|
Post by hunterson on Jul 31, 2011 22:30:25 GMT
Richard: Actually, Judith blows real climates analysis out of the water, and the comments in regard to S&B completely blow Real climate out of the water. Real climate is about worthless anymore. Sad to witness the total lack of scientific discussion there. Has turned out to be a rah rah party with no credibility. Thats what happens when you censor comments. I have actually found this board to more knowledgeable and informative, and certainly thought provoking than RC ever could be. Funny how the realists, the actual skeptics pick things apart, while looking at the value as well. From reading the paper again, with Judiths comments in mind....this paper has tremendous value. TREMENDOUS value. It shows the observations trump the models. Aren't you just amazed? And most importantly, it really does show that Dressler is all wet. He IS flat out totally wrong. And his comment that science isn't important anymore, that it is the governments job now.....shows that he wasn't a scientist to begin with. Dressler is a political hack who helped Goer in his early global warming hype days. He is hiding out in academia to avoid real work. He tortures numbers until theytell him what he wanted to hear, but science? not so much.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 31, 2011 23:15:28 GMT
As far as sensativity, that is a wide open question. Kinda like shooting ducks in a barrel. It is confined to an area, and the scatter within that area has feathers, but there is no right shot, nor no wrong shot, because any shot will get you a dead duck. At this time an arguement for 1.2 is as valid as an arguement for 6.2 for a doubling of co2. The observations are pointing to the 1.2, Where'd you pick that number from? It doesn't fit with the observations at all. The rise and fall of temperature over the millennia simply won't work with such a low sensitivity. Richard: The sensativiety is falling to the low end of the model projections. Look at the temp record for the past 12 years and OHC as well. Ok.....what makes you think that one of the models is more correct than the other? IPCC has a range of 1.2 to 6.5 or such. So....they averaged to 3.5......with no actual good reasons for doing that. Of course the models can't do hindsight past a few years. There are too many variables that they have no clue what they were. In fact, that is one of the reasons they had to get rid of the MWP, because they couldn't fit that in. Yet, the evidence of a MWP is world wide. Yes, the deniers or reality, keep saying it wasn't warm all over the world....ahem....it isn't warm all over the world today. That is how climate works isn't it? And it sure has heck isn't as warm in the USA as the models have predicted. Even with our warm summer in parts of the country we are just getting back to 1934 temperatures. Last time I checked, the USA was part of the world. Altho, with the bozo's we have in Washington that may not last much longer. And to make matters worse, some of those bozo's actually have drank the kookaid and bought into the extreme hype of GAWG. I know you are smart enough to know that GAWG is a farce of .......just a farce period.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 1, 2011 9:51:36 GMT
Well, as I guessed in my first post, once you look at the models that have a good ENSO, many of the problems go away. Once you stop comparing 100 year model runs with 10 year model data, and break it down into 10 year model run segments, the problems reduce.
A good science paper would have considered both these points.
I think realclimate would have been better just to rebut the paper and not include the anti-Spencer rhetoric as this simply plays into Spencer's hand. Spencer is interested in upping his profile as an arch-sceptic for which he needs loud arguments with arch-warmists.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 1, 2011 13:59:22 GMT
I also pointed out that Roy hadn't done any sensitivity studies - ie. changing assumptions to see how it changes results. This guy has done such studies with Roy's simple model and has found out that by tweaking two parameters you can get equally good results from Roy's model with a much higher climate sensitivity: bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/(noting that, additionally, the "thermal diffusion" component of his ocean model is physically unrealistic because heat transfer in the ocean is not governed primarily by diffusion, but rather by ocean currents). Roy is now falling back to the following strawman position:
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 1, 2011 18:47:13 GMT
I also pointed out that Roy hadn't done any sensitivity studies - ie. changing assumptions to see how it changes results.
This guy has done such studies with Roy's simple model and has found out that by tweaking two parameters you can get equally good results from Roy's model with a much higher climate sensitivity:
While this is partially true its not true that Spencer has done no sensitivity analysis. One need to only explore his website and see where he has done that.
One of my concerns with Spencer's work is that of recent work that suggests common mathematical means of estimating sensitivity is unreliable.
But that is a concern of equal concern to all of IPCC's work and proffers huge adjustments to uncertainty figures for all existing estimates of sensitivity.
Spencer has repeatedly driven this point in both his publications and his website. And here its largely taken up as a strawman and is a technique of criticism the TEAM and AGW alarmists have assailed repeatedly against when employed by skeptics.
Here Spencer has driven a deep sword of uncertainty into climate science and there is no rebuttal to that without destroying climate science altogether. So yeah Steve you look good cutting your nose off to spite your face.
The only choice here for climate science is a lot of cherry picking to work its way around Spencer.
The shame of it is we already know that is a both a special inclination and special skill of the climate science establishment.
Where it really gets interesting is how the science community is splitting over ever deeper loss of heat to ocean depths hiding behind arguments that it cannot be calculated reliably or to shorter term imagined offsets of Pinatubo rebounds and unmeasured increases in aerosols.
I mean Steve! Climate science did not embark down that path because they did not know of Spencer's findings. They just hoped nobody would publish what they already knew.
