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 nickels

0
0

Rud is definitely correct, and anything in the ‘Model Physics’ chapter is probably fair game for something that is determined experimentally and is basically a ‘fudge factor’.
But I can’t really help MM because I don’t know anything about the fitting process. I suspect if you have the time to follow the various references in chapter 4 of the CAM manual you will find the fitting procedure.

The one thing I do know is that these ‘fudge factors’ are not grid independent and must be recalculated when grid size changes. Which leads me to believe they are true ‘fudge factors’ and do not have any actual units.

I know this doesnt really help, but having sat through enough CCSM (what is used to be called) talks I know Rud is correct.


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

0
0

David in TX: Are you getting the picture, now Matthew? Listen to Rud. Ignore Mosher.

I am open to the possibility that the models may have been tuned. The specific claims made by Rud Istvan are not supported in the documents that he cited. On this point Steven Mosher is correct.

I am also open to the possibility that anthropogenic CO2 may be warming the Earth surface and atmosphere. Many of the specific claims made by the proponents of the theory of AGW are not supported by the science.

Do you not understand that specific claims require adequate support?

Comment on Week in review by c1ue

0
0

Sorry, should be Townsley and Odum. With a big dose of Forrester and Fuller thrown in.

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

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

0
0

Steven Mosher: NO you are not. you are not a user.
you’ve never looked at the data.

I certainly am a user. On that, I think you are trying to narrow the definition beyond any useful meaning. I use aircraft as well, and I wouldn’t intentionally fly on an aircraft that had never flown, no matter how many “tests” the owners claimed it had passed. A bout gasoline I am a little less persnickety, and I accept the claim on the pump that the octane rating was obtained by a valid test — but I also note that I haven’t burned out my engines or clogged the anti-emissions equipment.

Which data have I not looked at? The data showing that the GCM outputs do not satisfy a reasonable (to me) standard of accuracy?

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

0
0

Steven Mosher: in some cases you voted for the users. in other cases the users were appointed.
in some cases the users are business,

Those are all true statements. When I correspond with my Congressman, I alert him to the fact that the GCMs have not ever been shown publicly to satisfy a standard of accuracy that he might want for guidance of spending.

Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by R Graf

0
0

Do you calculate the cost benefit to alternatives when you buy Girl Scout cookies? Moral values can be equated to money value.

Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by R Graf

0
0

Admittedly, moral values can be distorted and mis-informed.


Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

0
0

c1ue

Did you mean to say non-scientific? There is an unfortunate line break that muddles the message.

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

0
0
Mark Silbert: <i>Don, thanks for persisting, watching the video and laying it out for Mosher. </i> I second that. I guess that you have a history with Mosher that leads you to engaging in his pedantic posts and taunts. More power to you. </i> Steven Mosher is sometimes correct, so I find it worthwhile to engage with him. See a question I posed to him about his comment to Rud Istvan, and what ensued.

Comment on Week in review by miker613

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

0
0

Another paper discussing comparisons of CAM cloud physics parameterizations with field data and short range weather forecasts.

“Testing cloud microphysics parameterizations in NCAR CAM5
with ISDAC and M-PACE observations”

Not saying this answers MM questions, but it will hopefully give at least a taste of the hocus pocus’ery that goes on in these models with their various ‘fudge factors’.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-96872-2012-JA.pdf

Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by R Graf

0
0

There could also be mega-engineering applied to protecting water from draining from land ice sheets.

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

Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by John Pittman

0
0

Your claim is that they are going down exponentially and this will continue. You state that this is unequivocal. My point and others, there is no reason to believe it will continue, and many reasons not to. But it is belief. It has not happened yet.

You state:””You need to learn the difference between pumped hydro storage and regular hydro-electricity before anything you say will be anything but gobbledegook.”” But I have looked at pumped hydro and yes the problems I listed are known. The difference you are proposing is what?? If it is small enough to be controlled, it is too small for our society to supply the potential months or transmission losses a national grid needs. Once again these known issues effect cost, which is what I and others keep pointing out. You have not made a coherent argument that these costs can be absorbed, but rather the opposite. You stated that the cost needed to be “”Granted, the cost of pumped hydro is such today that PV would have to be much closer to zero before the combination is cost-effective.”” That simply means what you state agrees with what I and others have pointed out exits today. Your belief for tomorrow, you have to support. Your comment about learning the difference without explaining how to pay for the size or location of your solution. Sure you can build small units almost anywhere. They will not be big enough nor cheap necessarily. But as pointed out “everywhere” is a problem for solar, and “everywhere” is a problem for pumped storage. The problem is cost.


Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Don Monfort

0
0

And thanks to you, two. I value your opinions. You are among a group of about a dozen whose comments I won’t pass up. I save a lot of time by skipping FOMD’s contrived BS completely and just skimming over the foolishness of joshie et al.

I will always pay attention to what Mosher has to say. Even when he is wrong, you should be able to learn something. (I wouldn’t spend 40 minutes watching a video recommended by jimmy dee). Mosher can be pedantic and impatient, but I believe that he strives to be honest and to get the science right. He has redeeming qualities. You just have to keep pestering him, until you hit the right question. He hates it when people ask him wrong questions.

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

0
0

“Given the uncertainty in representing various cloud
processes in climate models…”

“MG08 includes the treatment of subgrid cloud variability
for cloud liquid water by assuming that the probability
density function (PDF) of in-cloud liquid water
follows a gamma distribution function.”

“subgrid variability of cloud liquid”

“The temperature of homogeneous freezing of rain was
changed from 40°C in the original MG08 scheme to 5°C
in the released version of CAM5 in order to improve the
Arctic surface flux and sea ice in the coupled climate
simulations [Gettelman et al., 2010]. We note that this
change has no physical basis,…”

“There are still large uncertainties in the mechanisms
of ice nucleation,…”

“..partially related to the subgrid-scale dynamics that are
not resolved in large-scale models..”

“The modeled cloud fraction, phase and spatial distribution
of cloud condensates have a significant impact on
modeled radiative fluxes…”

“In general, CAM5 underpredicts the
observed downwelling SW flux by up to 100 W m2…”

“Lognormal fitting parameters for the best estimate
aerosol particle size distribution are given in Table 1…”

“There is a threshold size separating cloud
ice from snow (Dcs), which is largely a tuning parameter…”

“CAM5 severely underestimates aerosol optical depth
(AOD) by a factor of 5–10…”

I mean, look. I dont know squat about cloud microphysics, and modelling them as outlined in this paper is truly fascinating and interesting work.

However, I know enough reading this paper to scoff at the statement:
“The science is settled….”

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-96872-2012-JA.pdf

Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Steven Mosher

0
0

In general the modeling experts do a better job than skeptics of criticizing the models.

The difference is tone.

Expert. This is a problem in the model.
Skeptic. It’s a fraud, disaster , destruction of
The scientific method, a travesty, they are ignorant
Gold digging socialists

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

0
0

This is the money quote for Gates paper,

“The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics.

All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.”

Gordon Hughes

And the ‘toon of the month award goes to Nature Magazine

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

0
0
<i>Bad Andrew | February 5, 2015 at 8:44 am | Reply “things are never equal” If things are never equal, then why do you tack a thing that never happens on to your speculation?</i> Because idjits insist that the fundamental physical mechanisms of greenhouse warming is a speculation.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images