Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog


Articles on this Page

(showing articles 1 to 50 of 50)
(showing articles 1 to 50 of 50)

    0 0

    The people saying the models are running hot are either not looking at the models or not looking at the global mean surface temperature or both. You need to ask them what they are talking about.

    0 0

    The actual quote is that I hadn't studied the statistics of extremes. As the entire discussion was on Hurst effects in Nile River flows - it became pparent that he didn't know what he was talking about. Demetris Koutsoyiannis discussed the difference between white noise and the regime like nature of Nile variability - and it was claimed that hydrologists are thus missing the extremes and putting people at risk. White noise models are not used by hydrologists to predict extremes - so it is all a total nonsense.

    0 0

    An average of arbitrarily selected runs in an opportunistic ensembale? I don't think it interesting to pursue where Gavin lies and prevaricates - I don't put it past him - again let's see actual science and not a climate propaganda tweet. I have posted an alternative just above. Which is real if any and does it mean anything at all?

    0 0

    Not claimed by Demetris Koutsoyiannis - who is a very accomplished hydrologist.

    0 0

    Sure, you could go to AR4 and find it there. When those people say the models are running hot, they were not looking at AR4 and the GMST. Did you care what they used exactly? No, but it wasn't the most relevant data to use when assessing the IPCC projections about global warming trends. Gavin sets that straight and you don't like it, of course.

    0 0

    Not quite not liking it - I just don't give a rat's arse. Models will only be correct by chance - there is nothing rigorous here. Does this keep going over your head - or are you just fabricating narratives out of fairy floss?

    0 0

    That's why I prefer data. I only mentioned this because there is a positive post at WUWT on this from normally skeptical Fabius Maximus, so it can catch on, because they can now (at last) see that the "models running hot" meme doesn't stand up to a closer look. Next time someone tells you the models are running hot, just link that to them. I'm just helping. FM says just get past that and focus on the real questions. Obviously there is some denialist cage-rattling going on over at WUWT when confronted with this, but I think it is saner here.

    0 0

    What I keep saying is that models run hot, cold and in between. The question remains - has Gavin adjusted his opportunistic ensemble member selection? That's the sort of information we need in science. But please - I also don't give a rat's arse about the answer.

    0 0

    CMIP3 would be all the models used for projections in AR4, no selecting. You can go to AR4 published 10 years ago and see the same thing, but you won't, of course. Just remember the bottom line, models - not running hot. Gamechanger, right?

    0 0

    This would be one solution selected from each model selected for inclusion in the opportunistic ensemble - from 1000's of feasible but chaotically divergent solutions of any particular model both hotter and cooler on the basis of a 'posteriori solution behavior'? And no - the game changer would be if you could or would allow yourself to understand. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full McWilliams is information dense and difficult - I have little hope.

    0 0

    Yep, they chose them in 2007, and they are correct in 2017. That's the point.

    0 0

    You don't know that.

    0 0

    You can go to the AR4 document to check. Turns out the first three IPCC reports also had it correct, labeled FAR, SAR and TAR. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-26.jpeg

    0 0

    Robert I Ellison: <i>The actual quote is that I hadn’t studied the statistics of extremes. As the entire discussion was on Hurst effects in Nile River flows – it became pparent that he didn’t know what he was talking about. </i> Just so. For planning dams, the study of the extremes of river flow is more important than the study of Hurst effects -- and for Oroville in particular, the Hurst effects in the Nile river are irrelevant. That is not a case of confusion. Anyway, I promise not to bother you anymore.

    0 0

    You mean to say that they all got it wrong - without notably improving over time.

    0 0

    You mean to say that they all got it wrong – without notably improving over time.

    0 0

    Your incessant sermons are impotent and boring, yimmy. Trump rules! Smarmy alarmists drool.

    0 0

    They always spanned the observations, but got more precise later for sure. The trend is correct at 0.2 C per decade since 1990 through 2017. I think you are beginning to understand Gavin's plot now. Glad to help.

    0 0

    "Why were Pharaoh’s wise men unable to anticipate the seven year long bounty and seven year famine that Joseph interpreted and predicted? After six years of “perpetual” drought, California is now deluged with the highest precipitation for January and February on human record (Sacbee2017b). Have dam designers, regulators, and climate modelers fully grappled with the “climate persistence” that Joseph warned of and planned for? . Such natural extremes from climate persistence are quantitatively modeled by Harold E. Hurst (1951) in his breakthrough hydrological analysis of the 813 year record of Nile river flows (Rikert 2014)." https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/17/will-the-oroville-dam-survive-the-arkstorm/ The error originated in the post - and was ineptly defended by Matthew as Hurst effects being the 'statistics of extremes'. For probable maximum precipitation the largest recorded storm in the catchment is amplified with consideration of physical factors. Extremes there may be in very long term data - but Hurst effects are in fact the statistics of regimes in dynamical chaotic systems - something that Matthew has serious problems with. Now he is saying something else and pretending that was what he meant all along? Hmmmm.

