Given that IQ is mainly a measure of speed of thought then you are in awe of someone (Monckton) who has a much higher IQ than you do.
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by David in TX
↧
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Jonathan Abbott
Thanks Cam, I’ll have a look at that.
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by beththeserf
Nuthin’ is real … duh duh
duh …
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Leo Smith
The skeptical thesis is very simply put: It has two prongs.
1/. Overall feedback cannot be high enough to justify late 20th century warming without also creating a climate so unstable with respect to real externalities (sun/volcano/meteorite/etc) that we wouldn’t be here to argue it. In fact the weight of evidence is that the feedback is strongly negative.
2/. Consideration of climate as not dominated by radiative dissipation, but having in the lower atmosphere a strong turbulent convective and conductive element, especially through such massively lagging elements as ocean currents, shows that climate is a nicely incalculable non linear dynamic system, in which the overall negative feedback will almost certainly be complex enough to cause natural aperiodic change without any need to posit externalities to ’cause ‘ it.
In short the picture that emerges is one of chaotic quasi random behaviour with no strong spectral lines at any frequency with no particular ‘average value’ having any meaning beyond the ability to roughly place temperature between some extremes or other.
As such the theory has not and can not have any predictive power that can be used to justify it beyond saying in broad terms ‘climate wont get hotter than X or colder than Y and all values in between are moderately probable’ .
And this is a fundamentally curious philosophical point. Popper et al demand that science be both refutable and not refuted as a test of validity.
However if we posit chaotic systems, they are in many senses irrefutable. No actual test that may be performed can actually live up to predictions which embody extreme sensitivity to initial conditions.
That is, not only do we not have mathematics capable of predicting the output of chaotic systems, we cannot even use Poppers criteria to distinguish them by application of his philosophy from pure metaphysical twaddle. At least not in a simple way.
What is needful is to build complex non linear dynamic models with elements that we think correspond to the major feedbacks in the earth’s climate, and see if any of them actually generate the sort of bistable attractors and general boundaries of the Earth’s climate such as we know it to have been in paleological times (after having removed any CO2 derived confirmation bias from it).
That wouldn’t be the ‘strong evidence’ so beloved of physicists etc but it would at least demonstrate that models could be constructed to display climate variability of the order of what is on the historical record, without the need to introduce external drivers, like Milankovitch cycles or carbon dioxide. Or any other stray unicorns and pixie dust.
Simplified models could easily be constructed. Much simpler than GCMs. On the (untested) assumption that huge swathes of the circulation could be parametrised, (as is done already) but with two important distinctions, we incorporate many lagging negative feedback terms and the transfer functions are assumed to be non linear.
Its a great little PhD project.
Stop looking at climate as a linear system, and model it as a non linear one and then curve fit using lagging (negative) feedback terms. Until the spectral analysis of the output matches the spectrum of observed temperature fluctuations over time. That is based on my intuition that whilst we can’t predict the actual value of a chaotic system we should be able to predict its spectral energy density.
And that presumption is very easily tested for at least a sample chaotic system
Once we discard the notion that climate can be modelled by a linear dynamic system, all of the simplistic models fall to pieces, and the GCM’s can be shown to be far too crude to do the job. It leaves only as far as I can tell the sort of approach outlined above, which is already fraught with deep caveats, but might actually shed some light on the whole model controversy if explored.
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by beththeserf
Don’t want ter sound negative but -that Naychure she’s
stood the test of time. Jest ain’t no linear girl.
↧
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by kim
Thanks for asking, Jan. The evidence of my senses. It doesn’t feel as hot as the models expect it to be. My eyes rest on a thermometer which doesn’t show as hot as the models expect it to be. I hear many learned authorities tell me that it’s not as warm as the models expected. Your conversation tastes funny and there’s something rotten in the state of modeling and I can smell it all the way over here.
=================
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by kim
Leo, do you think the temperature record is accurate enough to do that sort of modeling?
============
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by kim
I’d like to key on HAS’s ‘or perhaps you think it will all come out in the wash.’ Yes, they do, and it won’t, because paleontology.
Or better ‘Beware the millennial at your perennial.
=======================
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by kim
Remind me some other time to tell you a funny story about Arthur Smith spending his precious time trying to find the earliest I ever used the phrase ‘We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know’.
===================================
↧
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Peter Davies
Jan P Perlwitz obviously has access to the code used by GCM modellers! This is a breakthrough for Climate Etc readers because he is in a position to tell us what parameters the models are using and indeed, why they are not very good at matching the data record!
