|
Post by magellan on Aug 10, 2011 15:30:22 GMT
And now we have more confirmation that S&B are correct. This is an interesting post by Pielke Sr. (Let me add, I have read S&B again, and my initial reaction that the model they used was not very good is wrong. There is too much supporting evidence that the other fellers like Dessler are wrong and S&B are correct) pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/The direct link to the post is (shortened URL) is.gd/qzXjUL Sorry folks, I just can't stand long links. Sigurdur, the bottom line is Dessler, Trenberth et al are in DEFCON 1 mode; complete panic. Their house of cards is collapsing before their eyes. Despite all the rhetoric and conniption fits, they are very worried. Oh yes they are, believe it. Watch and witness the 'pal review' process in realtime as they feebly "refute" Spencer by simply getting the same pap regurgitated as was done in Dessler 2010 vs Dessler 2008 I guess they figure if the same lie is repeated enough times the more validated it is. Recall the same type of attacks were made against those who gobsmacked Mann, Santer and Steig.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 10, 2011 17:27:55 GMT
magellan: Thanks for the shortened link. I don't know how to do that, and the link you posted should always go to that particular comment....right?
Dessler has not provided any good papers for quit some time. Prof Trenbeth is a nice fellow, but he has put blinders to reality on, which is really sad. Prof Mann has not provided any credible papers for a long time now.
The sad thing is, these fellows are closely followed by the AGW folks and take what they utter as 100% correct, when in fact, it is not.
Sad times for us as it seems the only scientists who are in the public eye that have published anything of credence is Spencer. I wish they would all do so, robust results so that we can learn more.
At least Dr. Spencer keeps an open mind.......
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 10, 2011 17:48:38 GMT
magellan: Thanks for the shortened link. I don't know how to do that, and the link you posted should always go to that particular comment....right? Dessler has not provided any good papers for quit some time. Prof Trenbeth is a nice fellow, but he has put blinders to reality on, which is really sad. Prof Mann has not provided any credible papers for a long time now. The sad thing is, these fellows are closely followed by the AGW folks and take what they utter as 100% correct, when in fact, it is not. Sad times for us as it seems the only scientists who are in the public eye that have published anything of credence is Spencer. I wish they would all do so, robust results so that we can learn more. At least Dr. Spencer keeps an open mind....... I don't share the same sentiments that Trenberth is a "nice fellow". Example: climateaudit.org/2011/07/31/trenberth-unbelievable-breakdown-in-defensive-zone-coverage/IMO, he is no better than Mann and the rest. Thanks for the shortened link. I don't know how to do that, and the link you posted should always go to that particular comment....right? Yes. If you use Firefox, there are a few tools available to shorten the URL. My current choice is 'Cutyfox url shortener'. There is 'Long URL please' that converts the shortened url to original for those paranoid about clicking on shortened ones. BTW, check out my post on the Arctic temp analysis. Pretty damning. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=1179&post=72463
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 15, 2011 11:19:52 GMT
The scientific process is supposed to draw lessons from observation vs model/theory. All Spencer has done is show that some models do not have an ENSO cycle. This is something that was already known, so he hasn't told us anything. Spencer has *pretended* in his blog and Heartland press release that there is a deeper message in what he has shown relating to his theory about internal forcings.
But there isn't such a message because the findings actually show that a model with an ENSO produces the effect that he thinks is caused by internal forcing.
The fact some models do not have ENSO and that models with ENSO don't do it that well are something that is already known, so for the purposes of this discussion the point is a red herring.
The relevant point is that a better explanation for Roy's observations is that it is due to ENSO - similar to what is modelled, and not due to his curious theory of Intelligent Radiative Forcing (I mean internal radiative forcing).
|
|
|
Post by cybertiger on Aug 15, 2011 14:04:36 GMT
The scientific process is supposed to draw lessons from observation vs model/theory. All Spencer has done is show that some models do not have an ENSO cycle. This is something that was already known, so he hasn't told us anything. Spencer has *pretended* in his blog and Heartland press release that there is a deeper message in what he has shown relating to his theory about internal forcings. But there isn't such a message because the findings actually show that a model with an ENSO produces the effect that he thinks is caused by internal forcing. The fact some models do not have ENSO and that models with ENSO don't do it that well are something that is already known, so for the purposes of this discussion the point is a red herring. The relevant point is that a better explanation for Roy's observations is that it is due to ENSO - similar to what is modelled, and not due to his curious theory of Intelligent Radiative Forcing (I mean internal radiative forcing). Why is saying that GCMs are not that accurate not a valid criticism? I don't care if it's already known or not, that doesn't make it any less of a valid criticism. I'd love to see a comparison of statistical climate models (i.e. guessing) would be in comparison to the current state of the art GCMs, my bet is the statistical model would probably bisect the GCMs. The idea that a model which can be shown (repeatedly) to be inaccurate 6 months from start date (I'm not including hindcasting here) is being used to project climate 10-100 years in the future is a bad joke. The idea that you can take 50 such models, average them and decide that you have a consensus among scientists is a worse joke.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Aug 15, 2011 14:07:07 GMT
Courtesy Lucia, individual models runs from AR4: Now, we just add in Trenberth's beloved ECHAM and another model which he doubtless thinks models ENSO well: How hot is it going to be in 10 years time? Any temperature you like with ECHAM's patented hyper-psycho ENSO system®.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 15, 2011 15:11:58 GMT
It looks like the models are lemming in nature. While they are all different, they are all jumping off the cliff.
