Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
RegGuheert said:
Stoaty said:
RegGuheert said:
Climate scientists have a ridiculously bad track record at making ANY predictions about ANYTHING. Any trust and faith put in them is horribly misguided, IMO.
Well, there is that little thing they predicted 20 years ago about global temperatures getting warmer... which has come to pass.
Yep. And they got that wrong, as well. The peak of this El Niño was the same as the peak of the El Niño in 1998.
They didn't say anything about weather, this is about climate (30 year average). However, each decade has been warmer than the last, as predicted. If you are going to cherry pick, you should do a better job of hiding it.
 
Stoaty said:
RegGuheert said:
Stoaty said:
Well, there is that little thing they predicted 20 years ago about global temperatures getting warmer... which has come to pass.
Yep. And they got that wrong, as well. The peak of this El Niño was the same as the peak of the El Niño in 1998.
They didn't say anything about weather, this is about climate (30 year average). However, each decade has been warmer than the last, as predicted. If you are going to cherry pick, you should do a better job of hiding it.
Doesn't matter if they get the prediction wrong, because they will just change it. Global warming changed to climate change. Warming changed to oh the oceans got warmer.
 
Modelling climate change: the role of unresolved processes
BY PAUL D. WILLIAMS
Department of Meteorology, Centre for Global Atmospheric Modelling,
University of Reading, PO Box 243, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6BB, UK
([email protected])

Our understanding of the climate system has been revolutionized recently, by the development of sophisticated computer models.
The predictions of such models are used to formulate international protocols, intended to mitigate the severity of global warming
and its impacts. Yet, these models are not perfect representations of reality, because they remove from explicit consideration
many physical processes which are known to be key aspects of the climate system, but which are too small or fast
to be modelled.
The purpose of this paper is to give a personal perspective of the current state of knowledge regarding
the problem of unresolved scales in climate models. A recent novel solution to the problem is discussed, in which it is proposed,
somewhat counter-intuitively, that the performance of models may be improved by adding random noise to represent
the unresolved processes.

1. Introduction

It is difficult to think of a more complicated physical system than Earth’s climate. Governed by a combination of the laws
of fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, radiative energy transfer and chemistry, the climate system is composed of the
atmosphere, the oceans, ice sheets and land.
Each of these four subsystems is coupled to each of the other three,
through the exchange of immense quantities of energy, momentum and matter (Peixo´to & Oort 1984). Nonlinear
interactions occur on a dizzying range of spatial and temporal scales, both within and between the subsystems,
leading to an intricate and delicate network of feedback loops. But climate modellers must not be dismayed by the
enormity of the challenge facing them, for, though it is difficult to think of a more complicated physical system,
it is equally difficult to think of one that has a greater impact on all the people of the world.

4. Discussion
A general review of the problem of unresolved scales in climate models has been presented. Important unresolved
features include ocean eddies, gravity waves, atmospheric convection, clouds and small-scale turbulence, all of which
are known to be key aspects of the climate system and yet are too small to be explicitly modelled.
The law of large
numbers and an analogy with the microscale and macroscale in fluids have served to demonstrate the inadequacy
of conventional approaches to unresolved scales. The alternative stochastic approach, proposed relatively recently,
holds that a noise-based solution may be more appropriate.

Examples have been given of stochastic studies of midlatitude weather systems, El Nin˜o events and the ocean THC.
Noise-induced transitions between different stable states (§3a,c) are poorly understood at present, but they may play
a crucial role in meteorology, oceanography and climate. Indeed, one of the most important metrics with which
to assess the reliability of climate models must surely be their ability to predict the probabilities of such rapid transitions
accurately, since these are arguably the climatological phenomena that threaten us most.
Transition probabilities
are known to depend sensitively on noise levels, and yet we have seen that the sub-grid-scale noise is filtered out
of climate models as a necessity.

Given that the full spectrum of spatial and temporal scales exhibited by the climate system will not be resolvable
by models for decades, if ever, stochastic techniques offer an immediate, convenient and computationally cheap
solution. Yet much is still unknown about the potential of stochastic physics to improve climate models,
even though it is 30 years since Hasselmann (1976) first raised this possibility. So strong is the evidence that weather
forecasts are improved by random noise that it is now routinely added at the European Centre for Medium-range
Weather Forecasts (Buizza et al. 1999). Furthermore, a team at the UK Met Office is currently testing various
stochastic physics schemes in their weather forecasting model (Glenn Shutts 2005, personal communication).
But, if you look at the contents of any climate journal, you will find that almost none of the modelling studies
include noise.
 
