Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 Next
Comments 30101 to 30150:
-
Tristan at 16:40 PM on 4 May 2015Inoculating against science denial
cormagh - What is the myth, and what is the fallacy?
-
cormagh at 16:14 PM on 4 May 2015Inoculating against science denial
If you're trying to discover what myths might distort the science, why don't you start with The Apocalypse. This comment is directly referencing the article's position, "explain the fallacy employed by the myth."
-
Tom Curtis at 11:20 AM on 4 May 2015Models are unreliable
For completeness, here are the absolute discrepancy at top of Troposphere, the Smith et al corrected values and the Smith et al observed values for the periods listed in Smith et al for comparison:
Period | CMIP5 | CMIP5 (Smith) | Obs (Smith
1861-1880 | 0.29 | xxxx | xxxx
1961-2010 | 0.56 | 0.36 | 0.33
1971-2010 | 0.67 | 0.46 | 0.48
1993-2010 | 0.91 | 0.68 | 0.59
2000-2010 | 0.92 | 0.73 | 0.62
2005-2010 | 0.90 | xxxx | 0.58The factors in play explaining why there is a difference between the Smith et al CMIP5 values and the CMIP 5 absolute values are:
1) The CMIP 5 values as downloaded from the KNMI climate exporer are strictly speaking top of troposhere (or tropopause) values where as Smith et al may have obtained actual Top Of Atmosphere values. The primary differences between top of tropopause and TOA values is that TOA solar values would be slightly higher, as would outgoing longwave radiation (due to the effect of the stratosphere).
2) Smith et al are corrected for model drift.
The primary factors relating to the difference between observed values and the absolute CMIP5 values are:
a) CMIP5 forcings are known to be overstated by 0.2-0.4 W/m^2 relative to anomaly values from the late 1990s onward due to low solar and background volcanic effects.
b) CMIP5 absolute values of solar forcings are known to be overstated relative to observations by an unknown (by us) amount. The amount is unknown in that in benchmarking values for the observations, all three relevant factors may have been adjusted, so that the solar values may have been greater than those from SORCE TIM, but would not have been less than the unadjusted SORCE-CMIP5 discrepancy of about 0.8 W/m^2. This could account for the ongoing high bias of CMIP-5 absolute values. (Note again, such a constant offset of a forcing would not affect appreciably changes in anomaly temperature values.)
c) CMIP5 absolute values apparently need correction for model drift, although I cannot do more than note the stated necessity by relevant experts and refer you to the relevant literature on this point.
Combining these three factors we have an explanation for the increased discrepancy in the 21st century that explains from half to all of the discrepancy observed. We have a further explanation that potentially over-explains the persistent high bias of CMIP-5 absolute values. Finally we have a factor that essentially eliminates the discrepancy prior to the 21st century. If anything, given all this, the models are running too cold relative to known discrepancies.
The important point is not that we have these explanations. With further refinement of observations, the correction factors they imply are likely to shift so that the models are running hot again, or colder. The important point is that the models have run within error of observations, and that there are factors that can explain both short term increases in the discrepancy and long term persistent features. Ergo it is jumping the gun to conclude from this that the models are in error.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:46 AM on 4 May 2015Models are unreliable
Klapper @888:
1) Why are you focusing on the least germain part of my comment? Surely the important thing here is the change in the RSDT discrepancy over the last 15 odd years. The discrepancy over the full period is relevant only in illustrating that models uses observational data of forcings that are approximately 10 years out of date (of necessity given the time it takes to set up and run models, and delays related to publication time). It follows that minor discrepancies over more recent periods between model predictions and up to date data is as likely to be due to the updating of the data as to any problem with the models. In particular, over the last decade or so, we know that model forcings are too large relative to recent observations because of an unpredicted very low solar minimum and recent low solar activity, and because of recent small scale volcanism (also not included in the models). That you have run this entire argument without ever acknowledging this fact, even when it is pointed out to you shows deliberate avoidance.
