Nic
SoD has been writing recently on the fuzziness of “estimated internal variability” in the IPCC reports. Doesn’t this relate to preindustrial control runs? What is your confidence in those runs?
Thank you,
Richard
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by rls
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Yeah Nic, rls has a good question. Personally, it looks like there are some serious issues to me :)
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Fernando Leanme
I’m not sure a first world versus third world approach works. What the world needs is CO2 and methane reductions. So the approach I would take is to list items as individual projects with reductions versus cost.
I suspect (but I’m not sure) we will see that low cost financing for hydropower ANYWHERE it can be used cost effectively is probably one of the top solutions. Once hydropower is available it’s fairly feasible to use wind to extend the water resources.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by nickels
Thx. If I had to guess why to solvers are old, its $. Sandia modernized its solvers, I believe mostly on ASCII money. I worked with guys with an interest in writing a modern solver at NCAR, but no one is still there due to $. Plus, these solver are very hard (all the different wave speeds and physics) and some of the experts in atmospheric science would have to buy in and help, and there didn’t seem to be much motivation in that.
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by JustinWonder
“If intervention could solve complex problems, the world would be just about perfect by now. But, time and time again interventions fail …”
Those pesky unintended consequences, like horrendous local air pollution caused by people who cut down local trees to burn in their inefficient and incorrectly operated woodstoves to avoid the high cost of electricity due to renewable energy mandates here in liberal environmentalist central California. Here, where approx. 60% voted for Obama, we have “spare the air days” caused by woodsmoke and yet they dislike fracking.
QED
↧
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by JustinWonder
Keeps this bird in the air…
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Fernando Leanme
Shouldn’t we celebrate the surface temperature record in 2014? It must have helped the planet shed a humongous amount of heat.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Steven Mosher
start here
https://www.newton.ac.uk/event/clpw04
Watch everything
https://www.newton.ac.uk/event/clpw04/seminars
This is one example …Tamsin’s work. excellent
https://www.newton.ac.uk/seminar/20101207110011401
Its 40 minutes.
I predict that David Young is the only person who will watch it
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Joseph
Basically we will split perspectives between those who believe a transition from fossil fuel technology can be accomplished without undue difficulty and those who believe that such a transition will be extremely challenging and difficult.
Don’t you think if the right market incentives are in place that the private sector, along with the research done in universities and colleges, can develop better and more cost effective technologies to meet that demand? Doesn’t more demand lead to more innovation?
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Joseph
Another important side benefit of moving away from fossil fuels is that we leave future generations without the problem of growth based on energy intensive industries leading to pollution (e.g. China). It would make it a lot easier to bring back those industries to the US and avoid those side effects..
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Joseph
oops that should have been on the other post about energy policy..
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by anng
Hi Lee,
I went to the British Museum over Xmas where they have James Goldsmith’s archive and a small exhibition. It was really interesting – particularly the scientists arguing against it.
It reinforced some earlier ideas I’d had about climate – that Life adapts to the environment – sometimes very quickly & there are microbes in the atmosphere. Recently I’ve looked at the CERN CLOUD experiments and noticed that molecules associated with trees improve cloud seeding. Definately room for thought there.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Steven Mosher, “This talk will focus on the practical aspects of building an emulator, and show how our emulator can be used to learn about HadCM3, and to learn about the value of palaeoclimate measurements for parameter calibration.”
Decisions decisions
Oh wait!
Thank goodness for NOAA wtf NOAA, the models are saved!!
↧
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by ATAndB
Does this also mean that most of the warming will be in places that are presently cold, like the poles? I believe that would agree with some of the results that show that the lows are getting warmer whereas the highs are not moving much. It is really different to say that;
1. Temperatures are going to get warmer on average and more extreme.
2. Temperatures are going to get warmer on average but less extreme.
This is a nuance that could make a considerable difference as far as outcomes are concerned.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by anng
Lets just stop the arguing and put it into technical terms. ‘Parameter settings and scope of differing runs are chosen to suit the required investigative experiments about to be done’
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by A fan of *MORE* discourse
FOMDs Planning Paradox
The Netherlands embraces climate-science and rationally plans generations ahead. Florida politicians, not so much. Why the difference?
Rising sea levels will be too much,
too fast for Florida
by Harold Wanless (U of Miami)It is amazing for me to see the very aggressive building boom underway in south Florida […] They are building like there is no tomorrow.
