Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jules Galen said:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/overlayco2.png

Edited by LashL: 
Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.



Shown in the chart above, are temperature projections made by the IPCC in 1990 plotted against observed data. The IPCC Models Failed.
Click to expand...

That is a concoction Jules, and a very bad one. Black lines, red lines and y-axis on the right might show a prediction of IPCC -if traced to that- I would say it is pretty good, because it was an easy one. All of that wasn't made with computer models at all but with accountants and statisticians, and if you failed to spot that there's a big hole in your basic knowledge.

The blue and green line together with the y-axis on the left, show some kind of moving average over two series of global temperatures -if traced to their origin, again, no identification, no attribution, nothing, like the typical artsy crafty macaroni-glued figures found in denialists joints-. The period for averaging is at least 5 years, which is a no-no with a 20-year x-axis.

The trick in the concoction is choosing the wide for the moving average to show the most flat outcome, preferably with a tweak toward lower temperatures. That is easy to obtain when you have temperatures from late 1998 to late 2002 that will be included in the moving average of the last half of the period. Most probably -it would be needed a more in depth analysis- the moving average is one made based on moving averages, so there's a reinforcement of second orders instead of filtering them.

But the most obvious trick in the concoction is both scales chosen for the y-axes. It is enough suspicious that 0 to 1 delta t and 340 to 400 ppm (whatever they may be -induced inference again-) as extremes make all colour lines to depart from the exact same point at January 1st 1990 -what a coincidence :rolleyes:-. But what is ridiculous is the scales chosen: different enough to show a false disagreement but not different enough to make evident the manipulations of the scales themselves. If the left scale had been 0.1 to 0.6 (forget everything below 0.1) figure would be read in a strikingly different way.

But even most surprising is the "plausible diversion", that is all the manipulation to cover the original sin: there's nothing linearly linking CO2 levels and global temperatures. Anyway, I'm glad you let the models meme to fade away, as this has nothing to do with models

So, Jules Gales, do you have something that is not a scam? So far you are doing pretty badly and showing denialism as a deceitful discipline. I know you're not in such business so, again, have you any figure that proves there's no AGW?
 
Shown in the chart above, are temperature projections made by the IPCC in 1990 plotted against observed data. The IPCC Models Failed.
Click to expand...

all models fail, some models are useful.....
How about you deal with the reality Jules. It's getting warmer - we're responsible.

Care to explain this?

heat_content2000m.png


Or do you avoid uncomfortable data.
We've explained the variance in surface temp from expectations due to ENSO activity which temporarily buries heat in the ocean
....you haven't one explained the warming.

Does CO2 trap IR?
 
Jules Galen said:
​
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/overlayco2.png

Edited by LashL: 
Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.



Shown in the chart above, are temperature projections made by the IPCC in 1990 plotted against observed data. The IPCC Models Failed.

Click to expand...

Presenting 3 year old scribblings, which do not accurately represent either the 5 year-old data or the 20+ year old models they claim to represent, from a blog that clearly illustrates through its own practices why pseudoscience is worthless and why people should not try to learn science from a blog, is hardly what anyone interested in real science would try to present as compelling supportive evidence.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
Presenting 3 year old scribblings, which do not accurately represent either the 5 year-old data or the 20+ year old models they claim to represent, from a blog that clearly illustrates through its own practices why pseudoscience is worthless and why people should not try to learn science from a blog, is hardly what anyone interested in real science would try to present as compelling supportive evidence.
Click to expand...

Well, here's a chart of 90 CIMP5 Model runs from Models used in 2008 (even more current than the previous chart). As you can see, these models also fail miserably. This chart is from Roy Spencer...so no doubt he's be fired by NASA if they were propaganda.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg

Edited, breach of rule 5. Please stop hotlinking images from sites that do not specifically state they support this (hotlinking). See rule 5 for more information.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jules Galen said:
​
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/overlayco2.png

Edited by LashL: 
Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.


Shown in the chart above, are temperature projections made by the IPCC in 1990 plotted against observed data. The IPCC Models Failed.
Click to expand...

This graphic is not what you claim it to be. A molded temperature would not have the same starting point as the actual temperature because the model is already free running at that point. The only way this can happen is if whoever created the graphic applied an offset to the model results, which means you can no longer use them as a direct comparison to measured temperatures.

The second issue is that you don’t show which emission scenario these model results are supposed for, and just slap some random CO2 level in the graphic. Without the emissions scenario documented results comparisons to actual temperatures are worthless.

Overall a very poor and most likely deliberately dishonest attempt.
 
