Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 11:19:37

And Tanada pointed this out "The whole point of the Paris Climate Agreement was to allow China unrestricted increases in CO2 releases until 2030, then a very gradual decline once they were fully electrified."
What a sham of an agreement
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10154
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 13:09:03

You really don't understand this stuff, do you? 

Look at the plot you've posted. Do you even understand what it is showing?

The plot by Christy and others doesn't even show global warming at the surface of the earth. It doesn't even show data for the whole earth. You are completely misrepresenting what Christy and others are showing in their plot. 


Jesus wept, it appears you are the one not understanding the argument. The argument is whether or not climate models “run hot” ie. with respect to forecast temperatures versus actual measurement.

Of course it is the troposphere, the reason is that looking at mid-troposphere is a very valid test of models accuracy. The models are for the mid-troposphere, the satellite and balloon data is for the mid-troposphere (apples to apples). Christy looks at the mid-troposphere because it in Christy’s own words “overlaps with the region of the tropical atmosphere that has the largest anticipated signature of the greenhouse response by bulk mass-between 20,000 and 50,000 feet”

The argument that Christy makes (and it is accepted by pretty much every climate scientist out there) is that if you are going to test the models they should be tested where they can be best defined regarding future projections from a given point in time against actual measurements. That is what is being done here….testing the climate models.

Although the IPCC tries to compare various RCP runs against HADCRUT 4 this is not an apples to apples comparison given you are comparing simulated air temperatures everywhere derived through models versus a mix of measurements of both surface and sea temperatures that involve considerable in-fill and blending. A very recent critical analysis of the HADCRUT 4 dataset apparently demonstrates large gaps in data, incorrect temperatures included in the dataset and overall poor data quality control which makes any attempt at comparison to models pointless.

Mclean, J, 2018. An Audit of the Creation and Content of the HadCRUT4 Temperature Dataset. Robert Boyle Publishing, 135 pp

Hence the best test for the models is in the mid-troposphere. The rest of your rant is nothing more than BS.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6537
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 13:52:51

....if you are going to test the models


Another moronic statement. Of course climate models should be tested and they are tested constantly, and when the model predictions don't match real world observations the physical processes are studied and the models are updated and improved. Thats why there are so many scientific papers written about testing climate models---because they are constantly being tested. The goal isn't to show that climate models precisely reproduce the behavior of the earth....no model can precisely duplicate reality ....the goal is to constantly improve climate models by identifying problem areas and then working to improve them.

Get it now?

For example, lets look at the warming occurring in the mid Troposphere in the tropics. Yes, in the mid troposphere most GCMs predict more warming then is occurring. But warming actually is occurring there.......just not at the average rate the GCMs predict. OK...no big deal....time to study these natural processes and work on improving the GCMs. AND if you look at your own plot, you'll see a couple of GCMs are EXACTLY describing the pattern of warming in the tropical mid troposphere. So you're lying as usual when you claim GCMs aren't describing this process accurately. In reality, most are overestimating warming, but a couple GCMs have it bang on right. And thats why new GCMs are being constantly created, and older ones updated. Dig it---some of the GCM models actually do seem to have nailed the physical processes in this area. So....th tropic mid troposphere isn't some kind of black hole of model failure. Some models are getting it right. AND As more models incorporate the physics from the more successful models they'll eventually move on to fixing the next little glitch in GCMs and then fixing some other little glitch and so on. Its no big deal...its how science gets done these days.

AND the glitches in other areas mostly involve GCMs predict less warming and less impact from warming then is occurring. For instance, the sea ice is melting over the Arctic ocean and it is shrinking more rapidly then GCMs predicted. Once again, time to fix the GCMs.

We're getting more forest fires then the GCMs predicted. OK....new research shows the temperature isn't the only factor....when soils dry out after years of drought and heat, the forest is more susceptible to fire then just from the heat along. OK...time to fix the models.

Thats how science works. Scientists develop theories and when the theories don't precisely predict how natural systems behave scientists amend their theories to match reality.

The largest climate models---the ones run on supercomputers, incorporate equations for thousands of different natural processes. Not all of those equations are exactly describing natural atmospheric, oceanic, terrestrial, cryogenic, solar, or other processes and their interactions. But they're getting better all the time.

