Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

Generally, the past “tuning” is done to low absolute values. Instrumental SST and what the sky “sees” are not always the same. So if you are basing what the model limits are when the initial values or “tuning” criterion are you can come up with all sorts of reasons why “models” won’t work.

If the models are properly initialized, that would be the information need to evaluate how well they may be able to perform. Once that GFLD example gets to 300K, it starts leveling off as it should.

Personally, I wouldn’t write them off completely because I am a cheap bastard, they can produce something useful, but I think cleaning house in a few “institutions” might stimulate a little more attention to detail.


Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Rob Starkey

0
0

Steve

“The hypothesis is that more CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet – all other things being equal.”
This leads to two questions.
1. How much will it warm.
2. Given that we can’t hold other things equal, how do we estimate #1

It is not quite that simple.
1. How much will is warm? Agreed, but once there is a reasonably accurate estimate of warming…..
Next- What other changes occur and where as a result of any warming that does occur.
Isn’t it that next step that is critical in determining whether or not someone supports expending limited resources on reducing CO2 emissions.

Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

Steven Mosher, here is the hypothesis, Climate Science has constructed a good ol’ fern bar network.

1. Do we fire them all?

2. Do we try weeding?

Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by nickels

0
0

“I’ve used this analogy many times, but I’ll state it one more time. Imagine a a cloud of dust floating in your living room.”

Well, I hear your point. However I need more than an analogy. I need a mathematical theory that tells me why climate is retrievable from a simulation that has completely diverges from the actual solution.

Otherwise its just tilting at windmills.

Because I disagree. By the time your model has completely diverged taking averages does not give you the climate. It gives you the sum of many small numerical resonances integrated until they swamp the entire solution. Or, put another, what you get is pure nonsense.

Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by nickels

0
0

One more point…. numerical integration errors are NOT independent, they are highly correlated. So averaging over them does not put you in the realm of independent random variables and the law of large numbers. Not at all.
So your averages are simply going to reflect the sum of these correlated errors and there is no reason such a thing should converge to the true average of some physical parameter.

If such a mathematical theory exists I will delve into. I have never heard of such a theory and no CAGW’er has ever pointed me to one.

Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Dr Norman Page

0
0

If you are a cheap bastard you should use my forecasts based on the natural cycle approach – I don’t get paid by anybody so the forecasts are free to any interested parties and clear and simple enough that even politicians might understand if they read them. You can see why academia in general would not see any value or profit in terms of publications, positions ,grants,or Government jobs and Honours if they used simple commonsense and basic observations in climate forecasting.
How can you possibly estimate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 without knowing where we are relative to the natural cycles especially the millennial cycle. All the efforts of the modelers have been a wasted journey down a blind alley. Climate science has gone backwards since Lamb was replaced by Wrigley at the MET.See

Forecasts based on Lamb,s figure from the FAR would do better than all the modeling since.
The link is also Fig 8 at

http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Wagathon

0
0

What is a single legitimate reason is there that explains why Western academia steadfastly refuses to insist on robust model verification and validation in climate science? There are many possible reasons but they’re all bad.

Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by niclewis

0
0

Kenneth, first, a belated thank you for your kind comments about me. I’m sorry that I have only just spotted what you wrote.

Secondly, I echo your comments regarding difficulties in processing the raw CMIP5 data files. I don’t find size in itself a problem – I have downloaded well over a terabyte of monthly data. But the failure of the modelling centres to agree and stick to a standard file format is very unhelpful, and makes automating processing of the data difficult and time consuming. A single large netCDF file for each run, with all models having the same month end, would have been much easier to process.

I did eventually manage to prepare global and zonally-averaged annual TOA imbalance summary files by model for the abrupt 4x CO2 experiment, but I concluded that I really needed to deduct the corresponding values from the preindustrial control runs, and I haven’t had a chance to resolve the problems involved in doing so, or to move on to other CMIP5 ‘experiments’. If you can get KNMI to provide properly processed annual CMIP5 data – ideally zonal-averages as well as global means – that would be great.


Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by AK

0
0
<blockquote> That’s why I think that meaningful progress will only take place – [...]</blockquote>Personally I think meaningful progress <b>is already happening</b>. And should be encouraged. And personally I regard “<i>meaningful stakeholder dialog</i>” as a code word for setting up some sort of soviet/committee that can be subverted the way Len1n did.

Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Curious George

0
0

Rob – I am a believer in a greenhouse effect but not in a simplified diagram you are showing. I have an issue with the Point 7: Heated molecules emit radiation. As there are some 2,000 molecules of N2 or O2 for every CO2 molecule, most collisions will be with them. Please tell me what radiation they emit.

Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Curious George

0
0

Oh, threading broken. Re-posting my question.

Rob – I am a believer in a greenhouse effect but not in a simplified diagram you are showing. I have an issue with the Point 7: Heated molecules emit radiation. As there are some 2,000 molecules of N2 or O2 for every CO2 molecule, most collisions will be with them. Please tell me what radiation they emit.

Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by rhhardin

0
0

The models are just supposed to be impressive, like wearing a white lab coat in doctor TV commercials.

That they’re nonsense doesn’t matter. That they’re known to be nonsense and provably nonsense doesn’t matter. It’s all peer reviewed.

Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Matthew R Marler

0
0

Willard: So the original content of the thesis is not in the thesis, Matt?

That is true. In the US the standard for a PhD thesis is that it be original work that is “publishable”, though many, if not most, of them are not in fact published. In Europe, the criterion “publishable” is established by having a series of works actually published, and then the series is written up in a document that cites the publications. In the US, it frequently happens as well that the final thesis may be a culmination of previously published papers, but usually the thesis is approved (or not) before the submitted works have in fact appeared in print.

Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

“All interventionist options have costs, particularly opportunity costs. There may also be non-economic costs, such as restriction of personal freedom and academic freedom”

yeah, been a good while since I’ve noticed that well meaning governmental ‘interventions’ increased my freedom to think and act
‘first do no harm’
how quaint

Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

Hell, doc, I got you a few better :)

There is Lamb “calibrated” to tropical SST and

and there is “my” tropical SST reconstruction of peak temperatures, i.e. potential convective triggering.

And there is why the models suck. What more could anyone want an estimate of “climate Sensitivity” to CO2? That is 0.8 +/-0.2 C :)


Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Alan McIntire

0
0

Using Trenberth’s model, earth gets an average of 480 watts per square meter- 240 directly from the sun and 240 greenhouse back radiation. Break that down into day/night and we get 480 direct from the sun during the day and 240 greenhouse back radiaiton, and 240 greenhouse back radiation during the night. Of course during the day the earth is warming up, but never reaches that 720 watt balacing temperature, druing the night the earth is cooling off but never reaches that 240 watt balancing temperature. Make a model using newton cooling/warming to get a balance. Now plug in an extra 4 watts greenhouse effect. You”ll find that about 2/3 of the additional warming is at night. That’s because temperature is proportional to the 4th root of the wattage flux.

Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Matthew R Marler

0
0

A quick comment on my attitude, in case anyone is still reading. I am suspicious that the free parameters may have been tuned to get good performance on extant data, at least in some vague fashion other than least-squares estimation or another estimation algorithm. However, modelers deny that, and I can’t automatically judge all of them to be liars. For the specific claim made by Rud Istvan, challenged by Steven Mosher and repeated several times by me, I can not find Rud Istvan’s claim supported in the documents that he cited, from which I quoted extensively. So I am in a kind of limbo.

Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Bad Andrew

0
0

“all other things being equal”

Ah, The Great AGW Qualifier.

What other famous specualtions cab we tack this on to?

Andrew

Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by A. Voip

Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by JustinWonder

0
0

rls

“… they go to the same schools … live in the same neighborhoods…”

Yes. In the USA a big sort is happening, and it is not healthy for the nation.

http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images