They already know their estimates were garbage unsupported by science and that it was a travesty the heat was missing as they grasped for straws to continue to claim they have a reason to remain alarmed.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 1, 2011 18:50:45 GMT
I also pointed out that Roy hadn't done any sensitivity studies - ie. changing assumptions to see how it changes results. This guy has done such studies with Roy's simple model and has found out that by tweaking two parameters you can get equally good results from Roy's model with a much higher climate sensitivity: bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/(noting that, additionally, the "thermal diffusion" component of his ocean model is physically unrealistic because heat transfer in the ocean is not governed primarily by diffusion, but rather by ocean currents). Roy is now falling back to the following strawman position: Why don't you try actually reading Roy Spencer's blog instead of using cherry picked snippets?
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 1, 2011 21:13:01 GMT
Here Spencer has driven a deep sword of uncertainty into climate science and there is no rebuttal to that without destroying climate science altogether. So yeah Steve you look good cutting your nose off to spite your face. The only choice here for climate science is a lot of cherry picking to work its way around Spencer. As usual, a lot of words and no substance. Climate models are not built with all those unconstrained variables, so you are comparing apples to oranges. Also, we have data stretching back hundreds, thousands, and millions of years. The observations of millions of years all point to about a 3C/doubling sensitivity. You're looking at a single decade and a single mystery and saying that it trumps all that data and science. Not very smart of you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 1, 2011 21:48:06 GMT
As usual, a lot of words and no substance. Climate models are not built with all those unconstrained variables, so you are comparing apples to oranges. Also, we have data stretching back hundreds, thousands, and millions of years. The observations of millions of years all point to about a 3C/doubling sensitivity. You're looking at a single decade and a single mystery and saying that it trumps all that data and science. Not very smart of you.
I don't doubt you believe that Richard. But to convince the rest of us you will need some references to establish that claim.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 1, 2011 23:07:59 GMT
Here Spencer has driven a deep sword of uncertainty into climate science and there is no rebuttal to that without destroying climate science altogether. So yeah Steve you look good cutting your nose off to spite your face. The only choice here for climate science is a lot of cherry picking to work its way around Spencer. As usual, a lot of words and no substance. Climate models are not built with all those unconstrained variables, so you are comparing apples to oranges. Also, we have data stretching back hundreds, thousands, and millions of years. The observations of millions of years all point to about a 3C/doubling sensitivity. You're looking at a single decade and a single mystery and saying that it trumps all that data and science. Not very smart of you. Talk about a lot of words with no substance. It is amazing what you will tolerate from the models that you agree with and then turn around and dis models that you know nothing about, except that they make you look stupid... er. The observations of millions of years eh? Did you come up with that all by yourself? You call people not smart and then trot that out. The stupid, it burns!!! What you are trying not to see is that the satellite record shows the heat that AGW true believers need to be hiding in the oceans exiting the planet. Please go back to your room at your parents house and stare at your navel until some form of reality sinks in, you are embarrassing yourself here.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 1, 2011 23:54:10 GMT
Where'd you pick that number from? It doesn't fit with the observations at all. The rise and fall of temperature over the millennia simply won't work with such a low sensitivity. Richard: The sensativiety is falling to the low end of the model projections. Look at the temp record for the past 12 years and OHC as well. Ok.....what makes you think that one of the models is more correct than the other? IPCC has a range of 1.2 to 6.5 or such. So....they averaged to 3.5......with no actual good reasons for doing that. Of course the models can't do hindsight past a few years. There are too many variables that they have no clue what they were. In fact, that is one of the reasons they had to get rid of the MWP, because they couldn't fit that in. Yet, the evidence of a MWP is world wide. Yes, the deniers or reality, keep saying it wasn't warm all over the world....ahem....it isn't warm all over the world today. That is how climate works isn't it? And it sure has heck isn't as warm in the USA as the models have predicted. Even with our warm summer in parts of the country we are just getting back to 1934 temperatures. Last time I checked, the USA was part of the world. Altho, with the bozo's we have in Washington that may not last much longer. And to make matters worse, some of those bozo's actually have drank the kookaid and bought into the extreme hype of GAWG. I know you are smart enough to know that GAWG is a farce of .......just a farce period. You claim that the range of models was averaged out to get the estimate of climate sensitivity. That's so wrong as to be laughable. The paleoclimate data is significant here. A low climate sensitivity simply prevents much change in the climate, yet we know the climate has varied tremendously in the past. Please show us how a 1.2C/doubling sensitivity works with the age of the dinosaurs. Methinks you drank a LOT of koolaid! Then you harp about the MWP, which affected primarily Europe. Your claim that it was worldwide is based on extremely tenuous data. I think you accept things that fit your pre-conceived notions and ignore all the vast amounts of data that show you are wrong. To claim that the MWP was worldwide is spurious at best. You thrill at nits of data blips, and ignore reams of data. A true case of myopia.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 1, 2011 23:58:34 GMT
Here Spencer has driven a deep sword of uncertainty into climate science and there is no rebuttal to that without destroying climate science altogether. No. Spencer has committed two truly High School errors. First he tuned his parameters specifically to get his desired results when other tunings would refute his claims. Second he based his results on a single decade of data. Both should have you laughing at him as completely lame. The LONG TERM data shows about 3C climate sensitivity, and over the long term all the natural cycles fall out of the equation, leaving just the truth. Instead, you glorify this travesty. Why?
