“rather that modellers need to be more open and honest about their limitations, something they seem to find hard to do”
Really? No.
The problem is that many climate deniers need to be more open and honest about the usefulness of models.
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot
↧
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Erica
lolwot | November 10, 2012 at 5:47 am |
What you don’t understand is that the CO2 forcing is so large that it dominates over all those other factors you mention.
The problem being that there is no way yet of measuring this, it is just an assumption plugged in to give a desired conclusion.
What we see here is a typical alarmist trying to play up the significance of human CO2 emissions by presenting opinion as fact.
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot
“The problem being that there is no way yet of measuring this, it is just an assumption plugged in to give a desired conclusion.”
No, it’s a well founded calculation based on a host of atmospheric and lab measurements. The fact is the evidence for the domination of the CO2 forcing is immensely strong. What other forcing can you suggest that could conceivably approach a sustained 3.7wm-2 this century?
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Montalbano
So TOA flux imbalance – a prerequisite for confirming and measuring AGW – is only estimated/assumed, the reason presumably being that we do not yet have the means to measure it.
So that means, we have no empirical grounds for assuming any heat has gone “missing”.
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by JamesG
The models are all that give us a scary exponential extrapolation from 0.7 degrees last century.to thermageddon in the next centuury.
The models were also the only method used to separate out man’s contribution to warming from the natural variation which the IPCC then converted into man being adjudged guilty for current warming.
But……the models were never fit for either purpose.
Ergo besides all the phoney assumptions all that is known for a fact is that temperature was rising but now it has stopped. It may rise again, or it may cool. If it does rise we cannot say it is not natural and we cannot say it will be anything other than benign or beneficial.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Sullivan
The fact remains is there is no known way to objectively measure the global CO2 effect. It is just assumed and implied (largely for the purposes of a given outcome, under conditions of political funding).
As for other factors, ever heard of natural variations? If and when these are quantified, we can then get a better handle on the big picture
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot
It hasn’t stopped. The choice isn’t between it “rising again” or “cooling”. The choice is between it continuing to rise and stopping rising. It hasn’t yet been shown to have stopped.
“If it does rise we cannot say it is not natural”
If it does continue rising you’ll have a hard time selling that one given skeptics predict cooling from natural factors, not warming.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Wojick
Here in the USA the lame duck Congress is the big show. Sen. Rockefeller will have a vote on legislation to delay EPA regulation of CO2. But the fiscal cliff sequestration legislation takes center stage with all sorts of odd amendments possible. Science funding is a big issue as well.
After that, Kyoto expires and climate legislation is impossible so EPA regulation is probably the only big climate legislation game in the next Congress. Science funding will also be an issue.
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Edim
“What other forcing can you suggest that could conceivably approach a sustained 3.7wm-2 this century?”
lolwot, nobody’s buying that wild speculation anymore.
http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p623/Oefinell/30yrLR.jpg
Even the 30-year linear trend started dropping in ~2005 and it looks like it will be 0.0 in 2020.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot
Calculations might not be measurements, but if the calculations are upon quantifies that have been measured then they are far more substantial than some plucked-out-of-the-air assumption.
Climate skeptics want to pretend that anything that isn't measured is pure assumption, eg made-up out of thin air. There's a great story on realclimate about <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/trying-to-shoot-the-messenger/" / rel="nofollow">people dismissing calculations in this way</a>.
What natural factors could conceivably produce the equivalent of a sustained 3.7wm-2 forcing this century? None are known or feasible.
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Erica
lolwot | November 10, 2012 at 6:29 am
<I>[Warming] hasn’t stopped. </I>
The earth has stopped warming for 16 years now.
<i>The choice isn’t between it “rising again” or “cooling”. The choice is between it continuing to rise and stopping rising. </i>
Wishing it doesn't make it so. If you had an argument to support this, you would doubtless have supplied it.
<i>If it does continue rising you’ll have a hard time selling that one given skeptics predict cooling from natural factors, not warming.</i>
Skeptics do, do they?
If you keep this up, we might need to put you in the special ward along with Myrrh and Robert.
