Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Emergent constraints on climate sensitivity: Part II by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

Lets see if I can explain the logic.

You have system you want to model. Every group tries different approaches, there are over 100. The models have spread. Since they all use the same inputs, the spread is a result of modelling choices and inherent uncertainty in the complex process. To reduce the spread ( structural plus inherent uncertainty) you have some options: run each model many times ( wall time kills you) or find a model selection criteria.

The first obvious criteria is using temperature as a constraint. Pick those models that get temperature correct. Then we you look at the ECS value of the selected models you get an answer constrained by matching temperature.

But temperature change is a part of ECS calculation and some models are indirectlyy tuned by temperature or closely related variables.

So you look for an EMERGENT property: That is a property or metric that is not directly tied to inputs or tied to temperature. You select models based on this emergent ( develops as a result of programmed physics) property, so in the end you are using one emergent metric to constrain a different emergent metric (ECS)

Interesting approach to reducing structural uncertainty.

The good thing is it focuses your attention on areas not directly related to your inputs ( forcings– the denominator of ECS) or temperature ( the numerator of ECS)


Comment on Sea level rise acceleration (or not). Part V: detection & attribution by climatereason

$
0
0

jch

interesting data on the pdo.

Do you have data on the pdo dates any further back than 1909 or was that never calculated?

tonyb

Comment on Sea level rise acceleration (or not). Part V: detection & attribution by Robert I. Ellison

$
0
0

“Curry’s resident thug bully A”o”… You’re a freakin’ creep. ” JCH

They seem to imagine that I give a rat’s arse. But a very short comment bringing attention to such nasty little snipes goes. Obviously Judy missed it. I wouldn’t read all comments here either.

Comment on Sea level rise acceleration (or not). Part V: detection & attribution by Robert I. Ellison

Comment on Sea level rise acceleration (or not). Part V: detection & attribution by Hifast

$
0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="https://hifast.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/sea-level-rise-acceleration-or-not-part-v-detection-attribution/" rel="nofollow">Climate Collections</a>.

Comment on Sea level rise acceleration (or not). Part V: detection & attribution by climatereason

Comment on Sea level rise acceleration (or not). Part V: detection & attribution by JCH

Comment on Sea level rise acceleration (or not). Part V: detection & attribution by JCH

$
0
0

Fig S3 from Wills supplementary information:


Comment on Sea level rise acceleration (or not). Part V: detection & attribution by JCH

$
0
0
Above figures are from: <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL076327" rel="nofollow"><b>Disentangling Global Warming, Multidecadal Variability, and El Niño in Pacific Temperatures</b></a> <blockquote>Abstract A key challenge in climate science is to separate observed temperature changes into components due to internal variability and responses to external forcing. Extended integrations of forced and unforced climate models are often used for this purpose. Here we demonstrate a novel method to separate modes of internal variability from global warming based on differences in time scale and spatial pattern, without relying on climate models. We identify uncorrelated components of Pacific sea surface temperature variability due to global warming, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Our results give statistical representations of PDO and ENSO that are consistent with their being separate processes, operating on different time scales, but are otherwise consistent with canonical definitions. We isolate the multidecadal variability of the PDO and find that it is confined to midlatitudes; tropical sea surface temperatures and their teleconnections mix in higher‐frequency variability. This implies that midlatitude PDO anomalies are more persistent than previously thought.</blockquote>

Comment on Emergent constraints on climate sensitivity: Part II by angech

$
0
0

Too complicated.
Do you have a simple scientific summary?
Re emergent correlation you say
“Sherwood S is meant to operate through SW cloud feedback, in CMIP5 models it actually gains correlation almost entirely through other terms”
So it did correlate? And the SW bit lacked the expected correlation, had no correlation or was actively negative wiping out the other correlation?
Mind you negative correlation is still scientifically very important.

Sherwood D, which predicts tropical low cloud changes due to boundary layer (BL) drying by convection is credible??
In 2 models only.
So in your opinion, and others, not really.
And does not help with ECS.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison

$
0
0

Well that confirms that Jimmy doesn’t live in our world.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

$
0
0

You’re using false narratives. Not good.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by nickreality65

Comment on Week in review – science edition by nickreality65

$
0
0

You addressed exactly ZERO of my critical points so go get some SCIENCE and try again.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Allan (@Allan48933312)

$
0
0

I’ll just say one thing. Reradiation.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison

$
0
0

Jimmy has a very flexible progressive narrative.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ulric Lyons

$
0
0

The stratospheric pathway for Arctic impacts on midlatitude climate:

“Recent evidence from both observations and model simulations suggests that an Arctic sea ice reduction tends to cause a negative Arctic Oscillation (AO) phase with severe winter weather in the Northern Hemisphere…
These results are highly consistent with observations that following a low summertime sea ice cover in the Arctic, the wintertime AO tends to be in its negative phase”

The AO was positive during 2007-08 and 2016-17 winters (DJF):
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/monthly.ao.index.b50.current.ascii.table

I am surprised that they have not looked at the noise level and noted negative deviations in sea ice extent lagging the negative AO episodes by around 5-10 days. Solar variability strongly effects the AO at less than weekly scales, but without knowing that, the only alternative explanations are various tail wags the dog theories about what else in the climate system could make the AO go negative, when rising CO2 should apparently be making it more positive. Trying to work out what drives what without a solar forcing frame of reference for the AO must drive people crazy.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

$
0
0

I give you factual and numerical arguments, and you drag your prejudices into it for no apparent reason, other than being unable to counter the facts, and wanting to change the subject. Who thinks the west is “too rich and profligate”? The east? The poor countries? The scientists? The greens? The pinkos? Your prejudices are showing. Improve your arguments.

Comment on Sea level rise acceleration (or not). Part V: detection & attribution by matthewrmarler

$
0
0
JCH: <i>matthew/others – </i> thank you. I got it.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ulric Lyons

$
0
0

It’s a negative feedback, just like the AMO warming, and they happened from exactly the same time, along with changes in the vertical distribution of atmospheric water vapour.

Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images