Ok......looking back a bit....prior to 2000.....it would appear that we are suppose to be a lot warmer, according to the models, than we presently are. Am I understanding this wrong?
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Aug 15, 2011 15:29:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 15, 2011 16:13:05 GMT
The scientific process is supposed to draw lessons from observation vs model/theory. All Spencer has done is show that some models do not have an ENSO cycle. This is something that was already known, so he hasn't told us anything. Spencer has *pretended* in his blog and Heartland press release that there is a deeper message in what he has shown relating to his theory about internal forcings. But there isn't such a message because the findings actually show that a model with an ENSO produces the effect that he thinks is caused by internal forcing. The fact some models do not have ENSO and that models with ENSO don't do it that well are something that is already known, so for the purposes of this discussion the point is a red herring. The relevant point is that a better explanation for Roy's observations is that it is due to ENSO - similar to what is modelled, and not due to his curious theory of Intelligent Radiative Forcing (I mean internal radiative forcing). You just can't admit modelers can't get anything right... New paper finds El Nino is changing opposite to predictions of climate models Key Points: The character of El Nino is changing in ways not expected from climate models Changes in El Nino are projecting onto background conditions The changes probably result from natural variations rather than GHG forcing
M. J. McPhaden et al
This paper addresses the question of whether the increased occurrence of central Pacific (CP) versus Eastern Pacific (EP) El Niños is consistent with greenhouse gas forced changes in the background state of the tropical Pacific as inferred from global climate change models. Our analysis uses high-quality satellite and in situ ocean data combined with wind data from atmospheric reanalyses for the past 31 years (1980–2010). We find changes in background conditions that are opposite to those expected from greenhouse gas forcing in climate models and opposite to what is expected if changes in the background state are mediating more frequent occurrences of CP El Niños. A plausible interpretation of these results is that the character of El Niño over the past 31 years has varied naturally and that these variations projected onto changes in the background state because of the asymmetric spatial structures of CP and EP El Niños.
Next you'll tell us it doesn't matter climate models got it 200-400% off for the "hot spot". Or that no AGW climate scientist ever said the climate would become a permanent El Nino
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 15, 2011 17:02:40 GMT
As far as I am concerned, the point is that Spencer did not account for the likely effect of ENSO in his findings, so his paper is rubbish. You can guess the likely effects without running a model, and I did so on my first post on this thread before realclimate or anyone else had spoken.
Whether some or all of the models are also rubbish is neither here nor there. The ECHAM5 evidence is only to demonstrate the likely mechanism for why Spencer's paper is rubbish as well as demonstrating Spencer's incompetence (or dishonesty?) in analysing the data.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 15, 2011 17:16:56 GMT
Steve: The most important thing about spencers paper is that no one is questioning the validity of his measured radiation data. Just wait, I have a feeling that there will be more papers in the future that rely on that data.
And when you look at the data it does not match modeled data as far as radiation goes. I am going to have to dig in my files to see if I can find that study from New Mexico/Arizona concerning radiation.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Aug 16, 2011 13:40:32 GMT
As far as I am concerned, the point is that Spencer did not account for the likely effect of ENSO in his findings, so his paper is rubbish. You can guess the likely effects without running a model, and I did so on my first post on this thread before realclimate or anyone else had spoken. Whether some or all of the models are also rubbish is neither here nor there. The ECHAM5 evidence is only to demonstrate the likely mechanism for why Spencer's paper is rubbish as well as demonstrating Spencer's incompetence (or dishonesty?) in analysing the data. In your first post on this thread you say "2. I would have thought that an atmosphere model forced with an ocean going through an El Nino cycle would behave as the observations - ie. outgoing LW would rise as SSTs rise, then temperatures would rise. The lack of lag in the model may be because more model variability is caused by model clouds than by ocean changes.ECHAM5's El Ninos produce +4°C equatorial SST anomalies all the way to India. That Spencer's observations show similar effect in the absence of science-fiction style temperature fluctuations doesn't help you case.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 4, 2011 23:55:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2011 0:31:03 GMT
Spencer stepped into the realm of advocacy and away from real science when he started his weblog. His blog is now talking about economics (with cartoons!), something which he has no expertise in. His forays away from science and to advocacy and politics means we should value his work as much as vlkue James Hansen's - e.g. not at all. Science is hard to do, it is hard to keep your bias out, and those who attempt to put their bias into their analysis are not doing science.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2011 1:27:11 GMT
Spencer stepped into the realm of advocacy and away from real science when he started his weblog. His blog is now talking about economics (with cartoons!), something which he has no expertise in. His forays away from science and to advocacy and politics means we should value his work as much as vlkue James Hansen's - e.g. not at all. Science is hard to do, it is hard to keep your bias out, and those who attempt to put their bias into their analysis are not doing science. It is so fun to read a drone's account of "true science". Do you even know the history of the Team?
|
|