WetEV said:
Amusing to quote measurement error of 0.1K for the MSU derived temperatures, when these have been revised multiple times by more than that.
The satellite measurements match balloon measurements. Satellites and balloons measure very little warming in the atmosphere while computer simulations predict a lot of warming in the atmosphere:

Christy_Global_Bulk_Atmosshperic_Temperatures_Surf.png


And those are the revised, revised, revised predictions. The original predictions were much more inaccurate. In 1986, Dr. James Hansen predicted that the global average temperature would increase by 2 degrees by 2006:

2016-06-13-04-34-19.png


Perhaps his prediction was in Fahrenheit, so perhaps he was only off by a factor of SIX. So Hansen had a LOT of egg on his face. When he was director of NASA, the fiddling of the surface temperature record got into full swing. How bad have things gotten as a result? If you believe NASA's highly-fiddled ground-based temperature record, you are left with the conclusion that 1997 was 3.83 degrees Fahrenheit WARMER than 2015:

- In 1998, NASA told us that the global average surface temperature in 1997 was 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit.
- In 2016, NASA told us that he global average surface temperature in 2015 was 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit.

They had spent fifteen years cooling the past so much that the numbers have now become completely ridiculous. Believe the lies if you will.
WetEV said:
Also, why pick two months out of the whole record at the peak of two El Ninos, when El Ninos are variable and we have exactly two strong ones to compare?
I didn't pick out two months from the two strong El Ninos. I picked out the the average temperature from the peak year from each. As I said, it didn't warm between the two peaks.
WetEV said:
Why two months out of an ~18 year record?
As you said, those are the only two records of very-strong El Ninos on record. Since the last year on record was the peak of a very strong El Nino, I compared it with the only other very strong El Nino.
WetEV said:
Stratosphere would cool. It has.
The stratosphere is hot because of the strong absorption of UV light by ozone formed there. The cooling of the stratosphere is due to the destruction of the ozone caused by the increase in cosmic rays hitting the Earth as the Sun goes to sleep:

ozone_Cosrad_01.jpg


WetEV said:
Surface would warm. It has.
About 1/5th of Hansen's ridiculous predictions. Lot's of cooling of the past temperature record causes NASA to tell us today that it is now 2K colder than at the end of the 2th century. Crazy!
WetEV said:
Most mountain glaciers would retreat. They have.
Yep. NASA used to understand that the glaciers have followed the behavior of the Sun for the last couple of centuries:

Screen-Shot-2017-01-12-at-8.47.48-PM.gif


WetEV said:
Ice doesn't care.
...about CO2.
WetEV said:
Ocean would warm (more than 90% of heat goes into oceans). They have.
And as everyone knows, the heat in the ocean is put there by the Sun. And as the scientific measurements clearly show, CO2 has so little influence on the cooling of the ocean that it truly is a "don't care". Simply put, making the top micron of the ocean less cool by 0.0005K is NOTHING when compared with the 0.1K effect of cloud cover or the 2K impact of sunlight. In fact, water vapor will saturate the air immediately above the ocean surface in many locations, causing CO2 to have NO effect. You either do not understand this science or you prefer to deny the clear implications: CO2 has virtually NO EFFECT on the heat content of the waters of the ocean.
WetEV said:
Some time between 2050 and 2100 the Arctic Ocean would melt to basically ice free in summer, some ice will remain near Canadian Arctic Archipelago for longer.
There is no sense in you spewing nonsense here because we all know what the actual predictions were. Just in case anyone wonders what is actually happening:

Screen-Shot-2017-03-19-at-6.41.52-AM.gif


Predictions of ice-free Arctic in summertime by:

2008:
Expert: Arctic polar cap may disappear this summer_English_Xinhua
North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer

2012:
Star-News – Google News Archive Search
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’

2014:
Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

Clearly our esteemed Nobel laureate and all those previous predictions were wrong. Here are some more which will certainly be wrong:

2018:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=7mgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7qkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5563,4123490

In fact, according to the article:
A google search for “sea ice disappearing” produces 546,000 fake news results
The inability of this many-times-falsified theory to predict anything dissuades most people from giving any credibility to ongoing dire predictions. But not WetEV! He's making his own belief-based prediction:
WetEV said:
This prediction looks broken. The Arctic seems more sensitive to warming than predicted. The Death Spiral.
No, the temperature of the Earth is not controlled by CO2. The temperature of the Earth is controlled by the temperature of the surface of the global oceans. The oceans are heated by light from our Sun. That light is modulated by cloud cover (which also modulates the cooling rate of the oceans along with water vapor). The amount of cloud cover is modulated by many things. Among those things which modulate cloud cover are cosmic rays and aerosols released by trees. As CO2 causes additional greening of the Earth and as the Sun goes to sleep, thus reducing cosmic rays, the Earth will cool. No, the Arctic is not going to be ice-free this century. It's a ridiculous idea based on a ridiculous belief system. It's time we stopped giving any credence to such nonsense.
 