2)
"How do you explain with this alleged massive error over the whole of the 20th century, they manage to replicate surface temperature as well as they do?"
More specifically with relation to comment my point (1), models predict changes in temperature anomalies. Slight changes in a forcing consistently applied over the whole duration will not effect the anomaly and therefore are not relevant. They are relevant to absolute temperature values, as shown in the side box to this graph:
You will notice that the multi-model mean is about 0.2 C less than (ie colder than) the observed values. The primary effect of the 0.8 W/m^2 difference in solar insolation would be to reduce that further by a small amount. (Note as an aside that the absolute value of the GMST is not well constrained by observations. I have seen values of 14 C and 15 C quoted based on different temperature series. Further note with respect to your "models always run hot" comment on another thread, in this and many other cases, they run cold. It is only that deniers cherry pick only those cases where the models "run hot" for their criticisms.)
3) I have clearly linked to Smith et al, who in turn clearly cited Sen Gupta et al on climate drift. I am not going to try to explain it further as I do not understand it well enough. I am going to acknowledge that the relevant experts think it a significant factor and correct for it, and note the corrected values. You on the other hand seem intent on holding it dubious because you couldn't bother doing your own homework.
-
Klapper at 09:53 AM on 4 May 2015Models are unreliable
@Tom Curtis #887:
"... In the late nineteenth century, the discrepancy is about 0.8 W/m^2"
"...Even if we align the two estimates over the late 20th century..."
Yes, the models use a TSI history that is consistently 0.8 to 0.9 W/m^2 higher measured at the earths surface (or 3.2 to 3.6 watts/m^2 of total solar flux) compared to the Source TIM-adjusted reconstruction. How do you explain with this alleged massive error over the whole of the 20th century, they manage to replicate surface temperature as well as they do?
Is this the reason behind the "model drift correction" employed by Smith et al you alluded to earlier?
-
Tom Curtis at 08:18 AM on 4 May 2015Models are unreliable
Klapper @886, very briefly, the CMIP5 RSDT from KNMI is consistently larger than the equivalent estimated value from the SORCE TSI reconstruction currently considered to be the best TSI reconstruction by the IPCC. In the late nineteenth century, the discrepancy is about 0.8 W/m^2. Even if we align the two estimates over the late 20th century, what we get is an increasing overestimate by CMIP5 with time:
So, the most obvious thing about your diagram is not that the discrepancy becomes largest where the observations are most accurate, but that it becomes largest where the solar component is known to be over represented in the models. That alone accounts for approximately 0.2 W/m^2 of your discrepancy, and possibly more depending on how accurate the difference between model and observed solar input is over the full record.
This, of course, continues to ignore the effect of the large number of small volcanoes in the early twenty-first century that are observed, but not included in the CMIP-5 data which will account for yet more of the discrepancy.
-
Klapper at 03:49 AM on 4 May 2015Models are unreliable
@Rob Painting #882:
Here is a graph I created by extracting from KNMI explorer the Watts/m^2 down and up (SW and LW) and calculating the net energy imbalance from these absolute variables (dashed black line, variables are rlut, rsut, and rdst). The "Global" (dark blue line) net from observations is really a fudge by assuming that OHC (which is derived from the Pentadal 0-2000) is 80% of the global (as per Tom Curtis' comment). Obviously that's not true over time but it suffices as a cross-check on how far from the observations the models might be deviating using this 80% factor to calculate a facsimile for global energy imbalance. The light blue line is the 0-2000 OHC from NODC pentadal, delta ZJ over 5 year running linear trend with ZJ/year converted to W/m^2 global basis.
There is a difference between this and the Smith et al figure posted on the other thread by Tom. I think the difference may be what Tom alluded to as adjustments for "model drift" in the Smith et al TOA model net imbalance. Then again, I could have made some mistake in my processing.
