|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 30, 2013 3:00:19 GMT
While state-of-the-art models of Earth's climate system have improved tremendously over the last 20 years, nontrivial structural flaws still hinder their ability to forecast the decadal dynamics of the Earth system realistically. Contrasting the skill of these models not only with each other but also with empirical models can reveal the space and time scales on which simulation models exploit their physical basis effectively and quantify their ability to add information to operational forecasts. The skill of decadal probabilistic hindcasts for annual global-mean and regional-mean temperatures from the EU Ensemble-Based Predictions of Climate Changes and Their Impacts (ENSEMBLES) project is contrasted with several empirical models. journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00485.1 |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 30, 2013 3:01:15 GMT
Widespread stratocumulus clouds were observed on nine transects from seven research cruises to the southeastern tropical Pacific Ocean along 20°S, 75°–85°W in October–November of 2001–08. The nine transects sample a unique combination of synoptic and interannual variability affecting the clouds; their ensemble diagnoses longitude–vertical sections of the atmosphere, diurnal cycles of cloud properties and drizzle statistics, and the effect of stratocumulus clouds on surface radiation. Mean cloud fraction was 0.88, and 67% of 10-min overhead cloud fraction observations were overcast. Clouds cleared in the afternoon [1500 local time (LT)] to a minimum of fraction of 0.7. Precipitation radar found strong drizzle with reflectivity above 40 dBZ journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00618.1 |
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on May 30, 2014 7:29:11 GMT
The Schtick reports: New paper finds climate models violate the 'basic physics' of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...  A paper published today in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society finds climate models violate the 'basic physics' of the Second Law of Thermodynamics with respect to simulating conventional turbulent heat flow, one of the most important mechanisms of heat transfer in the atmosphere. According to the authors, "Numerical models of the atmosphere should fulfill fundamental physical laws. The Second Law of thermodynamics is associated with positive local entropy production and dissipation of available energy." i.e. entropy always increases and energy always dissipates per the second law of thermodynamics. "Inspecting commonly used parameterizations for subgrid-fluxes, we find that some of them obey the Second Law of thermodynamics, and some do not... Conventional turbulent heat flux parameterizations do not conform with the Second Law. A new water vapor flux formulation is derived from the requirement of locally positive entropy production. The conventional and the new water vapor fluxes are compared using high-resolution radiosonde data. Conventional water vapor fluxes are wrong by up to 10% and exhibit a negative bias." "...Both test cases indicate that negative thermal dissipation can occur for the conventional heat flux. Obviously, the additional energy made available by this negative dissipation to the resolved turbulence is later on dissipated by friction, so that the total dissipation is again comparable [for the wrong physical reasons], at least for the boundary layer experiment." In other words, the computer models falsely claim that entropy can decrease, heat can "negatively dissipate" [i.e. concentrate itself], and that "additional energy is made available by this "negative dissipation" ." Thus, the climate models violate the basic physics of both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
The finding is quite ironic given the climate alarmist meme that computer-modeled global warming is just "elementary basic physics" and "settled science" upon which all scientists agree. However, it is doubtful that many scientists know that the black-box climate models aren't even programmed to obey the most fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Paper link: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2404/abstractSchtick link: hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-paper-finds-climate-models-violate.html |
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Aug 6, 2014 6:49:11 GMT
WUWT reports - BOMBSHELL: Study shows greenhouse gas induced warming dropped for the past 14 years. Paper finds a decrease of IR radiation from greenhouse gases over past 14 years, contradicts expected increase – cloudiness blamed for difference. A paper published in the Journal of Climate finds from 800,000 observations a significant decrease in longwave infrared radiation from increasing greenhouse gases over the 14 year period 1996-2010 in the US Great Plains. CO2 levels increased ~7% over this period and according to AGW theory, downwelling IR should have instead increased over this period. According to the authors, “The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.” The findings contradict the main tenet of AGW theory which states increasing greenhouse gases including the primary greenhouse gas water vapor and clouds will cause an increase of downwelling longwave infrared “back-radiation.”  The paper also finds a negative trend in precipitable water vapor, as do other global datasets, again the opposite of predictions of AGW theory that warming allegedly from CO2 will increase precipitable water vapor in the atmosphere to allegedly amplify warming by 3-5 times. Is the unexpected decrease in water vapor the cause of the decrease in downwelling IR?  Global datasets also show an increase of outgoing longwave IR radiation to space from greenhouse gases over the past 62 years, again in contradiction to the predictions of AGW theory. Gero, P. Jonathan, David D. Turner, 2011: Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains. J. Climate, 24, 4831–4843. Link: wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/05/bombshell-study-shows-greenhouse-gas-induced-warming-dropped-for-the-past-14-years/ |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 6, 2014 16:14:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Aug 12, 2014 11:31:02 GMT
[“We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions,” says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. “Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.”
With their current knowledge, Liu and colleagues don’t believe any physical forces over the last 10,000 years could have been strong enough to overwhelm the warming indicated by the increase in global greenhouse gases and the melting ice sheet, nor do the physical models in the study show that it’s possible.
“The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer,” Liu says.]
These comments were taken from an article in WUWT.
1. I am quite entranced by the first paragraph, and particularly the idea of robust contradictions. Professor Liu appears to believe that models trump observation every time.