Reg, your graph of the climate models vs observations is a comparison of surface temps vs high altitude temps.
That comparison doesn't tell us anything.

Are the rest of your points as off target as that?

Shouldn't we compare modeled surface temps to observed surface temps?
 
RE: Christy's misleading graphs, I suggest reading this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/
 
RegGuheert said:
The inability of this many-times-falsified theory to predict anything dissuades most people from giving any credibility to ongoing dire predictions. But not WetEV! He's making his own belief-based prediction:

I confess, I believe in physics. I believe in math. I believe in observations. I'm old fashioned, I tell it like I see it. So some sea ice:

BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png


BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png


Look carefully, the above graph doesn't have 2017's maximum in it yet. Looks like another record low maximum:

6a0133f03a1e37970b01b7c8e1e408970b-pi


Ice doesn't care.
 
RegGuheert said:
What happens with sea ice is that it gets blown by the wind. When the wind blows strongly against the ice front, it compresses the ice into a smaller extent.

The line is the average of the 2000's. Where did the sea ice blow to, again?

FnzRzZG.png
 
Zythryn said:
Reg, your graph of the climate models vs observations is a comparison of surface temps vs high altitude temps.
You are wrong about that. The climate models were run to obtain the same conditions in the atmosphere as are measured by the satellites and the balloons.

If you think climate models ONLY simulate the surface, then don't you wonder how they determine those numbers?
 
RegGuheert said:
Zythryn said:
Reg, your graph of the climate models vs observations is a comparison of surface temps vs high altitude temps.
You are wrong about that. The climate models were run to obtain the same conditions in the atmosphere as are measured by the satellites and the balloons.

If you think climate models ONLY simulate the surface, then don't you wonder how they determine those numbers?

See the Real Climate link for more discussion.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/
 
WetEV said:
See the Real Climate link for more discussion.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/
Yes, they originally made the bogus claim that those numbers were surface data. As usual, they had to eat crow on that.

The simple fact is that the atmosphere is warming VERY slowly, if at all. Any increase in surface temperatures due to the greenhouse effect REQUIRES a faster growth in temperatures in the atmosphere. Exactly the same portion of the atmosphere that was measured for that graph. Any increase in surface temperatures that is faster than the measurements in that graph are NOT due to the greenhouse effect. Simply put, the theorized hotspot NEVER materialized. More proof that the CO2-based belief system is as false belief system.

Ignore those measurements if you will. I refuse to do that.
 
For those who want to understand the details of the imagined hotspot which never materialized, Dr. David Evans provided a detailed explanation of how we KNOW that the WVEL has NOT ascended with increasing CO2, but instead, it has descended:
Dr. David Evans said:
In the last few decades there was surface warming yet the WVEL did not ascend — there is no hotspot. Therefore the conventional model is incorrect.
That post is part of an outstanding series of posts which explain, in gory detail, the structural flaws which exist in ALL the currently-popular climate models.

Dr. Evans does NOT dispute ANY of the physics used in the models, he ONLY addresses the serious architectural flaws found in the models. He has summarized his work in this white paper: Why More Carbon Dioxide Makes Little Difference. But I recommend reading the long version which is the series of blog posts found at the bottom of the page, starting with this post.

Here is the basic summary of Dr. Evans' excellent work:
Dr. David Evans said:
The scientists who believe in the carbon dioxide theory of global warming do so essentially because of the application of “basic physics” to climate, by a model that is ubiquitous and traditional in climate science. This model is rarely named, but is sometimes referred to as the “forcing-feedback framework/paradigm.” Explicitly called the “forcing-feedback model” (FFM) here, this pen-and-paper model estimates the sensitivity of the global temperature to increasing carbon dioxide.1

The FFM has serious architectural errors.2 It contains crucial features dating back to the very first model in 1896, when the greenhouse effect was not properly understood. Fixing the architecture, while keeping the physics, shows that future warming due to increasing carbon dioxide will be a fifth to a tenth of current official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since 1973 was due to increasing carbon dioxide.

The large computerized climate models (GCMs) are indirectly tailored to compute the same sensitivity to carbon dioxide as the FFM. Both explain 20th century warming as driven mostly by increasing carbon dioxide.3

Increasing carbon dioxide traps more heat. But that heat mainly just reroutes to space from water vapor instead. This all happens high in the atmosphere, so it has little effect on the Earth’s surface, where we live. Current climate models omit this rerouting. Rerouting cannot occur in the FFM, due to its architecture—rerouting is in its blindspot.4

The alarm over carbon dioxide can be traced back to an erroneous assumption implicitly made in 1896 and never corrected—that there are no significant feedbacks in response to increasing carbon dioxide rather than to surface warming. The rerouting feedback is such a feedback. The FFM introduced another erroneous assumption—that the heat blocked from leaving to space by increasing carbon dioxide causes the same surface warming as if, instead, absorbed sunlight is increased by the same amount,5 or more generally, surface warming is proportional to the sum of all radiative forcings. These assumptions are built into the architecture of the FFM, and are echoed in the GCMs.