Cheers!
Last edited by Plantagenet on Mon 08 Oct 2018, 14:08:23, edited 1 time in total.
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21955
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 13:57:23

We are setting a new record today for the date of the 1st snowfall of the winter here in central Alaska.

Its beautiful and sunny and people are bicycling and playing tennis outside and generally enjoying the unusually warm weather here in Alaska. There is no snow today...and none in the forecast for at least the next week.

We're going to smash that 1st snowfall record by a week or more this year.

Global Warming strikes again.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21955
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 14:51:55

Plantagenet wrote:We are setting a new record today for the date of the 1st snowfall of the winter here in central Alaska.

Its beautiful and sunny and people are bicycling and playing tennis outside and generally enjoying the unusually warm weather here in Alaska. There is no snow today...and none in the forecast for at least the next week.

We're going to smash that 1st snowfall record by a week or more this year.

Global Warming strikes again.

Cheers!

So lets enjoy nice, beautiful, sunny and warm weather and don't whine!
Let polar bears do the whining, should they wish!
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 16:22:51

EnergyUnlimited wrote:Let polar bears do the whining, should they wish!


I'm sure they would whine if they could. Their habitat is being destroyed by global warming. Polar Bears are basically marine mammals, and are adapted to live on the sea ice. But in summer there no longer is any sea ice along the north coast of Alaska, and the Polar Bears there aren't doing so good.

Image
Ggggrrrrr! Please stop using fossil fuels. Thank you. GGGRRRGGRrrrrrrr!

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21955
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 17:25:40

Another moronic statement. Of course climate models should be tested and they are tested constantly, and when the model predictions don't match real world observations the physical processes are studied and the models are updated and improve
d. 

I’m afraid you are the moron if you think the model projections are adjusted to match real world observations. It hasn’t happened and it isn’t what is meant by the term “tuning”. That is a common misconception.

AND if you look at your own plot, you'll see a couple of GCMs are EXACTLY describing the pattern of warming in the tropical mid troposphere. So you're lying as usual when you claim GCMs aren't describing this process accurately. In reality, most are overestimating warming, but a couple GCMs have it bang on right. And thats why new GCMs are being constantly created, and older ones updated. Dig it---some of the GCM models actually do seem to have nailed the physical processes in this area. So....th tropic mid troposphere isn't some kind of black hole of model failure. Some models are getting it right. AND As more models incorporate the physics from the more successful models they'll eventually move on to fixing the next little glitch in GCMs and then fixing some other little glitch and so on. Its no big deal...its how science gets done these days


Are you blind or just being obtuse? Of the 32 models shown only 1 (not several) seems to replicate the satellite, balloon, and reanalyses. That is a 97% prediction failure and when you look at the mean of those runs it is currently off the measured data by a factor of ~2 when projected from the commencement of satellite measurements. And if they are being continually updated then pray tell why 97% of these models have run “too hot” since ~1998? Either the models are at least that old and haven't been "tuned" to measured temperature data or their backcasts have not been “tuned” to match measured temperature data. I’m afraid you have almost zero clue how the models are created nor how they are “tuned” (which does not involve matching temperatures). It certainly doesn't work the way you think it does. But apparently now you are an expert on the troposphere models and John Christy doesn't know anything. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6537
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 17:50:43

Perhaps Rockdoc can address the suppression of warming due to the immense sink functions of the ocean. Or the masking of warming by Aerosols. For it seems his conclusions are not accounting for this and for :

A common misconception is that climate models are biased towards exaggerating the effects from CO2. It bears mentioning that uncertainty can go either way. In fact, in aclimate system with net positive feedback, uncertainty is skewed more towards a strongerclimate response (Roe 2007). For this reason, many of the IPCC predictions have subsequently been shown to underestimate the climate response


Global warming may be twice what climate models predict
Past warming events suggest climate models fail to capture true warming under business-as-usual scenarios


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 110027.htm

 https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10154
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 18:12:50

Of the 32 models shown only 1 (not several) seems to replicate the satellite, balloon, and reanalyses.



Well first of all you're either lying again or you don't know what simple words mean.

I didn't say "several". I said a couple. The words have different meanings. A couple means two. Several means three or more. Do you get that, or do I have to explain what those words mean in even simpler terms for you?