If I am correct the first observation I would make is that the better quality data we have on observations, the bigger the spread between OHC energy input and TOA model energy imbalance.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:51 AM on 4 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18B
In addition to the mentioned benefits of 'leadership' from California, the global community has benefited from the leadership of the European Community on matters like reduced sulphur content in diesel.
In the late 1970s the unacceptability of sulphur in diesel fuel was globally understood. However, the US deliberately delayed implementing reduced sulphur content requirements in order to obtain an economic advantage in trade with Europeans or anyone else who did implement lower sulphur requirements . The US requirements continue to lag behind what can be accomplished (European developed diesel technology is still 'ruined' by the quality of fuel in the US).
There are many other examples of the deliberate delay of action by the US in any area where temporary economic advantage can be obtained by such delay. That is why the US (and Canada and Australia), increased emissions from 1990 to 2005 compared to the Europeans holding emissions fairly constant through to 2005 (and it is why the US proposes its reductions relative to its 2005 levels rather than 1990 levels which were 17% lower).
The real problem to overcome is the profitability and popularity of political and economic leadership action that appeals to desires that it is possible to understand are unacceptable, or creates fear to garner support for actions that can be understood to be unacceptable.
-
RobH at 01:28 AM on 4 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18B
Those with long memories will recall that it was California that turned the world onto cheap and reliable electronic fuel injection for consumer vehicles. As of Governor Brown's setting a high bar for reducing carbon emissions, so did California in the 60s when an exceptionally high bar was set for vehicle exhausts in that state when air pollution was becoming a crippling issue for cities like LA. Volkswagen took up the challenge with Bosch being given the job of designing a cheap fuel injection system that has now universally replaced carburettors. Of course other companies had to follow in the footsteps of Bosch. We have California, VW and Bosch to thank for what we have today. I can see California once more putting the challange to industry which will feed through to the rest of the world.
-
Klapper at 01:20 AM on 4 May 2015Models are unreliable
@Klapper #884:
I see my dropbox links do not work, which I suspected when I could not see the images in the preview. Back to the drawing board.
Moderator Response:[RH] You might try http://tinypic.com
-
Klapper at 01:19 AM on 4 May 2015Models are unreliable
@Rob Painting #882:
Graph as discussed. TOA Energy imbalance net from CMIP5 model ensemble variables as discussed above.
-
Leto at 22:29 PM on 3 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18A
Very sad to hear, chriskoz,but sadly no surprise.
This is not a rhetorical question... Do you think many people seriously believed that TA's direct action was meant to achieve anything?
I see the right-wing media and a few TA fans playing along with the charade, but I always imagine they know better deep down. After all, TA got into power on a denialist wave, within his own party, around the time of 'Climategate', and he knows that is where his fanbase still is.
I see scientists and environmental groups declaring Direct Action to be a doomed strategy of paying the polluters to achieve very little. Most Liberal voters could not care less about the scientific details, or they woudln't have let an antiscience prime minister come into power in the first place.
Are there really people who actively argue with conviction that this is a good idea and that it is going to have a useful effect (on a per capita basis) on global warming? I see it more as a foil with which they can deflect criticisms from the left, as in: "Global warming is rubbish, and even if it turned out to be real, we're doing our bit anyway, so stop complaining.. "
Moderator Response:[AS] For the benefit of non-Australian readers, "TA" is Tony Abbott, the Australian Prime Minister (I assume).
-
chriskoz at 21:51 PM on 3 May 2015President Obama's Anger Translator on Climate Change
The last sentence by Luther to Michelle "he's crazy" creates an ambience of joke around Obama rant about "stupid irresponsible snowball throwing...". Obama must have orchestrated it to soften the ensuing conflict with Sen. Inhofe and that's understandable.
But the issue is not a joke (at least for me), therefore Obama should have left the rant without adding any "craziness" to it.
-
chriskoz at 21:03 PM on 3 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18A
More on the Carbon Reduction Auctions in Australia. Energy Regulator said the contracts were awarded to 43 contractors covering 144 projects.