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by AK
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/03/02/california-drought-climate-change-global-warming/24262559/" rel="nofollow">Study: Human-caused global warming behind Calif. drought</a><blockquote>Human-caused climate change helped fuel the current California drought, says a Stanford University study released Monday.</blockquote><blockquote>Climate change has increased the chance that the two main weather conditions that led to the drought — higher than average temperatures and little rain or snow — will occur at the same time, the study shows.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>Other scientists not involved in the Stanford study questioned some of its methodology and findings.</blockquote><blockquote>Scientist Martin Hoerling with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the current lack of rain or snow in California is clearly not part of a long-term trend, or part of human-induced climate change, as many studies have already shown.</blockquote><blockquote>He also said a drought measurement tool used by the Stanford team — the Palmer Drought Severity Index — is "flawed and unreliable" to assess the impact of climate change.</blockquote><blockquote>"The warming trend can only account for a small fraction of the actual warmth in California the past two winters," Columbia University scientist Richard Seager said.</blockquote><blockquote>He said most of the warm temperatures were caused by the same ridge of high pressure in the atmosphere that also minimized any rain or snow.</blockquote><blockquote>Hoerling and Seager were co-authors of a NOAA report in December that said natural weather patterns, not man-made global warming, were the primary cause of the drought.</blockquote>Here's why I see the above story as relevant to this post: despite <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/04/456927/contrarian-noaa-meteorologist-martin-hoerling-freak-heat-wave-a-darn-good-outcome/" rel="nofollow">Joe Romm's attempt</a> to portray him as a contrarian and smear him as celebrating others' misfortune, Hoerling has suggested that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/noaa-scientist-80-percent-chance-todays-heat-records-due-to-climate-change/2012/07/10/gJQAdv9waW_blog.html" rel="nofollow">80 percent chance recent heat records due to climate change</a><blockquote>What Hoerling had to say about climate change and record-setting temperatures was fascinating. He makes a compelling case that human-caused climate change isn’t causing heat waves, but - in many instances - adding to their intensity. Consider these excerpts from his commentary, about 34-38 minutes into the 60 minute panel discussion. </blockquote>[...]<blockquote>“It may well be that 90 percent of [a given] heat wave was natural, but that the 10 percent that pushed it to record proportions was due to climate change.”</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>“A heat wave itself - most of it is due to natural variability. But that extra little step to record proportions pushing over a prior threshold is what climate change is doing. It’s adding an edge to that heat wave.”</blockquote>So what we have here is a real <b>lack of consensus</b> in science regarding the role of CO2 and “<i>global warming</i>” in weather disasters. And we have the president, scum like Romm, and the extreme alarmists in general claiming something even the IPCC hasn't backed.
Then we have members of this same “<i>cabal</i>”
attacking scientists who have questioned the POTUS's anti-scientific assertions about climate change and weather “<i>disasters</i>”.
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Quondam
Jim,
There were a series of papers by Palchetti et al. on REFIR-PAD balloon experiments back in 2006 measuring FIR spectra in both vertical and horizontal directions. The latter show radiance or emission spectra with peaks in regions for water, carbon dioxide and ozone. Reprints are available on line.
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 5025-5030, 2006, etc.
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by Dan W.
Every climate model that is published should contain a footnote that explains the model explicitly ignores observed climate phenomenon that is not well understood and is too complex to be incorporated in the model. Furthermore these models should have another footnote explaining that they, like financial models, make no guarantee of future performance.
Imagine if there were truth in climate model advertising. Imagine if model creators were actually held accountable for their models. Imagine how doing this would change the presentation of what, precisely, is “consensus” and what is essentially propaganda.
↧
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by kim
Of course they’re not accountable, it’s the machines wot dunnit.
This is only partly a joke. That is the get out of jail card that will be used.
=============
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by A. Voip
Trade in your freedom of movement so that we may chauffeur you to your next appointment, in our driverless car. And it won’t cost you anything.
It’s not for us it’s for them.
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by kim
I have a sixth sense, but it’s been pegged at eleventy for so long I think it is malfunctioning.
==============
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by A. Voip
I wonder if everybody in the world has played ‘Mother may I’?
