|
Post by blustnmtn on Sept 27, 2017 14:44:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 27, 2017 14:49:41 GMT
The models say ... "Hi! My name is Fred. Deposit money and I will tell your fortune." ( small print - outcomes may vary) Send more money to get more outcomes...good value!!! Like luck ... there are at least two types of value. Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 27, 2017 14:53:23 GMT
I often wonder if any of these people have actually conceptually understood what Lorentz found when he was doing primitive weather modeling which led to his initial 'chaos' theories. They do not know all the inputs to the system, they do not know their normal variance and effects yet claim they can initialize and then run a model out to a century? Unless, Chaos Theory is wrong - what they claim is impossible. So it turns out that they have 'reasonableness' parameters that kick in when the results do go way off track and these parameters put their thumbs on the scales to keep the forecasts/projections in logical bounds - and they carry on iterating (!!!!) out to a century complete with thumb adjustments. And they still use these results?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 27, 2017 15:09:42 GMT
'She' may offer similar results at a cheaper price.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Sept 27, 2017 15:13:35 GMT
I often wonder if any of these people have actually conceptually understood what Lorentz found when he was doing primitive weather modeling which led to his initial 'chaos' theories. They do not know all the inputs to the system, they do not know their normal variance and effects yet claim they can initialize and then run a model out to a century? Unless, Chaos Theory is wrong - what they claim is impossible. So it turns out that they have 'reasonableness' parameters that kick in when the results do go way off track and these parameters put their thumbs on the scales to keep the forecasts/projections in logical bounds - and they carry on iterating (!!!!) out to a century complete with thumb adjustments. And they still use these results? I think icefisher has pointed to the "tuning" in other threads too. Seems to me that modeling efforts would be much better spent if they were dedicated to understanding the changes that trigger sudden CATASTROPHIC GLACIATION because that's going to be a true humanity changing/challenging event.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 30, 2017 1:24:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 30, 2017 15:40:46 GMT
"Here we present climate modelling evidence, from simulations conducted for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (ref. 13), for a near doubling in the frequency of future extreme La Niña events, from one in every 23 years to one in every 13 years. " It must be true they used the CIMP5 average of incorrect climate forecasting models. But the actual statement in the abstract was: " increased frequency of extreme El Niño events are conducive to development of the extreme La Niña events." It is not feasible that warming of a degree in the atmosphere can lead to any measurable heat increase in the oceans as the top 6 - 10 meters of ocean holds as much heat as the entire atmosphere. So that is 70%+ of the world that is water surface cannot get warmer from CO2. It can get warmer if there is less albedo and more high frequencies in the sunlight.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 30, 2017 23:44:55 GMT
I think icefisher has pointed to the "tuning" in other threads too. Seems to me that modeling efforts would be much better spent if they were dedicated to understanding the changes that trigger sudden CATASTROPHIC GLACIATION because that's going to be a true humanity changing/challenging event. Thats not politically feasible. Or at least it wasn't until now. To a man climate science has avoided debating whether significant man made warming is actually occurring. They simply assert it is and will not engage in a scientific discussion about. As close to a discussion I have ever seen is in AR3 where they make the argument directly that they know of no other cause so it must be manmade. Thats not a scientific argument, its only a scientific argument if you are omniscient which of course we know the climate science community believes they are. To my knowledge the only thing ever considered to be omniscient is God and even that is in question. My research into the matter has done nothing up turn up experiments that fail to even show that the greenhouse effect exists. That of course does not prove it doesn't exist, which provides the opportunity for political science to step in.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 1, 2017 0:11:21 GMT
"Here we present climate modelling evidence, from simulations conducted for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (ref. 13), for a near doubling in the frequency of future extreme La Niña events, from one in every 23 years to one in every 13 years. " It must be true they used the CIMP5 average of incorrect climate forecasting models. But the actual statement in the abstract was: " increased frequency of extreme El Niño events are conducive to development of the extreme La Niña events." It is not feasible that warming of a degree in the atmosphere can lead to any measurable heat increase in the oceans as the top 6 - 10 meters of ocean holds as much heat as the entire atmosphere. So that is 70%+ of the world that is water surface cannot get warmer from CO2. It can get warmer if there is less albedo and more high frequencies in the sunlight. Seems like a divining stick type study. Its pretty crazy idea you can claim more closely spaced El Nino events based upon a science that is about 35 years old. The bane of all climate science is they do not have a standard way of measuring climate. When the current popular means begins to diverge off track they go to work improving the old method of measuring. This does not mean that the changes they put in place are inferior. I would say the majority of my audit findings as an auditor were related to changes in the means of accounting. The company does not need to prove to the auditor that the new method is superior all they need to prove is the new method is reasonable. But what the auditor must then do is require the company reproduce both means of accounting over the period the financial statements are reporting on so that readers of the statements can see what has transpired which is combined with an explanatory note regarding what changes they did. In climate science this is done by the skeptic community. But before new methods are validated they discontinue recording the underlying data of the old method so such comparisons can not be made in the future. Governments tend to do that because they abhor any discrepancy and they are not accountable to the people. Businesses however are held accountable by the government so such disclosure is required. One would think that it would be more disastrous for the nation or world to fail than for a business or group of businesses to fail. Yet they do not hold themselves to the standards they hold business to.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Oct 1, 2017 12:53:36 GMT