“The majority applied under sequestration methods, and landfill and alternative waste treatment methods.”
I was scratching my head thinking: what sequestration methods, CCS yet to be developped? But govs have explained the detail:
A$660 million of contracts to deliver more than 47 million metric tons of abatement. It paid an average A$13.95 per ton to companies for projects including capturing methane from pig manure, planting trees and managing fires in savanna grasslands.
Well, now I understand: my "Carbon Reduction" tax dollars went to the projects that have little (if anything) to do with FF emission reduction. Managing fires have nothing to do with reduction of FF emissions. Those fires consume carbon that's mostly couple decades old (forrest understory) or at most couple 100s y old (if some old trees are burned), while 300-400m y old coal burning continues unabated. No wonder, because coal is "good for humanity". Or pigs' emission sequestrations... Well, our govs are trying to get away with that travesty which amounts for deliberate misleading of taxpayers who don't understand the difference between the fossil fuel emissions (where the money is supposed to go) and pigs' emissions (where the money is going) which as a mitigation effort is just a joke IMO. Someone hopefully will pick it up and duly explain to the australian public, whose money is being wasted.
-
Philip Shehan at 20:45 PM on 3 May 2015The climate 'hiatus' doesn’t take the heat off global warming
England's paper has (predictably ) been portrayed on Andrew Bolt's blog as a backdown requirng an apology
"Warmists who denied the pause now claim to explain it"
While I understand that the paper is a useful in explaining what the consequences are if there is indeed a pause, that is a long way from being established.
Gistemp data since 2000 from the Skeptical Science trend callculator::
Trend: 0.09 ±0.13 °C/decade
For “two decades” it is
Trend: 0.12 ±0.09 °C/decade
So there is a warming trend, with a headline value lower than that for the statistically significant warming trend from 1979:
Trend: 0.16 ±0.04 °C/decade
But the error margins for the period since 2000 mean that for the short period there is a 95% chance that the trend is as much as warming 0.22 °C/decade or a cooling trend of as much as -0.04 °C/decade.
In fact both the shorter periods support the null hypothesis.
That is, they are statistically not distinguishable from the warming trend beginning in 1979.
null hypothesis
noun
1.(in a statistical test) the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between specified populations, any observed difference being due to sampling or experimental error.Moderator Response:[RH] Activated link to fix page formatting.
-
Rob Painting at 20:43 PM on 3 May 2015Models are unreliable
And the climate model vs observation (black solid line) of ocean heat content from the IPCC AR5 is shown here:
-
Rob Painting at 20:41 PM on 3 May 2015Models are unreliable
The uncertainties in Earth's total heat content data, 93% of which is ocean heat content, is shown in the image from the IPCC AR5 below:
-
MA Rodger at 19:27 PM on 3 May 2015Models are unreliable
Mal Adapted @870.
You write "I'm not a biblical scholar, but I don't recall seeing any estimates of error margins in that book..."
My understanding of Leviticus is that it is entirely about defining error and what happens when any such error occurs. Within an approach to error such as laid out in Leviticus, the concept of there being 'error margins' disappears within a binary reality: either there is error or there is not error :-) -
MA Rodger at 19:24 PM on 3 May 2015Models are unreliable
Klapper @879.
There is plenty of advice on where you can up-load images that is easily found on-line, for instance here. Many require nothing more than an e-mail, a user name & a password. For instance (and I mention it as an exemplar rather than recommend it) this website allowed me to upload an image in less that a minute. I would have displayed the resulting image in-thread but the image to hand that I up-loaded is political in nature.
-
bozzza at 09:57 AM on 3 May 2015Overlooked evidence - global warming may proceed faster than expected
Carbon in soils is another thing that seems as poorly understood as cloud feedback.
-
Peter Lloyd at 05:34 AM on 3 May 2015Overlooked evidence - global warming may proceed faster than expected
It is good to raise this issue of single study syndrome because far too many grand conclusions are drawn from just one new piece of evidence or from yet one more model.
