This piece of work has already been disassembled at Climate Audit.
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Matthew R Marler
Don Monfort: Why did they tune the parameters?
They tuned the parameters whose values were not published in standard texts and tables. Parameters whose values have been well studied and measured are called “physical constants”, such as the density and specific heat of dry air at STP. Others were updated in response to publications.
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Then let’s get our terminology together, Figure 4 has TOA net dropping to a minimum about 3-4 months after the event and the standard forcing estimate at a minimum about 5 months after the event.
In figure 10 you call that a climate response after ignoring the pre-eruption down trend which I believe is best not ignore since it appears to be “tidal” related to annual solar variation and would be lost when converting to anomaly.
I am sure your paper is absolutely bullet proof, but if there is a reason for the pre-eruption down turn why ignore it?
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Danny Thomas
Jim2,
My difficulty is that the Max Planck folks have a completly different take. Who does one trust, and why? I have no quarrel with Nic Lewis’ work as far as I can take it (and it’s not far). But the Planck folks are about 180 degrees out. Why is their evaluation reaching a different result? I’m “the public” so who do I trust? And why? Can you offer insight or are you just trusting Nic Lewis? If so, why? If you don’t trust Planck, I’d really appreciate knowing why. I’ve no reason to not trust you other than we don’t see eye to eye on all things. But would you take the word of an anonymous guy in some blog (me) over the “experts”? I have two competing opposite reviews of a paper and can’t do the stats myself. Teaching opportunity here.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Matthew R Marler
nickels: <i>Feel free to sift through the presentations. I think you will find half or more of the presentations are about toying with parameterizations. </i>
Something that Rud Istvan did not write is certainly supported by presentations that he did not cite.
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by R Graf
I am not a physicist sadly. So allow me to repeat back what I think you are saying in a few scenarios to model examples.
ex. 1) A planet that has no nearby star or internal latent heat would have an atmosphere of a few degrees Kelvin, colder than Uranus, at all atmospheric heights and pressures. Nil energy in-out.
ex. 2) The same planet wonders into orbit around a nearby star, the atmosphere is composed entirely of inert gas and the planet’s surface is made of fine polished silver (0 emissivity). The sun’s photons would pass in and out of the atmosphere without affecting the gas leaving all the atmosphere again near absolute zero temperature.
ex. 3) The same planet runs into a cloud of black dust making the surface a perfect black body, 100% absorbing and emissivity. Now the black body radiation must come into equilibrium with the energy of incoming radiance. The inert atmosphere cannot participate in shading the surface but it does participate in insulating the heat in a small way by first absorbing heat from the surface by convection and then emitting its own black body radiation in all directions, including down.
ex. 4) The same planet now has erupts and GHG spews out. Under Hansen’s view now the atmosphere equilibrium temperature increases by absorbing radiation in addition to just direct surface contact. The higher the opacity the higher the equilibrium temperature rises, first rising exponentially and then tailing off exponentially, in correlation to GHG concentration.
However, in your view the temperature equilibrium at the surface in unaffected by the GHG except to better disperse the heat evenly wherever there is a gradient, north south, day, night. In addition, the surface is cooled to the extent that the GHG intercepts a small amount of the incoming radiation and re-emits it back into space before it gets to the surface.
Please use my examples to further clarify.
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by Greg Goodman
Yes, please do get the terninology right. Or at least read what is on the graphs before trying to comment. Fig 10 does not show the same thing as fig4, This is not trivial, so if you wish to comment, for a third time I invite you read before posting a comment.
You are technically competent so if you took the time to understand rather than sniping, you may be able to come up with a valid criticism. That would certainly be of value.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by jim2
The pieced cited by Jim D. does not do a critical analysis of the paper, it is just regurgitating the result. It adds no value.
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Chris in Ga
Distributed power is out there and growing.
It matters also how distributed power is defined. Is it
– a complete continuous power system with the ability to be islanded ie. power a section of the grid by itself.
– a power system that can only be operated in parallel with the grid (normally waste gas generation).
– a back up power system that can support it’s section when normal power is lost.
The technology is here now for all of those. More importantly, this technology is allowing all these scenarios to be cost-effective. Which, of course, is the watchword to determine the success of … well any product in our society.