    0 0

    Your rabbit hole is a deep and dark place. The model ensembles do not have a trend - they have a range that has not notably improved. "More famously, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (21) shows the spread among climate models for global warming predictions. One of its results is an ensemble-mean prediction of ≈3°C increase in global mean surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration with an ensemble spread of ≈50% on either side. The predicted value for the climate sensitivity and its intermodel spread have remained remarkably stable throughout the modern assessment era from the National Research Counsel (NRC) in 1979 (22) to the anticipated results in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (foreshadowed, e.g., in ref. 3) despite diligent tuning and after great research effort and progress in many aspects of simulation plausibility. " op. cit. Each individual model has a range of solutions - called irreducible imprecision.

    0 0

    White water is a wave breaking. It's the only thing that disrupts the skin layer. Reformation time is mere seconds. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431160600836026 Reformation time for the thermal skin layer of the ocean M. Reza Mobasheri Pages 5285-5299 | Received 20 Jul 2005, Accepted 26 Sep 2005, Published online: 31 Jan 2007 Download citation http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431160600836026 Abstract The reformation time of the temperature gradient within the thermal skin layer of the sea surface (top few hundred microns to a few millimeters) after a disruptive event such as wave breaking was calculated. A theoretical model of the heat transfer mechanisms in the skin layer was developed which takes into account molecular conduction, emission of infra‐red (IR) radiation within the water, the evaporation of water, sensible heat flux and net IR emission at the water–atmosphere interface. The time for the skin to develop fully after the cessation of a disruptive event such as wave breaking, was found to be dependant upon the skin thickness. Using equations developed by Fedorov and Ginsberg for the skin thickness, the skin reformation time was calculated for different net heat fluxes, wind speeds and water temperatures. It was found that the reformation time could be as large as 40 s for small values of net heat flux, low wind speed and low water temperature, and on the order of 1 s for higher wind speeds and higher water temperature. In order to determine if the skin would reform fully, it was necessary to determine if the mean time between disruptive events was greater or less than reformation time. It was concluded that the wide range of the coefficient of proportionality λ′ in the equation ΔT = (λ′H tυ)/(kU*) reported in the literature may be partly attributable to measurements being taken when the skin layer was not fully developed.

    0 0

    The ocean thermal skin layer is colder by 0.5C than the underlying water. Even when it does mix downward it makes the water below colder not warmer. Duh. Banton you can't figure this out using common sense. Not that you have any common sense but even if you did it isn't sufficient.

    0 0

    Cold water should sink, right? So if the skin layer is colder why doesn't it sink? Does the phrase "surface tension" ring any bells in your science-starved brain?

    0 0

    Shut up and learn something about surface tension: http://www.csun.edu/~ml727939/coursework/695/floating%20needle/floating%20needle.htm

    0 0

    Robert I Ellison: <i>Why were Pharaoh’s wise men unable to anticipate the seven year long bounty and seven year famine that Joseph interpreted and predicted? </i>

    0 0

    Breaking News: US is still out of the Paris Climate Accord. Trump is unleashing US fossil fuel juggernaut to spur economic growth. "Deniers" are running the US gov't. Hallelujah. Sanity prevailed. I don't really give a tinker's damn about anything else.

    0 0

    Joseph told the pharaoh that his dreams came from God. Lessor mortals depend on 'persistence'.

    0 0

    Aw, come on David, the US will be far too competitive on world markets. Can't you impose a 20% 'solidarity' tax on energy and send it straight to the IPCC who will use it very wisely I am sure. tonyb

    0 0

    We would still be far too competitive.

    0 0

    It'll be 50 years before there's enough data to test that hypothesis. Statistical significance is a bitch.

    0 0

    In a field where everything is, "dependent on modeling assumptions," how can we ever be uncritical and lacking skepticism of scientific findings, especially when academics tell us they've digitized nature and can now predict the future?

    0 0

    <i>Concepts for dealing with complexity of weather and climate </i> Weak echo of Robert I Ellison -- who has cited Gihl, Dykstra, Tsonis and others.