It also highlights the point that there is no clear conclusion of the individual, let alone cumulative, effects of both negative and positive feedback mechanisms and how they offset each other.
It's also good to see a recognition of how the impact of clouds is so poorly undertood and yet potentially significant
It can't be said too often that new pieces of work that authors and commentators may exaggerate the significance of for obvious reasons, are frequently challenged by later pieces of work but that challenge is not always examined and recorded.
Keep on being sceptical might be a good mantra
-
jja at 03:49 AM on 3 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18B
I have decided not to use the Luntz' term "climate change" except to describe global warming related effects. The cause is Global Warming. The effect is climate change.
Why anyone would decide to go along with a denialist talking point is beyond me.Moderator Response:[JH] Scientists had used the term "climate change" long before Luntz decided it would be preferrable to "global warming" for political communications purposes. The term "climate change" is not a "denialist talking point."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:06 AM on 3 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18B
This New York Times article refers to a recent study and report led by Erich M. Fischer evaluating the increased probabilities of extreme weather events for different levels of increase of global average surface temperature.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 01:10 AM on 3 May 2015Inoculating against science denial
Feel free Tristan. Rob, vaccines are mentioned at length in the OP. Although it has to do more specifically with the false link to autism, and it is given as an illustration for the ideas developped in the post, I'm not sure it's fair to expect the thread to be free of comments about a significant aspect of the OP. I will nonetheless respect your request, despite my intention of further investigating the claim that measles dropped to insignificance because of sanitation, a claim of which I am highly skeptical. Thank you for allowing as much as was said.
-
Tristan at 17:11 PM on 2 May 2015Inoculating against science denial
Philippe, with your permission, I'd like to quote that in full on my FB timeline (although I'll remove the references to the above poster).
Moderator Response:[Rob P] No more about vaccines thanks. Any further comments will result in deletion.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 16:18 PM on 2 May 2015Inoculating against science denial
Really? Why should I do your work?
In 1966, the year I was born, a massive campaign of containment and eradication was launched in Central and West Africa against smallpox. In 4 years, the disease was essentially eradicated, before there was any chance to improve infrastructure and sanitation in any significant way. Eradicated in 4 years. One does not realize what a feat that was in these spoiled, worry free days of the 21st century. As of the mid-2000s, the WHO determined that the Republic of the Congo (Congo-Brazza) still had only 0-25% of its population using improved sanitation, yet the disease was eradicated there as well as in other countries part of the campaign. Other countries aren't that much better on the sanitation side, 40 years after the campaign. Some other countries, such as Gabon, have a rather small population, which makes access to sanitation easier.
I still bear on my shoulder the mark of the smallpox vaccine received in Brazzaville in the early 70s. I'm proud of it. In the former Zaire, smallpox eradication took all but 41 months, despite tremendous challenges in infrastructure and, you guessed it, sanitation. By an ironic and cruel reversal of circumstances, polio, eradicated as well as smallpox, is now on the rise in RDC because of imported cases. Perhaps some of the westerner fruitcakes who don't "believe" in vaccinations, who knows?
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/africasan.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22188930
Interestingly, in the Congo Brazza, smallpox vaccination conferred also some immunity to monkey pox, which is now on the rise because of the end of massive immunization campaigns. The risk of developing the disease is 5 times greater for non immunized subjects:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16262.full
I'm done wasting my time with you, it is obvious that you are clueless, if you were not, you would already about all this. The sincerity you claim obviously does not apply to pet theories of yours. What we really need in this world is a vaccine against Dunning-Kruger.
Moderator Response:KC: ad-hom snipped.