Unfortunately, they are right. […]
Most models of projected sea level rise assume a gradual acceleration of sea level in line with gradually accelerating ice melt. But our knowledge of how sea level rose in the past paints a very different picture of response to climate change.
[Past] ice melt was not a gradual process, but rather a series of very rapid pulses of sea level rise interspersed with pauses in which coastal environments formed.
During pulses the seas rose between 3-30ft (0.9-9m) fast enough to drown not just reefs, sandy barrier islands, tidal inlets and other coastal features, stranding their remnants across the continental shelf, now disappeared beneath the ocean.
To consider the risk in present investments is beyond sobering. By the middle of this century most of the barrier islands of south Florida and the world will be abandoned and the people relocated, while low areas such as Sweetwater and Hialeah bordering the Everglades will be frequently flooded and increasingly difficult places to live.
Florida will start to lose its freshwater resources, its infrastructure will begin to fail, and the risk of catastrophic storm surges and hurricane flooding will increase.
Florida counties should be planning for their future to determine at what point the costs of maintaining functional infrastructure, insurance, and human health and safety becomes economically impossible.
Already, there are areas and properties that will become unlivable within a 30-year mortgage cycle.
Forget the levees and dikes. That may be fine for New Orleans and the Netherlands, but not here where the limestone and sand under our homes is much too porous and permeable. For each day action is put off, it becomes harder and more expensive to make the inevitable changes required.
Without planning, there will come a point where society will collapse into chaos.
Summary
(1) Community A [the Netherlands] enjoys water-impermeable geology; dikes work well; community respects science; politicians responsibly plan-and-invest for future generations.
(2) Community B [Florida] suffers from porous karst geology; dikes fail utterly; politicians look-ahead one election cycle (at most); voters and lenders selfishly embrace short-sighted denialism.
FOMD’s Paradox Why is the community [Florida] that faces worse sea-level problems [than the Netherlands] the same community that irresponsibly embraces climate-change denialism?
Whence this short-sighted science-denying paradox? The world wonders!
Conclusion Too commonly, markets and political platforms alike are neither foresighted, nor efficient, nor rational.
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Steven Mosher
scribbling on a blog is a bad hobby.
knit more. comment less
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
StevenMosher, “scribbling on a blog is a bad hobby.
knit more. comment less”
That’s good advice. On a water world missing the tropical SST by a few degrees would pretty much invalidate any climate model. This particular thread is about “questioning the robustness of climate modeling paradigm” .
Note that peak temp of about 301.5K (28.4C)
Since the models have parameterize tropical convection using a “convection triggering” temperature of around 28C, the models aren’t getting it. That is pretty plain and simple, no getty SST no getty climate.
Now if you toon the models to paleo compiled by some of the true giants in the field, there are no wiggles. If you use Uk’37 “THermo-bugs” you are going to have a low temperature bias of about 1C in ideal areas and more than 2 C in less than ideal areas. So how the f are you going to toon models to paleo in this current state of the paleo art?
Wave your arms all you like, but models gots issues.
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Ammonite
PE, thank you for another thoughtful submission. In the spirit of your framework I’d invite participants to place themselves in the quadrant that best fits their current assessment of the state of play. A brief note or caveat may add value. Longer justifications are probably better left to a separate thread.
For me: CHALLENGED
I am unresolved as to whether rising CO2 represents a small “c” catastrophe or a large “C” catastrophe. I do not see readily achievable paths for smooth transition from fossil fuels (for a myriad of reasons).
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Berényi Péter
Put a transparent container onto a well insulated rotating table into a vacuum chamber, whose walls are kept cold by liquid nitrogen from the outside. Fill it with a semitransparent fluid, which has phase transition close to the average operating temperature. Heat it with short wave radiation directed at the container.
As soon as a computational model is constructed, which predicts dependence of the system’s output parameters reliably as function of optical depth of fluid inside (at various wavelengths) and other input parameters of the system, proceed to climate modeling, but not sooner.
Please note one can have as many experimental runs of this apparatus as one wishes, with close control over input parameters like angular velocity, viscosity and optical depth of fluid, intensity of incoming shortwave radiation, etc.
In this respect it differs greatly from the terrestrial climate system, where you only have a single uncontrolled run of a unique physical entity, which makes experimental verification of computational models impossible.
That’s how physics is done.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