If you get it now, then lets look at the plot, OK? One line of model output goes right through the entire empirical data set...a perfect fit. Another line of model output is more variable, but tracks well through the first 30 years of empirical data, then goes as much 0.2 degrees too warm for about 10 years and finally comes back down to within 0.05 degree of the empirical data. Not a perfect match, but a reasonable match considering that the 3 kinds of empirical data disagree with one-another by as much 0.2 degrees for decades at a time through the data set, i.e. this second model run is no worse at matching whatever the empirical conditions are then the empirical data itself is.

And thats my point. A couple of the GPS models do a good job on this problem. They appear to have the physics right. Contrary to your claim that "the models" were incapable of correctly estimating the amount of warming in the tropical mid-troposphere, there are two models that are doing a reasonable job on it.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21955
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 20:30:36

And thats my point. A couple of the GPS models do a good job on this problem. They appear to have the physics right. Contrary to your claim that "the models" were incapable of correctly estimating the amount of warming in the tropical mid-troposphere, there are two models that are doing a reasonable job on it.


Good Lord....your point is hidden under your hat. Look at the mean....not even close. As well your second model of your "couple" fits until 2005 and for the last decade it has been way off, almost 1.5 times the measured data. So sorry, nice attempt at special pleading but nobody's buying it. If it is one model that works that means 97% failed if two that 94% that came close. You are suggesting they are all being tuned to match temperatures but somehow 94 - 97% are way off? Go find some other rubes to convince. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6537
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 08 Oct 2018, 22:36:25

You are suggesting they are all being tuned to match temperatures


You are lying again. I said no such thing.

-----------------

This is pointless.

So lets change the subject....what is your opinion of the new report from the IPCC working group in Korea? They say it will be almost impossible to stop the earth from warming to over 1.5°C.

IPCC says limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will require drastic action....Humanity has a limited window in which it can hope to avoid the worst effects of climate change, according to climate report.

Do you disagree with the latest IPCC report? If so, why?

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21955
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 09 Oct 2018, 15:36:39

Do you disagree with the latest IPCC report? If so, why?


haven't gone through in detail but it appears to be completely unlike AR5 where there was a research section that dealt in detail with new advances in all the topics since AR4 and pointed to the vast majority of literature published to the point of acceptance for the report. This latest report appears to be mainly about policy and seems to be missing a large amount of new research. They also don't appear to address uncertainty in any meaningful manner. Great study for politicians who already have their mind made up.

Judith Curry likely hits the nail on the head:

Over land, we have already blown through the 1.5C threshold if measured since 1890.  Temperatures around 1820 were more than 2C cooler.  There has been a great deal natural variability in temperatures prior to 1975 when human caused global warming kicked in any meaningful way.
And the IPCC climate model projections ignore the bottom third of the ‘likely’ climate sensitivity values – 1.5 to 4.5 C -, with only the outlier Russian model having a value of ECS as low as 2.1 C.  Much of this problem goes away if ECS is actually 1.5 to 2 C.
And then there is the goldilocks issue.  Who would prefer the climate of the 18th or 19th century relative to the climate of the early 21st century?


https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/08/1-5-degrees/
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6537
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 14 Oct 2018, 04:19:18

rockdoc123 wrote:
Judith Curry wrote:Much of this problem goes away if ECS is actually 1.5 to 2 C.


Good grief, so if warming is slower (and not many climate scientists think so), much of the problem goes away? Which part goes away, Ms Curry? Does that mean there is a chance a future generation will have to deal with it, so you don't?


A scientist? No, I don't think so.
Last edited by Tanada on Sun 14 Oct 2018, 09:34:14, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed broken quote
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby TonyPrep » Thu 18 Oct 2018, 01:20:23

rockdoc123 wrote:
Judith Curry wrote:Much of this problem goes away if ECS is actually 1.5 to 2 C.


Good grief, so if warming is slower (and not many climate scientists think so), much of the problem goes away? Which part goes away, Ms Curry? Does that mean there is a chance a future generation will have to deal with it, so you don't?

A scientist? No, I don't think so.

[Sorry about the bad quote previously, this is to correct your correction, Tanada. There doesn't seem to be a way to edit the post]
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 18 Oct 2018, 09:20:06

Good grief, so if warming is slower (and not many climate scientists think so), much of the problem goes away? Which part goes away, Ms Curry? Does that mean there is a chance a future generation will have to deal with it, so you don't?