"Here we present climate modelling evidence, from simulations conducted for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (ref. 13), for a near doubling in the frequency of future extreme La Niña events, from one in every 23 years to one in every 13 years. " It must be true they used the CIMP5 average of incorrect climate forecasting models. But the actual statement in the abstract was: " increased frequency of extreme El Niño events are conducive to development of the extreme La Niña events." It is not feasible that warming of a degree in the atmosphere can lead to any measurable heat increase in the oceans as the top 6 - 10 meters of ocean holds as much heat as the entire atmosphere. So that is 70%+ of the world that is water surface cannot get warmer from CO2. It can get warmer if there is less albedo a more high frequencies in the sunlight. Naut- Am I correct in believing that the models do not attempt to incorporate cloud cover as a variable and instead have albedo as a fixed component to the models?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 1, 2017 13:01:13 GMT
"Here we present climate modelling evidence, from simulations conducted for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (ref. 13), for a near doubling in the frequency of future extreme La Niña events, from one in every 23 years to one in every 13 years. " It must be true they used the CIMP5 average of incorrect climate forecasting models. But the actual statement in the abstract was: " increased frequency of extreme El Niño events are conducive to development of the extreme La Niña events." It is not feasible that warming of a degree in the atmosphere can lead to any measurable heat increase in the oceans as the top 6 - 10 meters of ocean holds as much heat as the entire atmosphere. So that is 70%+ of the world that is water surface cannot get warmer from CO2. It can get warmer if there is less albedo a more high frequencies in the sunlight. Naut- Am I correct in believing that the models do not attempt to incorporate cloud cover as a variable and instead have albedo as a fixed component to the models? The models cannot 'do' clouds as that requires more resolution than they have. They cannot even manage large 'chaotic' events like hurricanes. So yes they normally use albedo. I am not sure that they hard code the value but they cannot resolve clouds.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 1, 2017 17:03:14 GMT
"Here we present climate modelling evidence, from simulations conducted for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (ref. 13), for a near doubling in the frequency of future extreme La Niña events, from one in every 23 years to one in every 13 years. " It must be true they used the CIMP5 average of incorrect climate forecasting models. But the actual statement in the abstract was: " increased frequency of extreme El Niño events are conducive to development of the extreme La Niña events." It is not feasible that warming of a degree in the atmosphere can lead to any measurable heat increase in the oceans as the top 6 - 10 meters of ocean holds as much heat as the entire atmosphere. So that is 70%+ of the world that is water surface cannot get warmer from CO2. It can get warmer if there is less albedo a more high frequencies in the sunlight. Naut- Am I correct in believing that the models do not attempt to incorporate cloud cover as a variable and instead have albedo as a fixed component to the models? Thats technically wrong, though your concern is fundamentally correct. The models only recognize variations in surface heat affecting cloud cover where more water vapor will be suspended in the atmosphere by an increasing greenhouse effect. How each model attacks that no doubt varies. This is all discussed in IPCC AR3. One cannot model anything when one cannot describe the physical process and they haven't given Theodore a call. Theodore's work is rejected because of the lack of a proven physical connection to extra planet processes while they ignore the fact that the greenhouse effect (at least how it is believed to exist) has also never been proven and how it operates remains a point of dispute even between warmists.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Oct 1, 2017 17:33:00 GMT
Naut- Am I correct in believing that the models do not attempt to incorporate cloud cover as a variable and instead have albedo as a fixed component to the models? Thats technically wrong, though your concern is fundamentally correct. The models only recognize variations in surface heat affecting cloud cover where more water vapor will be suspended in the atmosphere by an increasing greenhouse effect. How each model attacks that no doubt varies. This is all discussed in IPCC AR3. One cannot model anything when one cannot describe the physical process and they haven't given Theodore a call. Theodore's work is rejected because of the lack of a proven physical connection to extra planet processes while they ignore the fact that the greenhouse effect (at least how it is believed to exist) has also never been proven and how it operates remains a point of dispute even between warmists. So I take it there’s no chance the impact of increased/decreased cosmic rays during extended low vs high solar activity and the possible effect on cloud cover is being modeled. I know it’s controversial but that certainly doesn’t seem to matter. 😎 Is there a satellite- global cloud cover assessment graph?
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Oct 1, 2017 18:40:19 GMT
I found this but it is limited to ‘71-‘96. It certainly seems that cloud cover by region and type is closely studied. journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI4031.1my quick skim notes that they find total cloud cover decreasing for 71-96. That makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 1, 2017 22:57:30 GMT
|
|