-
Straight Talkin at 14:56 PM on 2 May 2015Inoculating against science denial
Just to expand a bit. Some years ago I was in almost convinced by the climate contrarians that we weren't causing the problem. Then I found skeptical science and it systematically demolished the climate deniers arguments. So I understand that arguments can sound convincing even when they are not really based on a whole picture scientific analysis. I always seek to get to the bottom line. I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor am I naive enough to not think that vested intersts do sometimes win out in corrupting situations, and have the capacity to have a corrupting influence on the scientific community and society generally. As the old quote goes 'Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom'
-
Straight Talkin at 14:39 PM on 2 May 2015Inoculating against science denial
Philippe Chantreau, You misunterstood my point about scurvy. I know that nutrition i.e. Vitamin C erradicated deaths from scurvy. The point I was makling is that long before vaccinations for measles were introduced the reductions of deaths from measles tracked perfectly with the reductions in deaths from scurvy as nutrition improved, to the point of insignificance.
My point regarding consensus is that although it is always worth taking into account, it should never be placed on a holy pedastal.
Could you direct me to research that demonstrates you statement 'It is interesting to note that diseases that lend themselves to immunization regress enormously in these countries when people are immunized, even in the absence of significant progress in sanitation.' ?
I am always willing to change my viewpoint based on new and convincing information. -
PhilippeChantreau at 14:23 PM on 2 May 2015Inoculating against science denial
Well I guess, since this is hinted at in the OP, it is on topic. It is interesting to see how Straightalkin formed an opinion about Measles by linking with scurvy when the 2 diseases have totally different pathophysiologies, and can truly not be comapared.
-
PluviAL at 14:16 PM on 2 May 2015Overlooked evidence - global warming may proceed faster than expected
This is great, evidence is clearer each day, and denyers one less rock to hide under.
But I have a question: Suppose there is a way to precipitate out an Amazon's flow from the air continuously. This means that the latent heat would concetrate higher in the atmosphere where it radiates into space faster with the 4th power of temperture K.
Would this not reduce the problem? We still have the CO2 in the atmosphere, but we systematically reduce vapor content. Does this reduce the feedback from clouds? Or does it not help because then we have less short wave radiation reflected by less cloud cover, but still have CO2 reflection of low wave radiation?
I was under the impression that low level clouds reflect more short wave solar energy, but higher level clouds refelct more long wave heat back to earth. That issue seems to be ingnored in this paper.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 14:16 PM on 2 May 2015Inoculating against science denial
Straight talkin, you're not being any more convincing. No amount of sanitation can save one from scurvy, only vitamin C from fresh fruit and vegetables will do that. You could at least bother to do a minimum amount of research on the disease you pick as a comparison. It is as if you don't know anything at all about the subject
About the consensus: nobody at SkS attempts to convince anyone to "believe" in climate science findings because 97% of relevant scientists do too. Deniers are touting the false idea that there is significant disagreement in the scientific community about climate change while, in fact, there isn't. That is what the consensus is about. The consensus exists because there is a consensus in the results of the research, just like there is, as a consequence, in the opinions of the researchers.
The scientific evidence about immunizations is every bit as compelling as it is about climate, and that is why there is also a consensus among relevant scientists about the benefits of immunizations. You cited countries where "sanitation" is lacking. It is interesting to note that diseases that lend themselves to immunization regress enormously in these countries when people are immunized, even in the absence of significant progress in sanitation. I expect now that this is off-topic enough that moderation is going to have no more patience for it and signal to us that rants about immunizations are off-topic and will be deleted.
-
Klapper at 14:07 PM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
@Tom Curtis #345:
In case you missed my last post directed at you on the other thread, I'd like you to expand on your reasoning for adjusting net CMIP5 TOA energy input forecasting based on "model drift".