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by JamesG
I use numerical models every day. I also create them and I sell those creations. They are not just useful for me but essential and highly accurate. However they are all properly validated and try to solve problems that are relatively easy to solve. Many problems are not so easy to solve and modelling the climate is the most difficult thing you could ever attempt. Climate models have never been remotely correct either spatially or temporally and thus are being used for a purpose to which they are of no use whatsoever. Understand?
By the way, as you are on record as a believer in what might be mathematically described as a ‘fictional temperature’ ie a temperature we should be seeing but actually don’t get unless we extend a linear trend over a highly nonlinear system, who exactly is the real climate denier?
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by lolwot
“lolwot, nobody’s buying that wild speculation anymore.”
3.7wm-2 forcing for a doubling of CO2 isn’t speculation. Its based on well founded calculation upon well founded measurements. Of course climate deniers will deny the evidence any way they can, including pretending that solid science is “wild speculation”.
“Even the 30-year linear trend started dropping in ~2005 and it looks like it will be 0.0 in 2020.”
The real wild speculation appears to be your own.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by curryja
This is an interesting article: On climate change, government is not the answer
http://washingtonexaminer.com/on-climate-change-government-is-not-the-answer/article/2512907#.UJ46g-2Q2ZY
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Particular Physicist
So CERES suggests there is <b>eight times as much missing heat</b> for Trembleberth to agonize over.
Or maybe just eight times more cooling than previously thought, models out by 800 %.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper
Faustino 11/11 4.50am:
Good summation of the ‘Irish problem’ unsolved despite 114
commissions etc. My background i s similat to yous w/out the Irish. Scotland also suffered its lean years, 1169-1703,
when thousands died.
What lifted the Scots out of the mire was the contested Treaty
of Union with England in1707. While the seat of government
resided in England, Scotland retained its legal system, and,
importantly, Scottish merchants now had access to England’s
sea lanes and markets and this made all the difference,
Scotland, unlike Ireland, ended up with the best of both worlds,
they gained peace and order from a strong adminaistrative state
and freedom to develop w/out undue interference from England.
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Myrrh
Re the AGWSF modelling empty space and not the real gas atmosphere around us, and to put Pekka out of his misery wondering why he doesn’t have sound in his world – see my post:
November 11, 2012 at 4:24 am
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/09/climate-model-discussion-thread/#comment-266473
And, Pekka: Pekka Pirilä | November 7, 2012 at 12:52 pm
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/05/uncertainty-in-observations-of-the-earths-energy-balance/#comment-265000
It’s essential to understand that the atmosphere is essentially empty space with molecules far apart. There’s approximately 1000 times more space per molecule than in liquid at atmospheric pressure.
The evaporation of one molecule occurs when it happens to receive so much energy from collisions with neighboring molecules in the water that it breaks the attractive bonds. The gas around has very little to do with that at all normal pressures. Only at very high pressures start the gas molecules get so close to each other that interaction with neighboring molecules has any significant effect.
Pekka is describing a fictional world created out of the imaginary ideal gas molecule, which has none of the properties of a real gas molecule. The terms ideal and real are technical terms in this subject. And ideal gas doesn’t exist. An ideal gas doesn’t have volume, attraction, weight – it is not subject to gravity. An ideal gas is an imaginary hard dot of nothing with no inelastic collisions zipping around at great speeds bouncing off each other in all that empty space AGWSF says is your atmosphere.
In other words, you don’t have any atmosphere at all in your world.
Our real world atmosphere is the heavy, voluminous real gas Air, this is a fluid, all gases and liquids are fluids.
At atmosphere these real world real gas molecules have real volume, they are constrained by the other real gas molecules around them so they do not “travel at great speeds through empty space under their own molecular momentum to diffuse and thoroughly mix” because they don’t have empty space around them, but other molecules with volume which stop them doing this. AGWScienceFiction has no Van der Waals..
You have no evaporation as per real world physics, you have created an imaginary scenario of ‘lots of collisions by ideal gas molecules’, without explaining how and why such an event could even happen..
Real world evaporation of real gas water molecules is because they are lighter than the fluid real gas above them at 0°C, and when these molecules get heated they become even lighter because less dense and so rise in Air and then colder more dense real gas molecules sink beneath, this is convection in fluids.