We will see more and more of this type power distribution. I’ve designed and commissioned the generator controls and switchgear for all 3 of these types of sites.
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by nickels
“If models are indeed not validated by “reality” (according to Steven) at what point are they invalidated?”
Climate models can’t be invalidated (at least not their predictive ability). That’s why climate modelling isn’t science.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Danny Thomas
Jim2,
I get that that is your assertion. But to what end? Why would Planck even make a statement? If invalid, it hurts their reputation. There is no benefit to reiterate and in fact only creates risk and reduces credibility.
I can see the circular logic argument in the paper (abstract even) so that has my radar up. I cannot dispute the stats myself.
I have no reason not to trust Nic Lewis. I’d even lean the opposite from what I’ve seen. But I have no reason not to trust the Planck folks either (thought not as familiar). Any ideas why the’d go for all risk and no reward? It doesn’t appear to be a political organization. If ya don’t know, I get it. Just puzzling.
As always, thank you.
This makes no sense.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Danny Thomas
Nickels,
I guess it’s more appropriately considered mathmatics?
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by RiHo08
Greg Goodman
Thank you for this post. If I got the gist correctly, I have some additional questions if you don’t mind.
If an equatorial volcanic eruption effluent reduces equatorial stratospheric ozone, what is the mechanism?
As a corollary, what produces equatorial stratospheric ozone?
Is there an “ideal” balance of ozone in the equatorial stratosphere? or, is equatorial stratospheric ozone a “control knob?”
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Don Monfort
Thanks, Matt. I reviewed some of the discussion and found that Rud had recharacterized the comment that started the argument:
“The only issue on this thead was whether GCMs were ‘tuned’ via hindcast parameterization.”
Are you saying that the reference he gave doesn’t prove that, or that GCMs are never ‘tuned’ via hindcast parameterization?
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by kim
Is there any way the magnetosphere can modify the location, particularly the latitude, of vulcanism?
===========
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by kim
Danny, read Ross McKitrick’s breakdown of Nic Lewis’s post @ climateaudit.org. It’s a little ways down in the comments.
================
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by Greg Goodman
what is the mechanism? volcanoes eject large quantities of SO2, this mixes with water vapour and forms diluted sulphuric acid aerosols. As I understand it, this is a catalyst that breaks down ozone. There is literature on that. You will probably find some useful links in the refs and S.I sections which Judith separated out to a separate file ( see link at and of article ).
I make summary explanation of the form of the AOD data as the result of two chemical kinetic processes here and propose it as a physical explanation for Douglass & Knox’s empirical fit.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=1278
It would appear that there has been a slow recovery in stratospheric ozone since the period of data studied here from ERBE I would not be surprised if this was not also described by a relaxation to equilibrium but with a time constant probably of the order of 10 years.
This may be one factor contributing to “the pause”.
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Danny Thomas
Kim,
I say that last evening but lacking stats background it’s a bit over my head. It will take some digesting but I will do my best. I appreciate the reference!
Best!
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Vaughan Pratt
I thought it was 10%.
We should compare notes. Figure 2 in the Parmiento paper shows a sharp increase in the rate of net land uptake to about 1 GtC per year (a line from top left to bottom right is a reasonable approximation to the average slope of the four estimates). (1 petagram or Pg = 1 gigatonne or Gt.) That’s 10% of what we’re adding per year and 0.8% of what terrestrial plants are subtracting per year.
So there are interpretations of “it” that make us both right.
The interest in the 0.8% figure is that it would seem to imply that terrestrial plant biomass is increasing at 0.8% a year. The 50% increase that started this subthread would therefore happen in about 60 years or 2075. This would subtract some 140 ppmv from the CO2 level, which however without that 50% would be around 900 ppmv, so the reduction would only be to about 760 ppmv in 2075, plus or minus a large uncertainty.
↧
Comment on On determination of tropical feedbacks by John Vonderlin
Greg,
Is this what you meant? “This does rule out the presence of some AGW but does mean that unless this process is recognised and properly understood it will almost certainly get erroneously attrubuted to AGW.” I assume you left out “not.”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
