In January, Roger Pielke Jr. asked
What behavior of the climate system could hypothetically be observed over the next 1, 5, 10 years that would be inconsistent with the current consensus on climate change?
Meanwhile, Gavin Schmidt explained that we really can’t look at short-term weather to assess models. While Gavin’s answer is perfectly correct , […]
Filed in: global climate change
Spatial Variations in GMST Really DO Matter when Estimating Climate Sensitivity.
Today, once again, I will show that Dr. Pielke Sr. is correct:
Spatial variations in the Global Mean Surface Temperature do contribute to leading order to the anomalous radiative balance of the earth.
Why am I writing my third post on this?
Because, in response to my second post, a vistor in comments suggested that mine analysis […]
Filed in: Climate Sensitivity global climate change
Validation? Lumpy don’t need no stinkin’ validation!
However, the absence of influence of old data in the case of climate models will be impossible to prove, so I still think we have to insist that climate models accurately forecast future states of the atmosphere
So says W.M. Briggs; I agree. Quite honestly, despite the often contentious debates over the accuracy of climate […]
Filed in: global climate change
Spatial Variations in GMST II : Eli Rabbett vs Dr. Pielke Sr.
In my previous post, I discussed a Global Climate Change Blog Kerfuffle over the IPCC’s equation describing the radiative balance. The Kerfuffle involves one of the conclusions Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. reported in a recent peer reviewed article and two blog posts. .
Dr. Pielke’s fuller point is rather arcane and […]
Filed in: global climate change
Spatial Variations in the Temperature Anomalie: Atmoz vs. Pielke Sr.
There appears to be a Global Climate Change Blog Kerfuffle over the IPCC’s equation describing the radiative balance of the planet. At his blog, and in a peer reviewed article, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. discussed several perplexing issues related to using Global Mean Surface Temperature Anomalies to understand changes in the heat […]
Filed in: global climate change
Next on the agenda: Shovel the driveway.
It’s been snowing all day. I was thinking of bundling up to shovel, when someone at Climate Audit posted a link to ‘Minnesottan’s for Global Warming:’
Too funny. Now, time to bundle up and shovel the driveway.
Filed in: global climate change