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by AK
Stanford press release: <a href="http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/march/temperatures-california-drought-030215.html" rel="nofollow">Warming temperatures implicated in recent California droughts, Stanford scientists say</a><blockquote>In California, dry years coupled with warm conditions are more likely to lead to severe drought than dry, cool years, and the probability of warm and dry conditions coinciding is likely to increase under anthropogenic climate change. Warm conditions reduce snowfall, increase snowmelt and increase water loss from soils and plants.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>In a new study, published in the March 2 issue of the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers led by Stanford professor Noah Diffenbaugh examined the role that temperature has played in California droughts over the past 120 years. They also examined the effect that human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are having on temperature and precipitation, focusing on the influence of global warming upon California's past, present and future drought risk.</blockquote><blockquote>The team found that the worst droughts in California have historically occurred when conditions were both dry and warm, and that global warming is increasing the probability that dry and warm years will coincide. The findings suggest that California could be entering an era when nearly every year that has low precipitation also has temperatures similar to or higher than 2013-14, when the statewide average annual temperature was the warmest on record.</blockquote>Article in PNAS: <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/23/1422385112.full.pdf" rel="nofollow">Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California</a><blockquote>California is currently in the midst of a record-setting drought. The drought began in 2012 and now includes the lowest calendar-year and 12-mo precipitation, the highest annual temperature, and the most extreme drought indicators on record. The extremely warm and dry conditions have led to acute water shortages, groundwater overdraft, critically low streamflow, and enhanced wildfire risk. Analyzing historical climate observations from California, we find that precipitation deficits in California were more than twice as likely to yield drought years if they occurred when conditions were warm. We find that although there has not been a substantial change in the probability of either negative or moderately negative precipitation anomalies in recent decades, the occurrence of drought years has been greater in the past two decades than in the preceding century. In addition, the probability that precipitation deficits co-occur with warm conditions and the probability that precipitation deficits produce drought have both increased. Climate model experiments with and without anthropogenic forcings reveal that human activities have increased the probability that dry precipitation years are also warm. Further, a large ensemble of climate model realizations reveals that additional global warming over the next few decades is very likely to create ∼100% probability that any annual-scale dry period is also extremely warm. We therefore conclude that anthropogenic warming is increasing the probability of co-occurring warm–dry conditions like those that have created the acute human and ecosystem impacts associated with the “exceptional” 2012–2014 drought in California. </blockquote>
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by AK
The NOAA press release (December 8, 2014): <a href="http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20141208_californiadrought.html" rel="nofollow">Researchers offer new insights into predicting future droughts in California</a><blockquote><b>Natural cycles, sea surface temperatures found to be main drivers in ongoing event</b></blockquote><blockquote>According to a new NOAA-sponsored study, natural oceanic and atmospheric patterns are the primary drivers behind California's ongoing drought. A high pressure ridge off the West Coast (typical of historic droughts) prevailed for three winters, blocking important wet season storms, with ocean surface temperature patterns making such a ridge much more likely. Typically, the winter season in California provides the state with a majority of its annual snow and rainfall that replenish water supplies for communities and ecosystems. </blockquote><blockquote>Further studies on these oceanic conditions and their effect on California's climate may lead to advances in drought early warning that can help water managers and major industries better prepare for lengthy dry spells in the future.</blockquote><blockquote>"It's important to note that California's drought, while extreme, is not an uncommon occurrence for the state. In fact, multi-year droughts appear regularly in the state's climate record, and it's a safe bet that a similar event will happen again. Thus, preparedness is key," said Richard Seager, report lead author and professor with Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.</blockquote>The actual report may be downloaded <a href="http://cpo.noaa.gov/ClimatePrograms/ModelingAnalysisPredictionsandProjections/MAPPTaskForces/DroughtTaskForce/CaliforniaDrought.aspx" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<blockquote>Model simulations indicate that <b>human-induced climate change increases California precipitation in mid-winter,</b> with a low-pressure circulation anomaly over the North Pacific, <b>opposite to conditions of the last 3 winters.</b> The same model simulations indicate a decrease in spring precipitation over California. However, precipitation deficits observed during the past three years are an order of magnitude greater than the model simulated changes related to human-induced forcing. Nonetheless, record setting high temperature that accompanied this recent drought was likely made more extreme due to human-induced global warming. [my bold]</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle by michael hart
If water vapor cannot significantly emit in the bands exclusive to CO2, then will added CO2 not cause more rapid arrival of saturation, condensation and hence cloud formation? I’ve asked this before, but not seen a response.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