    0 0

    I similarly was curious about this, but no access to the full paper. Decrease of all TCs by 22.7% but increase in the ratio of intense by 6.6%? Does this mean an absolute decrease of intense TCs also? Weak and intense TCs are not separate phenomena. One factor which limits TC occurrence, namely wind shear, also limits intensity. In reality, models can't be any better than the same old suspect parameterizations, so all of these pronouncements should be taken with a grain of salt ( from a drop of seawater ).

    0 0

    Sure, or you can take the line on the AR4 graph I plotted and calculate a trend of 0.2 C per decade, which it as been in reality too. Not 0.1 or 0.3, but 0.2, and explainable at that size.

    0 0

    That's a lotta links, Judith. Where do you find the time?

    0 0

    Thomas these days its all done by a bot. A Russian bot one week, American the next and on the third week we get to vote for the bot. I think a North Korean one would be interesting. Better read the links now I suppose Do svidaniya! tonyb

    0 0

    "The conventional view on the connection between the AMOC and Arctic sea ice is that a weakening of the AMOC should reduce ocean poleward heat transport and, hence, expand sea ice. However, can sea ice changes affect the AMOC?" Really? the Gulf Stream has not slowed, so if anything a slow AMOC means increased poleward heat transport because of reduced overturning. Such that a slower AMOC drives a warm AMO, and hence reduces Arctic sea ice.

    0 0

    AGU’s new data policy [link] Read the whole thing. My work is done. Whew. Only took 10 years of pushing. Now we just need skeptics to share their data. And now we also have the mechanisms to store the data securely and forever. IPFS. And coming soon. ..filecoin.

    0 0

    Plug in CO2 and draw a straight line upwards... easy.

    0 0

    <i> Madden-Julian Oscillation remotely accelerates ocean upwelling to abruptly terminate 1997/1998 El Niño </i> Dr Curry, thank you again for linking to these interesting technical papers. That one strikes me as a step forward in the "normal science" vein of analysis. It will be interesting to see how well their model performs with respect to future El Niños.

    0 0

    A rule of thumb approach to the issue of attribution is provided by the recent news report by the UK Met Office about the end of the pause due to a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, where they report 15-year rates of warming: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2017/a-pacific-flip-triggers-the-end-of-the-recent-slowdown It is generally considered that the warming in the 1915-1950 period was essentially natural, as human emissions at the time were very small. We can approach the issue by considering that natural oscillations that continue to operate are responsible for part of the observed warming. The excess warming that can be attributed to human causes then is about 0.05°C/decade, or half a degree per century. That works out at about 0.38°C since 1950. This is a far more realistic approach to the problem of attribution than to consider that all the warming since 1950 is of human origin. By reducing emissions we might be able to affect a small fraction of the human caused warming, but not the natural warming. http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/615691-1.png

    0 0

    I have some fun new stuff: http://www.cfact.org/2017/09/16/climate-gov-rivals-nasa-in-climate-alarmism/ http://www.cfact.org/2017/09/19/harvey-defies-attribution-to-global-warming/ http://www.cfact.org/2017/09/23/harvey-attribution-games-begin-at-noaa/ Attribution is the new alarmist game. Busy, busy.

    0 0

    Or a troll farm (brings up a wonderful mental image, by the way).

    0 0

    Why not the 14-16 El Niño?

    0 0

    The snag in understanding global warming is due to infrared absorption of CO2, "seems to be," says J. Curry, "the actual physical mechanism."

    0 0

    "The doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations has become a standard experiment in climate science." Whaaat?

    0 0

    "The comprehensive assessment to attribute a human impact on the 2015 European summer drought presented in this study illustrates the complexity of the exercise. We find that the drought could be more likely , less likely or unaffected by anthropogenic forcing, depending on the methodology and data source." If the drought is associated with negative NAO, then it would the wrong sign to associate with anthropogenic forcing. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html

    0 0

    I have 7 science news bots. Three climate news bots, 3 A.I. bots (is that redundant?) and 2 Genetic Engineering bots. It's amazingly addictive.

    0 0

    Exactly, I was questioning why the disaster relief efforts aren't being quantified anywhere online on a timely basis. Local and national news isn't reporting the damage, need, and response efforts insightful. So, like a dope, I started searching for Federal information management related to current disaster response. I was logically looking for a single source/site. Then I discovered this "teach": https://training.fema.gov/emiweb/downloads/is7unit_3.pdf It occurs to me, DHS was created to ensure consolidated information sharing and delivery yet appears to fail because it doesn't act as the first responder to consolidate and deliver insight before Federal assistance is authorized. Example: the current operational status, EPA assessment criteria, etc. can be done in real time for water treatment, power plants, etc. Why isn't it being done?

    0 0

    AGU data policy. The amazing thing is not the new policy of open archiving, but that it only comes now when the need was obvious with Climategate.