2. I do not understand the second paragraph.
3. The third paragraph clearly expresses a deep truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Aug 12, 2014 11:51:08 GMT
University of Wisconsin-Madison: A global temperature conundrum: cooling or warming climate? Link: www.news.wisc.edu/23050 |
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Aug 17, 2014 22:30:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 17, 2014 22:41:22 GMT
That one is a minor one Doug so you should be as safe as walking on a bed of nails over a hot coal fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 18, 2014 1:14:27 GMT
Well you may be able to fly to Europe but it may be that your holiday is longer than expected if they ground all the commercial aircraft in a panic like last time. There have been occasions when aircraft have had engines flame out by flying through volcanic ash - but they were actually flying through the immediate plume over the volcano not through an invisible cloud of dust particles many hundreds of miles distant. In ash clouds well away from the volcano the engines may get some extra wear similar to a gentle sandblasting but it is not dangerous as the larger particles fall out of the clouds due to gravity once they are not in a powerful updraft. |
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Aug 18, 2014 7:10:30 GMT
Paul Homewood reports on the Michaels and Knappenberger article which challenged the IPCC claim that: "The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend."Michaels & Knappenberger have analysed 108 of the 114 models via the Climate Explorer archives, and have plotted them on the chart below.  Figure 2. Distribution of the trend in the global average surface temperature from 108 model runs used by the IPCC (blue) and observed temperatures as compiled by the UK’s Hadley Center (red) for the period 1951-2012 (the model trends are calculated from historical runs with the RCP4.5 emissions scenario results appended after 2006). This presents the nearly identical data in Figure 1 Panel (c). www.cato.org/blog/clear-example-ipcc-ideology-trumping-factAs I say, we all see things in different ways, and that is why it is important that we are presented with all of the information. So – simple question. Based on Figure 2, who would agree with the IPCC that: "The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend."Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/do-climate-models-agree-with-observed-trend/ |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 13, 2015 7:32:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 13, 2015 10:00:38 GMT
From the link:
"Kyoji Kimoto shows why the basic global warming hypothesis may be wrong. He shows doubling carbon dioxide in the absence of feedbacks will warm the Earth by only 0.14 degrees C."(My bold) This never was the claim. The AGW hypothesis was that increasing CO2 increased temperatures slightly that led to water vapor increasing in the atmosphere that led to more warming that led to water vaoor increasing in the atmosphere.... etc.. And the climate then enters an iterative feedback cycle leading to the oceans boiling. The AGW hypothesis depends on positive feedback. So the paper is arguing against a straw man. (We know that the AGW hypothesis also glosses over the fact that Earth has had thousands of years with higher levels of CO2 and no runaway positive feedback occurred. So the hypothesis does not even have face validity. ) |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 13, 2015 16:49:08 GMT
From the link:
"Kyoji Kimoto shows why the basic global warming hypothesis may be wrong. He shows doubling carbon dioxide in the absence of feedbacks will warm the Earth by only 0.14 degrees C."(My bold) This never was the claim. The AGW hypothesis was that increasing CO2 increased temperatures slightly that led to water vapor increasing in the atmosphere that led to more warming that led to water vaoor increasing in the atmosphere.... etc.. And the climate then enters an iterative feedback cycle leading to the oceans boiling. The AGW hypothesis depends on positive feedback. So the paper is arguing against a straw man. (We know that the AGW hypothesis also glosses over the fact that Earth has had thousands of years with higher levels of CO2 and no runaway positive feedback occurred. So the hypothesis does not even have face validity. ) Yes and I agree mostly, but the entire argument still centers around in the absence of feedback because of evil "carbon pollution", a temperature rise of nearly two orders of magnitude higher than Kimoto's calculations. It started out >2 deg IIRC without feedbacks. Then they put some icing on the cake to get the ridiculous numbers the climate zombies use. Over the years it has been whittled down, but even with 2 deg rise with feedbacks there are all sorts of mayhem "scenarios". They just need to convince the mindless fools that 2 degrees is somehow going to destroy the planet. Progressives are those mindless fools, who while hating police they love police states; truth is relative. Climate "change" is just a tool for them to further their ultimate agenda. Two freaking degrees when in Michigan we see 50 degree shifts in a 24 hr period quite often yet somehow it recovers. The feedback issue is just an added bogeyman they have zero evidence to support with. Rather, the opposite occurs (e.g. earth's self regulating mechanism). This is preaching to the choir. We all know the surface temps are fraudulent works of manipulation, which is obviously why the U.N. cultists ignore satellite and balloon data. The gorilla in the room is clouds. Spencer and Christy among many others have said it is clouds that is the factor that models rely on. Without cloud reduction even the runaway perpetual motion machine falls flat on its face, and it is clouds that dreamers programmed the models to rely on to "disappear" because of this increased "carbon pollution" (worded to make people think of thick tar-like smoke). Again, observations do not support anything of the sort. As stated years ago, once the curtain is pulled away it reveals a bunch of bumpkins pulling levers on GCM's. Meanwhile a doubling of CO2 has no measurable effect on ocean temperature rise either, even admitted by the purveyors of false information at RC hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html In all this, water vapor positive feedback is a red herring. If it were positive feedback it should show up in the troposphere first. Rather, the surface is warming faster than the lower-mid troposphere; a complete denunciation of the entire "greenhouse" effect hypothesis. It's upside down. And we all know why that is. So while I agree with what you're saying, the notion that .14 degree with 2xCO2 can trigger some mythical never-before-seen positive feedback is akin to saying the climate system is as fragile as an egg balancing on the head of a pin. The whole global warming "theory" is based on lies and assumptions based on zero evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 13, 2015 18:02:22 GMT
Magellan: Pretty durn good post thar. You outdid yourself!.
|
|