-
Straight Talkin at 13:59 PM on 2 May 2015Inoculating against science denial
I think you, and the consensus for that matter, are missing the point. I don't agree with the science of human cased climate change because of the consensus. I agree because the science is compelling. All human beings, including scientists, can get into silo thinking and accepted norms. Stop trying to convince everyone that they should believe because 97% consensus of scientists in the field. Outline the scientific reasoning in as clear and simple terms as possible. Educate people effectively. Saying something is fiction based does not make it so. With in the context that they are measured I am sure vaccinations are effective. The real point is how many people were dying per population number. All of them were already very low and dininishing, and had been for decades. The deaths from scurvy tracks perfectly with the death from measles. Vaccinations did not save us from scurvy. The information, IMHO, clearly demonstrate that improved sanitation and nutrition were the key drivers in reducing, and almost completely removing, the danger from these deseases. Besides focussing on the wrong measures, the graphs you quote are classic cherry picking examples.
-
Klapper at 13:53 PM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
@Tom Curtis #877:
We should stay on topic and deal with the numbers. Do you have a suggestion of a linkable place I can post my graph?
-
Tom Curtis at 13:38 PM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
Klapper, is that really how you want to defend your persistent use of inappropriate comparisons? I take that as an admission that it is indefensible (which I guess I knew anyway).
-
Tom Curtis at 13:36 PM on 2 May 2015Climate sensitivity is low
bozza @354, even emissions at 10% of current rates would be sufficient to keep on increaseing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and ergo prevent net ocean outgassing of CO2. The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 would, however, slow to a standstill in that case - and slow substantially if we only halve emissions. Having said that, the proportion of emissions retained in the atmosphere would not necessarilly remain at the current 55%, and would decrease over time with increasing SST (assuming constant emissions). It follows that while 2100 concentration would probably be below 580 ppmv, I cannot tell you how far. The nearest I can do is show you the RCP 4.5 figures (second graph) as the nearest approximation (first graph).
-
Klapper at 13:32 PM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
@Tom Curtis #872:
"Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted" (Comments policy)
-
Klapper at 13:30 PM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
@KR #871:
"...You've limited yourself to such a small dataset that frankly I cannot take any of your arguments seriously.."
Although I'm skeptical of the data quality before this century for the deep ocean, I downloaded the pentadal OHC data and ran a 5 year running trend to convert ZJ to W/m^2 heat input on a global area basis. The results are as follows (TOA CMIP5 ensemble forcing vs NODC Pentadal heat content change, both 5 year periods):
1959 to 2000 - 0.23 W/m^2 from OHC, 0.49 W/m^2 from model forcing
2000 to 2010 - 0.51 W/m^2 from OHC, 0.95 W/m^2 from model forcing
While delta OHC is not global heat content change, it is the great majority of it. Two conclusions seem appropriate:
1. The better the observational data quality, the bigger the discrepancy between model hind/forecasts and,
2. The models run hot.
I can post the graph here if someone lets me know where I might post to the internet so I have a URL link.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:24 PM on 2 May 2015Climate sensitivity is low
Klapper @348:
"You're ignoring my comment above in which I clearly stated the 0.5 W/m2 was the difference between OHC and the TOA model output."
First, you were comparing the difference between model TOA energy imbalance and observed 0-2000 meter OHC.
Second, absolutely right I was ignoring that. Just because you want to compare the model TOA energy imbalance with approximately 80% of the observed energy imbalance (ie, the 0-2000 meter rate of change in OHC) in no way makes that justified. Nor does it justify you comparing model 2000-2015 model TOA energy imbalance with 2005-2010 TOA energy imbalance as you did @325. You seem to have a penchant for strengthening your case by using inappropriate comparisons. However, as you insist that I not use the appropriate comparison because you originally used the inappropriate comparison, I will notice it and call it what it is - ie, fraudulent argument.
-
bozzza at 12:45 PM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
..never fear, Instagram is here![starts worry mode]....
-
Klapper at 12:44 PM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
@scaddenp #866:
"...But if you disagree, then you really don't have sufficient data to argue about model fidelity.."
I do disagree. Go to the NODC website. You can find a ocean heat data distribution mapping tool you can customize by period. For example, display 1500 metres depth for the period 1968 to 1972. Count the dots in a polygon formed by New Zealand, Ecuador, the Solomon Islands and the Antarctic Penisula. It's not hard to do. Keep in mind each black dot represents one sample, i.e. May 15, 1969.
