|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Jun 10, 2013 16:09:41 GMT
I think you have to be a little wary of these model-data comparisons from Spencer and Christy. True the most of the model projections are diverging from the observations. Whether this is due to natural variability, unknown changes in forcings or due to model error is not clear to modelers - though clearly sceptics will assume it is the latter. So diversion in other metrics is not surprising. That said, the Christy graphs are pretty skewed and don't mention the fact that there is an awful lot of difference and uncertainty within the satellite and radiosonde data. Perhaps the alarmists are wrong, and there is no danger of harmful warming from mankind's CO2 emissions. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 11, 2013 6:29:59 GMT
Prof. Murry Salby’s Presentation In Hamburg: Climate “Model World” Diverges Starkly From “Real World”. "Prof. Murry Salby, climate scientist at Macquarie University of Sydney, made a presentation in Hamburg on April 18th as part of a European tour. Prof. Salby is author of the textbook Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (Cambridge University Press) and Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics (Academic Press) and is renowned worldwide as an astrophysicist." Model world (left) vs real world (right).  The points of Salby’s presentation lead to the following implications: - In the Real World global temperature is not controlled exclusively by CO2, as it is in the Model World. - In significant part, however, CO2 is controlled by Global Temperature, as it is in the Proxy Record. Report from notrickszone : notrickszone.com/2013/06/10/murry-salbys-presentation-in-hamburg/ cuttydyer, You have to remember that the model vs reality plot is skewed because so far we only have data for a tiny section of the plot on the left. With regard to temperature controlling CO2, the amount of CO2 emitted by man can be reasonably estimated, and amounts to 2-3 times more than is required to cause the observed rise in CO2. CO2 rise is moderated - probably it is mostly by absorption of CO2 by the oceans. As well as measuring man's CO2 by looking at coal, oil and gas burning statistics, you can also observe the reduction in levels of oxygen that is due to the combustion of such fossil fuels. The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is reducing (very slightly) and the reduction is in line with the increase in CO2. www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1Given that the ocean is an important sink for CO2 and given that warmer waters absorb CO2 less effectively, the sea surface temperature can moderate the amount of absorption - and in this way can effect levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. |
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jun 13, 2013 8:13:15 GMT
The "Schtick" reports : New paper finds the 'hot spot' predicted by climate models doesn't exist. A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds, once again, that climate models get the core assumptions wrong and that the fabled 'hot spot' is still missing. All climate models predict the tropical troposphere will warm the fastest to produce a 'hot spot,' yet observations from satellites and 28 million weather balloons confirm that there is no hot spot, and that the surface has warmed more than the tropical troposphere. This new paper confirms that "The modeled [tropical tropospheric] trend is significantly higher than that of the measured ones, confirming that the vertical amplification of warming is exaggerated in models." The authors "suggest that the vertical amplification of warming derived from modelled simulations is weighted with a persistent signal, which should be removed in order to achieve better agreement with observations." Most likely, that "persistent signal" that "should be removed" from the models is the core assumption of an anthropogenic 'hot spot' present in all climate models.  Link to paper: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50646/abstractLink to Schtick: hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/new-paper-finds-hot-spot-predicted-by.html |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 3, 2013 7:00:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 10, 2013 13:50:10 GMT
Bob Tisdale has done some work on precipitation models. Worth looking at.
|
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jul 19, 2013 8:59:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jul 19, 2013 13:44:44 GMT
I think it’s useful to look at Scafetta’s paper in two parts.
In part 1, he shows there is a 61-year harmonic cycle of natural warming and cooling which is clearly apparent in the global temperatures. This has been overlooked or ignored or covered up by the modelers. They’ve gotten away with this in the past by throwing up false explanations for global temperature trends such as unsubstantiated aerosol effects but they cannot hide this much longer as global temperatures continue on a flat trajectory. When the harmonic natural cycles are factored into future global temperature forecasts, temperatures will be level over the 2000-2040 period and the temperatures for 2000-2100 will warm by 0.3 to 1.6C versus the IPCC GCM ensemble projection of 1.1 to 4.1C. CO2 is a significant cause of warming, but much less significant than claimed by the IPCC. These conclusions are all true regardless of the reasons for the existence of 61-year natural harmonic cycle.
In part 2 Scafetta provides possible reasons for the 61-year cycle which is by far the most important natural cycle with respect to intermediate term (30-60 year) global temperature trends and he notes some less important cycles and their possible causes as well.
So Scafetta has provided a plausible explanation for the 61-year cycle. But it is not necessary that these explanations be correct for his conclusions in part 1 concerning the clear existence of a 61-year natural harmonic cycle and the failures of the IPCC models to be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 24, 2013 1:00:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 6, 2013 15:43:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 6, 2013 20:09:15 GMT
So now you want me to believe that you entirely agree with me that no knowledgeable person is going to dispute the impact the greenhouse effect has on life on earth??  Have a sleep on what I shared with you.  Back radiation is an assumption in regards to weather/climate but has never been demonstrated to be important because of the other variables that you did not include in your experiment. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 6, 2013 23:08:00 GMT
Andrew:
The Greenhouse Effect is a theory. And on near surface radiation, I am sure that H20 vapor employees a roll. Not only via radiation, but also via its actual heat holding ability, which has nothing to do with radiation. It does have to do with its chemical makeup.
CO2 does not retrain heat, which is a huge difference in what it can or can't do.
The prime example of this is Mars.
I posted the link to Callendar to show that the current models are not only not valid, but just plain noise. Callendar's model is more valid.
You and Icefisher can duke it out, I have no interest in what you are trying to prove or disprove. You are not using variables that apply to climate...flat surfaces etc.....no wind.....etc....
Lab experiments with no real world application.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 6, 2013 23:49:17 GMT
Andrew: The Greenhouse Effect is a theory. And on near surface radiation, I am sure that H20 vapor employees a roll. Not only via radiation, but also via its actual heat holding ability, which has nothing to do with radiation. It does have to do with its chemical makeup. CO2 does not retrain heat, which is a huge difference in what it can or can't do. The prime example of this is Mars. I posted the link to Callendar to show that the current models are not only not valid, but just plain noise. Callendar's model is more valid. You and Icefisher can duke it out, I have no interest in what you are trying to prove or disprove. You are not using variables that apply to climate...flat surfaces etc.....no wind.....etc.... Lab experiments with no real world application. I have already proven that your sphere comments at 5000M were nonesense. And from where do you get the idea that mars has no green house effect?  ?? >>I posted the link to Callendar to show that the current models are not only not valid, but just plain noise. Callendar's model is more valid. Callendars model could be totally invalid. His results however are more accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 6, 2013 23:59:24 GMT
.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 7, 2013 0:05:51 GMT
Codehacker: You are correct. I should have stated hypothesis instead of theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 7, 2013 0:27:56 GMT
A theory is not a guess, nor a hunch, it is a working base of knowledge describing how a system behaves. "To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world." Theory of Gravity A theory is the best tested guess available An hypothesis is an untested guess. |
|
?