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 1, 2011 23:59:55 GMT
I also pointed out that Roy hadn't done any sensitivity studies - ie. changing assumptions to see how it changes results. This guy has done such studies with Roy's simple model and has found out that by tweaking two parameters you can get equally good results from Roy's model with a much higher climate sensitivity: bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/(noting that, additionally, the "thermal diffusion" component of his ocean model is physically unrealistic because heat transfer in the ocean is not governed primarily by diffusion, but rather by ocean currents). Roy is now falling back to the following strawman position: Why don't you try actually reading Roy Spencer's blog instead of using cherry picked snippets? Why don't you give evidence you've "learned" from the site to show us instead of trying to get us to do your work for you?
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 2, 2011 0:02:45 GMT
Richard gets a star!!!
He can recognize that climate has varied tremendously!!! Good boy, here's a biscuit!
Now for the hard part... Repeat after me... "The climate cannot be driven by a trace gas with a saturated absorption spectrum, any and almost all sensitivity must be from another source..."
There now, was that hard? Don't you feel better now that mankind is not killing the planet?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 2, 2011 1:17:36 GMT
Richard: The sensativiety is falling to the low end of the model projections. Look at the temp record for the past 12 years and OHC as well. Ok.....what makes you think that one of the models is more correct than the other? IPCC has a range of 1.2 to 6.5 or such. So....they averaged to 3.5......with no actual good reasons for doing that. Of course the models can't do hindsight past a few years. There are too many variables that they have no clue what they were. In fact, that is one of the reasons they had to get rid of the MWP, because they couldn't fit that in. Yet, the evidence of a MWP is world wide. Yes, the deniers or reality, keep saying it wasn't warm all over the world....ahem....it isn't warm all over the world today. That is how climate works isn't it? And it sure has heck isn't as warm in the USA as the models have predicted. Even with our warm summer in parts of the country we are just getting back to 1934 temperatures. Last time I checked, the USA was part of the world. Altho, with the bozo's we have in Washington that may not last much longer. And to make matters worse, some of those bozo's actually have drank the kookaid and bought into the extreme hype of GAWG. I know you are smart enough to know that GAWG is a farce of .......just a farce period. You claim that the range of models was averaged out to get the estimate of climate sensitivity. That's so wrong as to be laughable. The paleoclimate data is significant here. A low climate sensitivity simply prevents much change in the climate, yet we know the climate has varied tremendously in the past. Please show us how a 1.2C/doubling sensitivity works with the age of the dinosaurs. Methinks you drank a LOT of koolaid! Then you harp about the MWP, which affected primarily Europe. Your claim that it was worldwide is based on extremely tenuous data. I think you accept things that fit your pre-conceived notions and ignore all the vast amounts of data that show you are wrong. To claim that the MWP was worldwide is spurious at best. You thrill at nits of data blips, and ignore reams of data. A true case of myopia. Richard: 1. Sorry, the MWP existed and is well documented by hydrological studies, temp proxy data etc. 2. What is this vast amount of data that shows I am wrong? When I look at Sargasso Sea data, it shows I am correct. When I look at Chinese pollin data, stalagmite data, it shows I am correct. When I look at South American hydrological data, it shows I am correct. Heck, even North America got in on the MWP, as per pollin data, lake sediment data etc. You admit that Europe apparantly was a benifactor as well. As far as models doing a good job in hindcast, I can only suggest that you please please study this aspect a bit more. You will find that there is very strong paleo data supporting a different cause than co2. Just as there is very strong data supporting a MWP. I will stand by my statement that climate sensativity is between 1.2-6.5C. And I will stand by my statement that sensativity, with the known radiation leaving the atmosphere as mesaured by the satillites, shows the 1.2 is very much in line to be the correct figure. The mysterious OHC in the deep depths to try and show that the energy is still present is a Moby thingy type of tale.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 2, 2011 1:50:56 GMT
As usual, a lot of words and no substance. Climate models are not built with all those unconstrained variables, so you are comparing apples to oranges. Also, we have data stretching back hundreds, thousands, and millions of years. The observations of millions of years all point to about a 3C/doubling sensitivity. You're looking at a single decade and a single mystery and saying that it trumps all that data and science. Not very smart of you. Talk about a lot of words with no substance. It is amazing what you will tolerate from the models that you agree with and then turn around and dis models that you know nothing about, except that they make you look stupid... er. The observations of millions of years eh? Did you come up with that all by yourself? You call people not smart and then trot that out. The stupid, it burns!!! What you are trying not to see is that the satellite record shows the heat that AGW true believers need to be hiding in the oceans exiting the planet. Please go back to your room at your parents house and stare at your navel until some form of reality sinks in, you are embarrassing yourself here. Uh, the model you point to says that they don't know! You are taking a stance of IGNORANCE as being the gold standard! Man, I hope you don't forget to put your pants on before your shoes.
|
|