A scientist? No, I don't think so.


rather than blathering like a loon you should perhaps acquaint yourself with the various representative concentration pathways proposed by the IPCC years ago and still used. As a consequence of peak oil and gradual replacement of ICB's with EV's the input of man made emissions into the system is forecast to plateau at some point prior to 2100. The IPCC tends to look at its long-term forecasts out to 2100. Hence Curry's comments are based on the forecast to 2100...a doubling of CO2 at low ECS is essentially a non-event. As to her being a scientist....what kind of stupid comment is that? She has almost double the publications and awards of any of the go to warmists including Mann and Schmidt.

Posting your nonsense twice doesn't make it any more reasonable, though you are apparently proud of your misunderstanding. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6537
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 22 Oct 2018, 00:43:29

rockdoc123 wrote:
Good grief, so if warming is slower (and not many climate scientists think so), much of the problem goes away? Which part goes away, Ms Curry? Does that mean there is a chance a future generation will have to deal with it, so you don't?

A scientist? No, I don't think so.


rather than blathering like a loon you should perhaps acquaint yourself with the various representative concentration pathways proposed by the IPCC years ago and still used. As a consequence of peak oil and gradual replacement of ICB's with EV's the input of man made emissions into the system is forecast to plateau at some point prior to 2100. The IPCC tends to look at its long-term forecasts out to 2100. Hence Curry's comments are based on the forecast to 2100...a doubling of CO2 at low ECS is essentially a non-event. As to her being a scientist....what kind of stupid comment is that? She has almost double the publications and awards of any of the go to warmists including Mann and Schmidt.

Posting your nonsense twice doesn't make it any more reasonable, though you are apparently proud of your misunderstanding. :roll:

No blathering involved; I'm just amazed that someone who thinks (though not proven) that ECS is towards the lower end of the estimates would think that most of the problem goes away if it is. She can see for herself that warming so far is having an impact (and most climate scientists think it's a serious impact) at only a 40% increase in CO2 forcing. Even if she really is convinced that a doubling of CO2 over pre-industrial (which now requires only another 40% increase on what it is now) might only increase temperature another 1C (though she puts a lot of emphasis on uncertainty, which can work both ways) then it's obvious there is a clear problem, not that "much of the problem goes away".

Just to reiterate, with a 40% increase already resulting in 1-1.2C rise (which is not yet all of the rise due to the CO2 already in the atmosphere), a low value for ECS is pretty much ruled out, though the odd contrarian climate scientist still clings to the hope that it is low. And, remarkably, government policies the world over seems to be based on these odd contrarians, rather than the consensus.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Mon 22 Oct 2018, 10:29:04

Just to reiterate, with a 40% increase already resulting in 1-1.2C rise (which is not yet all of the rise due to the CO2 already in the atmosphere), a low value for ECS is pretty much ruled out, though the odd contrarian climate scientist still clings to the hope that it is low.


I suggest you read something for a change. Your seat of the pants logic flies in the face of actual research that has been published recently. Scafeta and others have made the point that as time progresses the tendency has been for calculations of both TCS and ECS trend lowere. But maybe you should write to all of those scientists who have published their calculations showing low ECS and TCS and inform them how they just don't know what they are talking about. :roll:

Image
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6537
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 25 Oct 2018, 13:45:33

Changes in the occurrence of extreme precipitation events at the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1X18304643

- Modelling shows a shift in the frequency–intensity relationship of precipitation.
- Incidence of extreme events increases by 70% in some regions.
- Changes in extreme precipitation are often decoupled from mean annual changes.

While the most extreme precipitation rates tend to relate to increases in convective precipitation, in some regions dynamic changes in atmospheric circulation are also of importance.



Catastrophic soil erosion during the end-Permian biotic crisis


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 141844.htm

thanks to vox at asif for these
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17949
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby jedrider » Thu 25 Oct 2018, 14:34:03

'The Blob' Is Back: Here's What It Could Mean for Lower 48
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2018-10-24-the-blob-returns-pacific-ocean

I'm not too sanguine about this. If this Blob is the same Blob that caused California's last drought, then this is no good news.
User avatar
jedrider
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 25 Oct 2018, 14:51:47

Have been hearing rumours of unusually cold winter in store for the N.East US. Can anyone confirm this?
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10154
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dohboi and 6 guests

cron