Lrf And Agw Bias?

August 31, 2009

The solar cycle adjustment is interesting within that report - more evidence to show that the minimum has been/is underestimated. Irrespective of todays suggestion of the spotless streak being broken.

worth monitoring this link for future 'tweakings'. If they happen slowly enough I guess people won't notice

VillagePlank · September 1, 2009

A little more research on the GLOSEA product from which the (UK and anywhere else they want to sell their products) seasonal forecasts are taken, has come up with the following from the Met Office
[snip]

Yes, but an overall assessment of their forecasts versus results over an extended period of time, should establish whether or not the methods they use are sufficient, regardless of the detail?

The solar cycle adjustment is interesting within that report

Solar irradiance is key to climate. I do not think anyone disagrees with that. However, my suspicion is that such a thing, given sensitivity to intitial conditions is that it has more of an impact than has been factored in.

Of course, these guys do this sort of modelling for a living - I do not. So, it is entirely possible that I am wrong; but, for now, I can't get away from what I have observed, and have experimentally shown to correlate with the LI - that is, solar irradiance, or sunspots (which have their associated light spots) cause small but significant differences to the climate we feel here on Earth.

As I write up the LI, I am sure I will come to some conclusion or another. I have to admit I am stuck on some fundamentals (it's much more difficult to write up stuff for consumption other than a forum like this) but, to me, it still looks good. And compelling.

As for bias in forecasts - my opinion is, if it increases the skill, then it is entirely justified. Surely, we just want a good forecast?

September 1, 2009

Yes, but an overall assessment of their forecasts versus results over an extended period of time, should establish whether or not the methods they use are sufficient, regardless of the detail?

Solar irradiance is key to climate. I do not think anyone disagrees with that. However, my suspicion is that such a thing, given sensitivity to intitial conditions is that it has more of an impact than has been factored in.

Of course, these guys do this sort of modelling for a living - I do not. So, it is entirely possible that I am wrong; but, for now, I can't get away from what I have observed, and have experimentally shown to correlate with the LI - that is, solar irradiance, or sunspots (which have their associated light spots) cause small but significant differences to the climate we feel here on Earth.

As I write up the LI, I am sure I will come to some conclusion or another. I have to admit I am stuck on some fundamentals (it's much more difficult to write up stuff for consumption other than a forum like this) but, to me, it still looks good. And compelling.

As for bias in forecasts - my opinion is, if it increases the skill, then it is entirely justified. Surely, we just want a good forecast?

Your own enquiries and research is interesting - credit is due to you

Solar Cycles · September 1, 2009

Yes, but an overall assessment of their forecasts versus results over an extended period of time, should establish whether or not the methods they use are sufficient, regardless of the detail?
Solar irradiance is key to climate. I do not think anyone disagrees with that. However, my suspicion is that such a thing, given sensitivity to intitial conditions is that it has more of an impact than has been factored in.
Of course, these guys do this sort of modelling for a living - I do not. So, it is entirely possible that I am wrong; but, for now, I can't get away from what I have observed, and have experimentally shown to correlate with the LI - that is, solar irradiance, or sunspots (which have their associated light spots) cause small but significant differences to the climate we feel here on Earth.
As I write up the LI, I am sure I will come to some conclusion or another. I have to admit I am stuck on some fundamentals (it's much more difficult to write up stuff for consumption other than a forum like this) but, to me, it still looks good. And compelling.
As for bias in forecasts - my opinion is, if it increases the skill, then it is entirely justified. Surely, we just want a good forecast?

Fantastic stuff VP, look forward to reading your conclusions!

VillagePlank · September 2, 2009

Fantastic stuff VP, look forward to reading your conclusions!

I think so, but you need to be careful; the LI is a hypothesis, and not much more. There is quite a bit of difficult pure mathematics which underpins the assumptions which you need to get to, in order to accept the LI hypothesis. It will live or die, I guess, on it's extrapolative power. And that, as I am sure everyone will agree, is not an easy thing to do. At all.