Trakar said:
Presenting 3 year old scribblings, which do not accurately represent either the 5 year-old data or the 20+ year old models they claim to represent, from a blog that clearly illustrates through its own practices why pseudoscience is worthless and why people should not try to learn science from a blog, is hardly what anyone interested in real science would try to present as compelling supportive evidence.
Click to expand...

Well, here's a chart of 90 CIMP5 Model runs from Models used in 2008 (even more current than the previous chart). As you can see, these models also fail miserably. This chart is from Roy Spencer...so no doubt he's be fired by NASA if they were propaganda.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg

Edited by Locknar: 
Hotlink SNIPed, breach of rule 5.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jules Galen said:
Well, here's a chart of 90 CIMP5 Model runs from Models used in 2008 (even more current than the previous chart). As you can see, these models also fail miserably. This chart is from Roy Spencer...so no doubt he's be fired by NASA if they were propaganda.

[qimg]http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg[/qimg]​
Click to expand...

well we can ignore UAH, as it is UAH LTL that is up to 10 km.
the model output is on 2 m above surface
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/cesm/cesmBbrowser/html_code/csm_share/shr_flux_mod.F90.html

and when you account for the decreased TSI, its pretty much spot on.
so what is your problem?
 
Jules Galen said:
Well, here's a chart of 90 CIMP5 Model runs from Models used in 2008 (even more current than the previous chart). As you can see, these models also fail miserably. This chart is from Roy Spencer...so no doubt he's be fired by NASA if they were propaganda.

[qimg]http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg[/qimg]​
Click to expand...

the models fail? even if we take Spencer's dishonest comparison at face value, 2 models run even lower than the UAH dataset......
 
DC said:
well we can ignore UAH, as it is UAH LTL that is up to 10 km.
the model output is on 2 m above surface
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/cesm/cesmBbrowser/html_code/csm_share/shr_flux_mod.F90.html

and when you account for the decreased TSI, its pretty much spot on.
so what is your problem?
Click to expand...

Ah....it's TSI now!

I get it....when the models don't work, find something to blame it on. First, we hear that heat is hiding out in the Oceans....bad, bad Heat....shame on you. Then, we hear that the TSI may be to blame....Oh Noes!

Seriously, though...both factors - not taking into account TSI and Deep Ocean Heat Trapping (or...whatever) may contribute to the models having failed. I'm sure future models will try to more fully take these factor into account. However, what it also demonstrates is that the science is not mature enough to predict Global Warming.

As a result, maybe we should wait a few years and learn some more about how the Climate really works before we declare an emergency....don't ya' think?
 
Jules Galen said:
Well, here's a chart of 90 CIMP5 Model runs from Models used in 2008 (even more current than the previous chart). As you can see, these models also fail miserably. This chart is from Roy Spencer...so no doubt he's be fired by NASA if they were propaganda.

Click to expand...

Well, I have to admit that you move towards better concoctions.

You have to provide (P) or explain (E):

Why is it chosen El Niño year as time departure (the second strongest Niño of the century)? (E)
Why is it such El Niño year chosen specially if the departing average period is so short and immediately previous to such Niño? (E)
Wasn't it going to cause real temperatures to move downwards? (E)
Wasn't the difference between surface and low tropospheric temperatures your own figure shows a clear sign of much water vapour -greenhouse gas- in an El Niño year? (E)
Didn't trigger any suspicion in you that a strong Niño year has exactly 0°C as a departure from the mean before that Niño? (E)
Which "90 models" are used? (P)
Hint: there are not 90 CMIP5 models, there must be 90 runs.
Of which models? (P)
Why and how are modern CMIP5 models used in 1983? (E)
Were available 1983 input like those modern models require? (E)
Were the models run backwards? (E)
Where's Pinatubo in those model runs? (E/P)
And other eruptions? (E/P)
Those model runs require an scenario of emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. What data was provided? (P/E) Be sure you can confirm what you assert because that may show you being right or as trying to deceive.
Why are provided two series of temperatures? (E) Where are both series outputs in the models? (E)
If the time series are five-year averages, how come there's a value in both series for 2012? Had the concocter a crystal ball? (E)
By the way, the time scales are a bit mismatched. Are they mismatched the same way for models and record time series? (P/E)

Look Jules, just these first few questions and that without even checking if the time series and model runs are even legitimate.

There's a lot more to it. The figure seems to be just more deception. But, c'mon, you surely will provide some sort of an answer to many of the questions above, so we can move further into detail. I have another bunch of questions like those, but we have to dive into the reality of the figure. I'm not doing it until you provide some explanations an effort. Otherwise you are simply dropping random affiliated literature like monkey wrenches expecting by these to "stump the band". You have to show your real intentions.
 