Convection in fluids is how we get our winds – when volumes of the fluid gas air are differentially heated and become less dense and lighter than air and rise, and volumes of colder, denser real gas molecules of fluid air sink displacing the hotter, flowing beneath. Hot Air Rises, Cold Air Sinks.
This is how we get our WINDS. Wind is a convection current in the fluid real gas Air, of a ‘package of air’, a volume of air on the move. On the same principle as convection currents in the fluid liquid water ocean, where they are called Currents.
This is how we get our great Equator to Poles Winds, when the land and water are heated intensely at the equator and heat the volumes of air above. This heated volume of fluid gas air becomes less dense and rises and flows towards the poles as drawn there when the heavier, denser colder volumes of the fluid gas air at the poles sinks beneath displacing the hotter and flows to the equator.
It takes great heating of land and water at the equator to get us our great equator to poles wind system.
In the real world where gases are real and have volume and weight is how we get clouds. When real gas fluid water vapour rises and with its great heat capacity takes heat away from the surface and in the colder heights loses this heat and condenses to liquid water or ice, forming clouds.
This does not happen in an atmosphere of empty space. It takes real gas which has volume to effect these phenomena we observe every day in our real atmosphere. Our real world weather systems.
Can you work out now how we get sound?
Think of how a wave travels in the ocean, like a Mexican wave. The water doesn’t move from one side of the ocean to the other, it is the disturbance to the fluid water which is moving, the energy disturbing the heavy fluid as it travels through.
Sound in the fluid gas air similarly, as the sound travels it causes the molecules of air vibrate and to bump into their neighbours setting them into vibration who in turn pass it on, as the sound passes the molecules settle back into their place. The molecules of air do not move, that is wind.
The Comic Cartoon Greenhouse Efffect world does not have the real gas atmosphere, it has substituted ideal gas in empty space.
This empty space ideal gas fictional world is why the models can’t model the Water Cycle and why they have no rain in the Carbon Cycle, all pure clean rain is the attraction of water and carbon dioxide which is carbonic acid, because ideal gases have no weight or attraction or volume and are not subject to gravity. They don’t exist.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Myrrh
Apologies, I missed out a close italics.
This should be:
Real world evaporation of real gas water molecules is because they are lighter than the fluid real gas above them at 0°C, and when these molecules get heated they become even lighter because less dense and so rise in Air and then colder more dense real gas molecules sink beneath, this is convection in fluids.
Convection in fluids is how we get our winds – when volumes of the fluid gas air are differentially heated and become less dense and lighter than air and rise, and volumes of colder, denser real gas molecules of fluid air sink displacing the hotter, flowing beneath. Hot Air Rises, Cold Air Sinks.
This is how we get our WINDS. Wind is a convection current in the fluid real gas Air, of a ‘package of air’, a volume of air on the move. On the same principle as convection currents in the fluid liquid water ocean, where they are called Currents.
This is how we get our great Equator to Poles Winds, when the land and water are heated intensely at the equator and heat the volumes of air above. This heated volume of fluid gas air becomes less dense and rises and flows towards the poles as drawn there when the heavier, denser colder volumes of the fluid gas air at the poles sinks beneath displacing the hotter and flows to the equator.
It takes great heating of land and water at the equator to get us our great equator to poles wind system.
In the real world where gases are real and have volume and weight is how we get clouds. When real gas fluid water vapour rises and with its great heat capacity takes heat away from the surface and in the colder heights loses this heat and condenses to liquid water or ice, forming clouds.
This does not happen in an atmosphere of empty space. It takes real gas which has volume to effect these phenomena we observe every day in our real atmosphere. Our real world weather systems.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper
Mon dieu, Faustino, guilty aussi of treason!
je vous demande pardon.
Say, Faustino, you may, or may not , be a very good dancer, but you do write very good letters to ‘the Australian’ newspaper.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper
Chief Hydrologist 11/11 @ 4.51am:
‘Yes’ ter bottom up conservation initiatives, soil and water
conservation, carbon management, growing more food.
Projects like these are THE WAY TER GO.
Listen up, climate modellers in cloud towers, whilin away …
Come down and see fer yerselves!
( Pesky climatologists, don’y want ter know, different agenda …)
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