You have maybe 4 or 5 single samples in this 5 year period between the equator and the Antarctic coast and 90 degrees and 150 degrees longitude west. This represents a huge area with essentially no data in a recent 5 year period.
For a shocking contrast, now retrieve the same depth for 1 year (2014) and try and estimate how many samples were retrieved.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:53 AM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
Rob Honeycutt @868:
"And the data we have a decade from now will be better than the data we have today."
With conservative governments in Australia and Canada, and a conservative congress in the US being so sure that the science is against them, that they are doing all they can to cut science budgets (particularly for research on global warming) I would not be sure of this.
-
bozzza at 11:30 AM on 2 May 2015Climate sensitivity is low
Iff we were to cut CO2 emissions in half tomorrow would we still go past 580ppm by 2100 due to possible outgassing of the ocean?
-
KR at 10:21 AM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
Klapper - "...I want the best data"
As do we all. And the best data for the last half of the 20th century, while subject to higher uncertainties that current measurements, is worth attention.
Again, differences in the 5-10 (and, grudgingly on your part, perhaps 15) year periods you are looking at are short enough to be entirely unforced variation - with recent work on 21st century volcanic activity (not included in the CMIP5 forcings) that has direct implications for the TOA balance also worth considering. You've limited yourself to such a small dataset that frankly I cannot take any of your arguments seriously.
-
Tristan at 09:42 AM on 2 May 2015The climate 'hiatus' doesn’t take the heat off global warming
Thanks TC, exactly what I was looking for!
Hope you're feeling better. -
Mal Adapted at 09:36 AM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
scaddenp: "If you believe the Leviticus estimates of error margins on OHC to be incorrect"
Hmm, I'm not a biblical scholar, but I don't recall seeing any estimates of error margins in that book...
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:14 AM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
Klapper @868... Absolutely. And the data we have a decade from now will be better than the data we have today. Today's data certainly doesn't invalidate past data nor would better systems in the future mean current data is bad. The data we have is just what it is at any given point in time. It's always going to be imperfect. Data is imperfect. Models are imperfect.
But again, this is why models are used to constrain those uncertainties. That's "Trenberth's tragedy." Our current systems can't fully account for all the heat in the climate system. That doesn't mean it's not there. That just means that our systems are inadequate.
What is abundantly clear, though, is that adding 4W/m^2 to the climate system is going to warm the planet in a significant and potentially calamatous way.
-
Klapper at 07:44 AM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
@KR #867:
"...a combination of poor statistics and impossible expectations about 'perfect' data..."
I don't want "perfect data", I want the best data. I think all posters would agree that thanks to Aqua/Terra/GRACE/ARGO etc. we have the much better data available in the 20th century than previously.
-
KR at 06:46 AM on 2 May 2015Models are unreliable
From Klapper - "I've looked at the quarterly/annual sampling maps for pre-Argo at various depths..."
Well, there are good reasons for NOAA to display 0-2000 data as pentadal (5-year) averages:
What Klapper appears to be expressing with his short term trends and dismissal of earlier OHC data is a combination of poor statistics and impossible expectations about 'perfect' data.
-
citizenschallenge at 06:43 AM on 2 May 2015Heartland takes climate foolishness to a Biblical level
OPOF writes: "It is important to not refer to the Heartland Institute as a 'religion based group'."
True enough they are a libertarian organization who count's the childishness of Ayn Rand as a profound Truth - their founders and members have roots in the Reaganomics doctrine that endless growth is possible, "too much is never enough" and that "greed is good".
But, challenge them on their talking points and it's nothing but silence.
fyi - Sunday, April 26, 2015
#11 Questions for Heartland's Burnett, re Dr. Mann and more -
The CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/04/11heartland-drmann-ccsteeledebate.html
Prev 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 Next