Increasing carbon dioxide causes warming in the upper troposphere, because it blocks some heat from escaping to space from there. In the GCMs that heat travels down to warm the surface, where it is like heat from increased absorbed sunlight — due to water vapor amplification of surface warming, less heat is then radiated to space from water vapor. In reality that heat mainly reroutes, radiating to space from water vapor molecules instead. Crucial observations from the last few decades indicate that the heat radiated to space from water vapor has been increasing slightly, suggesting that the effect of rerouting (which lowers the water vapor emission layer) was outweighed by the effect of water vapor amplification due to the surface warming (which raises it).
 
You do realize that your Dr. of choice isn't a climate scientist. He's a mathematician and an engineer. He has been debunked by many scientists.

This is from Media Matters:

The right-wing echo chamber is promoting an op-ed written by mathematician and engineer David Evans, which they claim is part of the "demolition of the theories" behind man-made climate change. But Evans is not a climate scientist, and claims he is pushing in his op-ed have long been discredited.

Evans himself does not claim to be a climate scientist. According to a resume posted on his research firm's website, Evans is a mathematician and engineer. He also "sells information for investors about gold companies." As DeSmogBlog pointed out, his resume lists no published, peer reviewed articles that deal with climate science. Studies have shown a strong consensus among actively-publishing climate scientists that human activity is contributing to climate change and that "the relative climate expertise" of skeptics is "substantially" lower.

Evans' questionable credentials on climate science were no problem for right-wing bloggers. Hot Air pushed Evans' claims with a post titled, "Former 'alarmist' scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science." Fox Nation subsequently joined in, linking to the Hot Air post and declaring, "Scientist Flips, Blows Global Warming To Bits."

However, Evans's claims aren't anything new. He's been making them for years.

Evans was roundly debunked back in 2008 after he brought his claims to the media. Skeptical Science has a thorough debunking of Evans' scientific falsehoods here.
 
WetEV said:
The Dr David Evans that issued this prediction?
Yes, and that is based on his model which is completely separate from his critique of the existing model.

In other words, your argument is both an ad-hominem and a non-sequitur argument.

Again, the idea that once a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere receives a photon of light it only has the options of emitting it toward the Earth or the sky is non-physical. In fact, it can also thermalize that energy into any molecule in the atmosphere or retransmit it to water vapor, which then has its own . His identification of that serious flaw in the basic model stands as presented.
 
JHC, the liars believing the lies, and telling everyone believe me! 'Tis true, I swear I'm not lying.

Good god.

So glad to be on the right side of history for this one. How can people be so gullible and stupid? is it really our human ego and greed of $$$ ?

Why would lessening pollution be bad? Nope, wait. I'm sure there is an economic answer that has NOTHING to do with a longer term than next quarter.

Not impressed with people's "credentials" that make this s$%t up and sell it to others, so we can continue the status quo.
 
Here is Dr. Evans' actual prediction:
Dr. David Evans said:
The notch-delay hypothesis predicts sustained and significant global cooling starting sometime from 2017 to 2022, of ~0.3 °C but perhaps milder.
Simply put, it hasn't been falsified since the dates of the prediction have not yet come to pass.

For those interested, here is his page on that hypothesis. His note:
Dr. David Evans said:
(Please note that even if this solar hypothesis and prediction prove to be wrong, the identification of the errors in the conventional climate models and the finding that carbon dioxide is not the main cause of recent global warming are still correct.)
 
downeykp said:
Evans was roundly debunked back in 2008 after he brought his claims to the media.
Amazing! That's particularly incredible since he didn't start posting about his work until September, 2015.

In other words, you are spewing complete BS.

Dr. Evans' criticism of the model is very solid. But you guys don't seem to care about the complete inability of the current models to make accurate predictions.
 
RegGuheert said:
Sigh. Another fact-free post from a climate alarmist.
NeilBlanchard said:
We have known that we humans are causing climate change for several decades - Exxon knew it in the late 1970's. And it has been further confirmed since then.
The reality: The GLOBAL MEASURED greenhouse effect on this planet has NOT changed in 25 years. So, tell me Neil: If the greenhouse effect has not changed UP OR DOWN in 25 years, how have humans caused climate change? Please just explain the mechanism.
NeilBlanchard said:
THREE RECORD HOT YEARS IN A ROW - is statistically undeniable. They are not just breaking the record by a smidge - they are smashing the old record, and then smashing that - and then smashing that!
Nonsense: Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998

You're projecting. All the evidence points to anthropogenic climate change. Citing Roy Spencer shows you are simply wrong.
 
Back
Top