Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on A War Against Fire by JCH

$
0
0

In the DePreSys
forecast, internal variability offsets the effects of
anthropogenic forcing in the first few years,
leadingtononetwarmingbefore2008(Fig.4).
In contrast, the NoAssim forecast warms during
this period. Regional assessment to February 2007
(fig. S8) indicates that this initial cooling in
DePreSys relative to NoAssim results from the
development of cooler anomalies in the tropical
Pacific and the persistence of neutral conditions in
the Southern Ocean. In both cases, the DePreSys
forecast is closer to the verifying changes observed
since the forecast start date. Both NoAssim and
DePreSys, however, predict further warming
during the coming decade, with the year 2014
predictedtobe0.30°±0.21°C[5to95%
confidence interval (CI)] warmer than the observed
value for 2004.
Furthermore, at least half of the
years after 2009 are predicted to be warmer than
1998, the warmest year currently on record.

So the first serious attempt to incorporate initial conditions – to predict natural variability (ENSO) in a decadal forecast model. Some misses, but also some significant hits:

1998 – .63C
2004 – .54C
2010 – .72C
2011 – .60C – no
2012 – .63C – tie
2013 – .65C – yes
2014 – .74C – yes
2015 – appears to be .87C – yes
2016 – predicted to exceed .87C – if true, a yes


Comment on A War Against Fire by AK

$
0
0
@physicistdave… I <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2016/01/01/a-war-against-fire/#comment-755969" rel="nofollow">replied</a> above, for the moment it's in moderation.

Comment on A War Against Fire by franktoo

$
0
0

Matt: Manabe (2013) provides an exceptionally clear view of how our planet as a whole responds to a large change (3.5 K) in GMST with easily measured changes (about 10 W/m2) in TOA OLR and reflected SWR. Unfortunately, this is NOT global warming – it is the response to a large warming in the NH and and large cooling in the SH, producing a 3.5 W/m2 increase in GMST.

For example, you can see the effect of combined VW+LR feedback by monitoring LWR through clear skies. Climate models get this right (about +1 W/m2). You can see the effect of winter snow cover (surface albedo) in the NH in the SWR channel. Relatively little surface in the SH changes surface albedo with seasonal snow cover. Unfortunately, cloud feedback is always presented as the difference between clear and all skies, so they aren’t emission of OLR and reflection of SWR from cloudy skies. To a first approximation the difference is negligible; so colder cloudy skies reflect more SWR, just like colder clear skies with snow covered land beneath. So cloud feedback appears to be positive in this system. (The NH and SH have different average amounts of cloud cover, so the situation is complicated.) WV, LR, cloud, and seasonal snow surface albedo feedback all develop within about a month or so. The only feedback that is missing is the very slow loss of permanent ice with the increase in GMST.

Comment on A War Against Fire by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$
0
0

JCH, If they had maintained the same version of the temperature product used to make the predictions, it might have been somewhat impressive. However, when the temperature products are adjusted there will be a bit of confusion over exactly what was being predicted.

Now if you take regional predictions you don’t have that problem because they don’t even come close.

Comment on A War Against Fire by JCH

$
0
0

Hogwash – they made a prediction of physics playing out on the earth. GISS is the best earth we have.

Comment on A War Against Fire by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$
0
0

fairly flat, but Reynolds oiv2 isn’t all that popular with the alarmist set.

Comment on A War Against Fire by David Springer

$
0
0

Here it is. 48.7%

“Nearly half of sunlight arrives as invisible “near-infrared” radiation. Cool-colored roofs are designed to reflect this invisible light. (Image courtesy of Heat Island Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)”

Comment on A War Against Fire by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$
0
0

JCH I predict the Earth will warm by .31 C degrees by 2026 +/- 0.31 C degrees. btw 70% of GISS is ERSST which used to incorporate Reynolds oiv2 until someone decided oiv2 was cooler than the liked and then they jacked things up because they liked buckets.


Comment on A War Against Fire by David Springer

$
0
0

Istvan – to a very limited extent “not worth paying attention to”. The Sky-Dragon Slayers are a much more apt example of unworthy.

The Art of War, Chapter III – Strategic Attack, by Sun-Tzu

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

Oreskes and Mann are definitely the enemy. A lot of people listen to them. It’s critical to know what they are saying.

Comment on A War Against Fire by David Springer

$
0
0

@stevereincarnated

Complaining to Curry of someone over posting (quantity and/or volume) will land them in moderation eventually. The rule of thumb she enforces is anything over 5% of the comments from any one individual constitutes over posting. Babbleboy Richard “Nyquist” LH has hit nearly 20% in two recent articles. I made Curry aware of it. He’s not long for this blog if he continues.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick

$
0
0

Pat Michaels and I published a journal article summarizing our taxonomy of funding-induced biases. We used F1000Research because they first publish then do peer review and we have some case studies in the works so we needed to get the taxonomy out where we could cite it.

See “A Taxonomy to Support the Statistical Study of Funding-induced Biases in Science” at http://f1000research.com/articles/4-886/v1.

Interestingly the first review was very negative, but it did not even address our primary results. It was written by the folks at Retraction Watch, who are journalists, not scientists. You would think that they would welcome a taxonomy of biases. My guess is that they just do not like the libertarian Cato Institute.. In any case I wrote a reply rejecting their review.

Comment on A War Against Fire by RichardLH

$
0
0

Ever wondered why the sky and ocean are blue, the sun yellow and the vegetation green? Nature does not reject that which it needs.

Comment on A War Against Fire by RichardLH

$
0
0

“Complaining to Curry of someone over posting (quantity and/or volume) will land them in moderation eventually. ”

I’m sure she has my email if required.

Comment on A War Against Fire by curryja

$
0
0

Richard, you have made 166 of the last 1000 comments, which is too much by about a factor of 4. Please slow it down, make your comments count.

Comment on A War Against Fire by David Springer

$
0
0

Short timescales, physicist Dave. See my analogy examples to Mosher of positive longitudinal stability in aircraft with a moving center of gravity and constant current sources with a varying load in electronics. You need a feedback of course and that’s TCS. The constant pitch or current is ECS. As you said there’s a lag but it can be pretty quick via clouds reflecting more sunlight. Higher CO2 results in greater longwave back-radiation which immediately evaporates more water on the ocean surface which almost immediately creates more clouds which reduces solar power reaching the water’s surface.

I’ll offer the following in evidence of a ceiling temperature where TCS effects a cloud feedback which negates further heating:

Note at the end of each glacial epic temperature shoots up like a rocket then bounces off a hard ceiling of approximately the same temperature on each cycle. I submit to you the ceiling temperature is created by percentage of cloud cover. Once the ocean surface warms up to near its terminal temperature in the tropics and sub-tropics (~30C) strong convection dominates which limits any further increase. Where goes SST land follows like a dog on a leash.

ECS, by the way, isn’t a constant IMO. It can’t be if there’s a ceiling imposed by cloud cover. The cooler the planet the greater the value of ECS. At some point ECS reaches zero as the planet warms.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick

$
0
0

As mentioned above, Pat Michaels and I have submitted a case study of quantified bias to a journal. Here is the abstract:

“Semantic analysis of U.S. Federal budget documents suggests that the climate science budget is heavily biased in favor of the paradigm of human-induced climate change. The competing paradigm of natural variability is barely mentioned. We call this bias “paradigm protection.” We develop a method to quantify this bias, a method with general applicability in bias research. We define sets of words that express core concepts for each paradigm. Then we measure the rates of occurrence of these words in the documents. The occurrence ratio we find is about 80 to one and is roughly constant across multiple documents, a clear indication of paradigm bias. This semantic approach can be used wherever there are competing paradigms in science.”

In short the ratio of core pro-AGW centric words to natural variability centric words in the USGCRP 60 to 80 page research budget reports is about 80 to one. The natural variability words rarely occur. These are the annual reports to Congress on the $2.5 billion/year U.S. climate change research program, which is clearly biased in favor of AGW.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by curryja

Comment on A War Against Fire by David Springer

$
0
0

@physicistdave

Assuming that GAT can be explained by the frosh physics you offer is precisely the problem.

Please comment on whether you believe that ECS is the constant value that frosh physics implies.

Comment on A War Against Fire by David Springer

$
0
0
BINGO!! Give the man a cigar. [my emphasis] captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3 | January 3, 2016 at 7:26 am | <i>At the point where climate shifts into a new ice age you could make a case for negative sensitivity, but <b>the real driving force would be albedo</b>. In reality, sensitivity to CO2 would just be overwhelmed by other forcings and not technically feedbacks to CO2. I guess the important thing added to the debate is that <b>sensitivity to CO2 is not linear and using a linear definition isn’t very useful</b> :)</i>

Comment on A War Against Fire by David Springer

$
0
0

p.s. @physicistDave

You may address me as polymathDave in the future. Climate is a complex subject that requires deep practical knowledge and understanding of everything from cosmology to biology. Write that down.

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images