Last edited:
Arctic warming linked to fewer European and U.S. cold weather extremes, new study shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140615143834.htm



Dr Screen, a Mathematics Research Fellow at the University of Exeter, said: "Autumn and winter days are becoming warmer on average, and less variable from day-to-day. Both factors reduce the chance of extremely cold days."

The idea that there was a link between Arctic amplification and extreme weather conditions became prevalent during the severe winter weather that plagued large areas of the United States in January 2014, leading to major transport disruption, power cuts and crop damage.

In his study, Dr Screen examined detailed climate records to show that autumn and winter temperature variability has significantly decreased over the mid-to-high latitude Northern Hemisphere in recent decades.

He found that this has occurred mainly because northerly winds and associated cold days are warming more rapidly than southerly winds and warm days.

Dr Screen said: "Cold days tend to occur when the wind is blowing from the north, bringing Arctic air south into the mid-latitudes. Because the Arctic air is warming so rapidly these cold days are now less cold than they were in the past."
Click to expand...
So on the one hand we might get more Polar incursions, but on the other they're warmer than they used to be.

Personally, I'm more concerned about wet summers in the UK, but it's lovely at the moment. Fingers crossed ...
 
Jules Galen said:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg
Click to expand...

Same problems I discussed above plus it’s non-published work from Roy Spencer, which always needs to be viewed with great distrust.

His comments outside the published literature differ from his actual published work and he’s a vocal ID/religious nut who claims his “experience as a scientist lead him to the conclusion that Intelligent Design must be correct”
 
Jules Galen said:
Ah....it's TSI now!

I get it....when the models don't work, find something to blame it on. First, we hear that heat is hiding out in the Oceans....bad, bad Heat....shame on you. Then, we hear that the TSI may be to blame....Oh Noes!

Seriously, though...both factors - not taking into account TSI and Deep Ocean Heat Trapping (or...whatever) may contribute to the models having failed. I'm sure future models will try to more fully take these factor into account. However, what it also demonstrates is that the science is not mature enough to predict Global Warming.

As a result, maybe we should wait a few years and learn some more about how the Climate really works before we declare an emergency....don't ya' think?
Click to expand...

you just show how little you know about cliamte models. can you tell me how exactly climate modelers are supposed to know how strong or weak the next soalr cycle will be? we can't predict that. Models repeat the last cycle, and are not trying to predict the next one. so to meaningfully compare to observations, you need to account for the real TSI.
and that is merely one of the factors you need to account for.
 
DC said:
Models repeat the last cycle, and are not trying to predict the next one. so to meaningfully compare to observations, you need to account for the real TSI.
and that is merely one of the factors you need to account for.
Click to expand...

If all models do is repeat the last cycle and don't predict - don't provide knew knowledge - then what the hell good are they as evidence for saying that Global Warming will increase in the future?

Oh yeah...here's a run of 73 CMIP5 Models that was another failure: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

Here's a description of how the models were run: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06...-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

 
Last edited:
Jules Galen said:
If all models do is repeat the last cycle and don't predict - don't provide knew knowledge - then what the hell good are they as evidence for saying that Global Warming will increase in thefuture?
Click to expand...

see, and that is why they call it PROJECTIONS. because they are not predictions. some things are just not yet predictable. we cannot predict future TSI.
but are you supposing we continue with CO2 emissions and just hope for constantly decreasing TSI? we then can increase CO2 emissions and also hope for increased volcanic activity etc etc.
is that how you would plan for the futurem just hope that natural factors will cool even more? pretty naive.

maybe you should do some more reading about the sciene instead of only reading denier blogs.

you then would maybe understand what this topic is about.
 
Jules Galen said:
If all models do is repeat the last cycle and don't predict - don't provide knew knowledge - then what the hell good are they as evidence for saying that Global Warming will increase in the future?

Oh yeah...here's a run of 73 CMIP5 Models that was another failure: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Click to expand...

more Spencer dishonesty, cherry picking a region and comparing it to baloon and sat data...... why? why not landbased datasets? the model output is calculated on 2 m hights, because that is comparable to the landbased datasets. so why use datasets that include hights up to 10km?
give me a good reason.
 
DC said:
well do you have proper documentation of the plot? so one can actually check? his blog is rather vague. nor does it provide any documentation.
Click to expand...

It's an explanation of his/her endorsement which would be nice. People can't just go through life googling, cutting and pasting things just because that pleases their expectations and call it participation in a scientific discussion in a forum. Specially when would-be lectures about what science is and is not are gratuitously provided with the endorsements as a side dish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom