|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 15, 2012 20:07:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 15, 2012 21:18:54 GMT
Besides having predictability problems over the past 12 years using 15 year average trends the models have problems. Here a problem is being identified for much longer trends in paleo-proxy data.
The models remain unvalidated.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 17, 2012 2:19:50 GMT
Icefisher:
I agree that the models have not been validated.
Prof Lindzen made a point last week that policy should not be made via model results as the accuracy of the climate models is just not good enough at this time.
With the paper showing that the Ozone level affects temp more than CO2, and another paper showing the radiation budget that has been used in the past is off by a factor of over 2.....the models really need to be examined so that parameters can be changed to show reality.
What is refreshing as of late is that papers are actually getting published now that draw attention to this. I have a firm belief that there are climate scientists who are looking at why the models are wrong. A few rotten apples does not ruin the whole barrel. Yah just throw them out and keep on eating.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 18, 2012 19:03:19 GMT
So on the one hand the proxies that demonstrate the non-existence of a global MWP are wrong whereas the proxies that are used here are accurate?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 18, 2012 21:07:24 GMT
Steve:
What proxies are those that demonstrate the non=existence of a global MWP?
The last 2 proxies of signifiance, both show a global event.
One from ice core data in Antarctica, and the newest ice core record broken down by year from Greenland. In fact, the last Greenland proxy shows the ice cap was approx 3.0C warmer than present temps during the MWP.
I have no question anymore that Lamb was correct in his assumptions.
I also have no question that the models need to be examined. We all know that H2O vapor still drives the models to extremes.
Do you think the variation in H2O is enough to take the models out of sink?
I have never studied the construction of the models. I don't have the skill set to do that. I have read papers showing that the skill of the models is not reliable. I commend the folks who are trying to get this right, but it is obvious that so far they have a long ways to go.
I think the recent publication on the ozone influence will provide data to incorporate into the models to drive their skill higher. I also think NASA research on the jet streams and the influence that gamma rays seem to have on them will also help.
I have not read of any models that have incorporated these new findings in them as of yet. Do you know of any?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 19, 2012 19:27:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 20, 2012 3:09:40 GMT
I will try and find the paper. Yes, it was 3.0C warmer than present temps.
The findings were actually acceptable being that sea shell data also indicated close to the same temp range.
That being said tho, the findings from Antarctica break the myth that it was a regoinal warming only. The hydrological records from Chile and Argentina have shown for a long time that the MWP affected that area as well. There now is really no question that the MWP was global. Sargasso Sea proxy indicate the ocean was much warmer during that time period as well. Unfortunately, Dr. Mann did not incorporate that proxy in his 2009 reconstruction. In fact, there are a lot of proxies that are considered wide regional coverages that he forgot to incorporate.
The above aside, have you learned of any scientists trying to incorporate the latest findings in model updates? I think this is a critical area, the ozone, the newest paper using measurements showing that instead of .9 the energ imbalance is .5 or less.
I really want to models to be verifiable so that they have enough skill to be used for policy. At this time, they are not good enough to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2012 19:03:47 GMT
Sigurdur, if you google your past posts you had one on clam shells that talked about the Roman Warming period being 1.4C warmer. But the data also showed that Iceland suffered a severe cold spell that lasted through the so-called MWP spell. The data was validated by written records of four severe famines in Iceland during the 1000-1100AD spell. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=print&thread=1773 |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 21, 2012 22:59:49 GMT
Steve:
Yes, Iceland had a cold spell. There has been conjecture that that was caused by a change in the Icelandic Low. The temps on either side of the cold spell were warm by today's standards tho.
One area can be cold, even tho the overall temperature is warm. Take a look at long term US data. The USA really hasn't warmed very much, while the rest of the world has since 1850 or so. That does not discount the fact that the world has warmed.
I really do want the models to get better. And to do this, being that the physics of additional CO2 is somewhat well known, that the model writers explore the other variations that are not as well known, and were not known when the majority of models were written.
In other words, open up their dog gone eyes to reality and lets get on with it shall we?
Do you know of any models that are incorporating the new knowledge? I would really like to see some being developed. Right now they do a very poor job of hindcasting, which tells me their ability to forcast is basically worthless. I think they are missing very important metrics of climate.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 21, 2012 23:01:35 GMT
What happends now is you have loud climate scientists who proclaim things that just are NOT happending. Then those that point out what is wrong are called all sorts of names.
I get tired of the BS meter having to be so high. ADMIT the short comings....and lets get on with reality and substanive reliable output.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 22, 2012 2:21:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 31, 2012 1:26:50 GMT
|
|
