tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post4921770619806184210..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Gavin Schmidt & Co have been reconciling climate models and surface temperature observationsSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39471340112386737682016-02-21T10:29:30.324+11:002016-02-21T10:29:30.324+11:00Hi my friends! I need to say this post is wonderfu...Hi my friends! I need to say this post is wonderful, extraordinary composed and incorporate around all critical data. I might want to see more posts like this. Much obliged to you once more.<br /><a href="http://dubaiescortsclub.info" rel="nofollow">Indian escorts in Dubai</a><br /><a href="http://dubaiescortsclub.info" rel="nofollow">escorts in Dubai</a><br />Dubai escorts clubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00020607007618184451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75600992971567331962016-01-24T09:33:02.034+11:002016-01-24T09:33:02.034+11:00At this time we are discussing excellence along th...At this time we are discussing excellence along these lines, we ought to remember one name and it is Riya. Riya is an exceptionally famous and snappy <a href="http://topescortsdubai.com/indianescorts.html" rel="nofollow">Indian Escorts in Dubai</a> and her fan taking after is tremendous in Dubai. She is accomplished and experience young lady and she is working in Dubai as <a href="http://topescortsdubai.com/indianescorts.html" rel="nofollow">Indian call girls in Dubai</a> most recent couple of years. She is incorporated in <a href="http://topescortsdubai.com/indianescorts.html" rel="nofollow">model escorts in Dubai</a>. All around the globe individuals visit our organization and they generally liked to Riya on the grounds that she is exceptionally alluring, sharp, hot, well behavior and thin young <a href="http://topescortsdubai.com/dubaiescorts.html" rel="nofollow">escorts in Dubai</a>.<br />For booking & more about Riya visit our website<br />Dubai Escortshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606831264421786971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24737335373971010912014-04-11T03:39:42.639+10:002014-04-11T03:39:42.639+10:00Fine tinning or curve fitting?
Its not very hard ...Fine tinning or curve fitting?<br /><br />Its not very hard to curve fit after the fact. Predictions are much harder especially about the future. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607772334858599490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29512258284569391932014-03-06T23:46:47.039+11:002014-03-06T23:46:47.039+11:00It's just the words that blogger puts in. In ...It's just the words that blogger puts in. In reality <a href="http://hotwhopper.com/hotwhoppery.html" rel="nofollow">the comment was moved</a> as per the <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/comment-policy.html" rel="nofollow">comment policy</a> and at my discretion.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16714561123664462332014-03-06T23:26:27.604+11:002014-03-06T23:26:27.604+11:00Time for a reality check. You're not that good...Time for a reality check. You're not that good that your comments on climate science are inconvenient anywhere. Just saying.<br />Warmest regards,<br />GeorgeGeorge Montgomeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042191140401441348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68533227587541825062014-03-06T21:48:31.277+11:002014-03-06T21:48:31.277+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44660815814173077942014-03-04T21:53:22.914+11:002014-03-04T21:53:22.914+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86757050729831781782014-03-03T01:12:17.562+11:002014-03-03T01:12:17.562+11:00Tightening up Pinatubo cooling estimates won't...Tightening up Pinatubo cooling estimates won't change the central estimates for TCR or ECS. Look at the paper again: with improved (reduced) estimates for negative aerosol forcing from Pinatubo, observations and models come into <i>closer agreement</i>. Which means that modelled estimates of TCR and ECS are validated. So far, so mainstream. <br /><br />Give up the pseudoscepticism and learn about climate science instead. It is a far better use of your time. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57853931347893978062014-03-03T01:06:30.269+11:002014-03-03T01:06:30.269+11:00Models are a work in progress, but any honest and ...Models are a work in progress, but any <i>honest and objective</i> evaluation of their performance reveals that they are performing their design function well. This being the investigation of long-term climate behaviour under various different forcing scenarios.<br /><br />Deniers - like you, Anon. - lie and misrepresent so continuously that they forget that they are even doing it. They forget that the claims that the models are "falsified" are based on faked-up graphs by other liars further up the food chain. They forget that models are not designed to <i>predict</i> Earth's climate accurately, year by year or even by decade, but to provide an understanding of multi-decadal forced response. <br /><br />Deniers - like you, Anon. - lie about other things too, for example that we can make informative estimates of TCR (let alone ECS) based on a decade of climate behaviour. They pretend that warming is supposed to be monotonic, when no climate scientist or modeller has ever said such a thing. They pretend that natural variability should simply have ceased, but this is absurd. They do all this an much more besides.<br /><br />Then, to ice the cake, they pop up all over the internet posting incoherent, mangled, dishonest misrepresentations of the science, just as you have done here. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21929164692661605602014-03-02T21:21:24.550+11:002014-03-02T21:21:24.550+11:00So climate models have been accurate all along? Ge...So climate models have been accurate all along? Gee who are the deniers now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2954599795000812842014-03-02T04:57:43.867+11:002014-03-02T04:57:43.867+11:00I remember that the response to Penatubo has been ...I remember that the response to Penatubo has been used to estimate climate sensitivity and that it gave a high consensus answer. If as alleged in this paper, the forcing used in that calculation is wrong, someone should redo the calculation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10599804444936599552014-03-02T01:51:24.484+11:002014-03-02T01:51:24.484+11:00I wouldn't be surprised if that was the work t...<i>I wouldn't be surprised if that was the work that Gavin Schmidt used, especially as he cited it in his own article.</i><br /><br />Schmidt is a co-author of Santer14, so I'm sure he did. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3032467331493483472014-03-01T23:15:41.258+11:002014-03-01T23:15:41.258+11:00WHT, there was another paper last week, by Ben San...WHT, there was <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2098.html" rel="nofollow">another paper last week</a>, by Ben Santer and co, discussing a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic eruptions on surface temperature. Here is a <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2098.html" rel="nofollow">link to the paper in Nature Geoscience</a> and here is a link to an <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140224133137.htm" rel="nofollow">article about it on ScienceDaily</a>. From the abstract:<br /><br /><i>...Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect....</i><br /><br />I wouldn't be surprised if that was the work that Gavin Schmidt used, especially as he cited it in his own article.<br /><br />The Santer paper is behind a paywall and I'm not a subscriber to Nature Geoscience. However you can download the supplementary information, which has a lot of info. It refers to a observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth, among other things:<br /><br /><i>Observational stratospheric aerosol optical depth (SAOD) measurements were provided by Jean-Paul Vernier (NASA Langley Research Center) and Makiko Sato (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies). These are updated versions of the SAOD data sets described in previously published studies (ref. 24 and ref. 18).</i>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39010097139252530582014-03-01T17:06:55.292+11:002014-03-01T17:06:55.292+11:00I read Gavin's paper and don't see where t...I read Gavin's paper and don't see where the volcanic aerosols are coming from.<br /><br />It is much more straightforward to model the pause by the strong compensating effects of ENSO -- just use the SOI as a proxy -- along with other cyclic thermodynamic factors. These can be pulled out and their effects calibrated from the longer 130+ year time series; this unfortunately is not yet an accepted way of analysis. <br /><br />I feel that this turn of events has the makings of an impasse. I noticed that Wonderin Willis has a guest post at WUWT where he dismisses the idea of volcanic aerosols on global temperature, which is completely misguided. Yet he did also note that the volcanic aerosol measurements have been flat recently. That's what happens when someone takes a shotgun approach, they will occasionally hit a target.<br /><br />I use the GISS aerosol forcing table maintained by Sato for my own analysis, and can't see where the aerosol concentration is coming from, as it looks flat ever since Pinatubo settled down. If someone has any insight on this, I would be grateful for suggestions.<br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10348963365562108662014-03-01T10:32:09.549+11:002014-03-01T10:32:09.549+11:00It's certainly a learning opportunity, and mod...It's certainly a learning opportunity, and models are a learning tool. It's where discrepencies occur that you're missing something and should focus your attention.<br /><br />"The models have failed" has been a refrain from the moment they were first developed; as I recall Pat Michaels lied to Congress about them in 1998. On the day Hansen personally sabotaged the Capitol Hill air-conditioning system (it's true, I read it on the internet).Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47460396490483792472014-03-01T08:56:44.682+11:002014-03-01T08:56:44.682+11:00Certainly one could consider the possibility that ...Certainly one could consider the possibility that most of what we know about atmospheric physics is drastically mistaken due to some yet unknown science, and thus <i>"question the viability of the models"</i>, but there really isn't any evidence pointing in that direction.<br /><br />A <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor" rel="nofollow">much more likely</a> explanation is that fine-tuning the models, as Gavin suggests, incorporating actual ENSO events and more accurate temperature and aerosol data, brings the projections more in line with observations.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82382467445916426672014-03-01T04:57:10.520+11:002014-03-01T04:57:10.520+11:00I think Anonymous is saying that the CMIP5 models ...I think Anonymous is saying that the CMIP5 models failed to use the actual future data for volcanoes, ENSO, etc. rather than use average behaviour to project ahead. Scientists inability to see the future in sufficient detail means, in Anon's opinion, that models must inevitably fail. Which is no doubt a great comfort to him/her, given what the models project.<br /><br />Real outcomes lie within CMIP5 projections, but that's easily enough ignored, I'm sure, by those who have a talent for ignorance.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49172452587379391982014-03-01T02:04:04.418+11:002014-03-01T02:04:04.418+11:00Looks to me like Gavin Schmidt actually showing th...Looks to me like Gavin Schmidt actually showing the models are really, really good. The models work fine with real-world data.<br /><br />The one problem we have is that we don't know for sure how the sun and volcanoes (and ENSO) will behave over short time-scales. Perhaps anonymous is one of those who wants the world to gamble that the sun will not only remain as 'quiet' as it is today, it actually should become more 'quiet', that volcanoes become more active, and that ENSO magically remains in a "mostly La Nina" state.<br /><br />MarcoMarconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33407887842820650962014-03-01T00:47:20.050+11:002014-03-01T00:47:20.050+11:00Gavin hasn't said the "science is settled...Gavin hasn't said the "science is settled" either. Anonymous is in the business of making shit up.<br /><br />http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/not-a-misquote-a-nonquote/<br /><br />There's more:<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/<br /><br />I don't think Gavin Schmidt is ready to pack up and go home yet.<br /><br />Of course there is a lot of "settled science". For example, it's accepted as "settled" that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.<br /><br />I'd say Anonymous has well and truly "settled" any doubt that Anonymous is an ordinary run-of-the-mill climate science denier liar, quite possible of the "climate science is a hoax" type - but that bit may not be quite settled yet.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88202098159362728202014-03-01T00:36:21.374+11:002014-03-01T00:36:21.374+11:00So Gavin Schmidt admits that the climate models ha...<i>So Gavin Schmidt admits that the climate models have failed</i><br /><br />No, he doesn't. You are making shit up. <br /><br />Go back and read the main article again. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7572778006919385572014-03-01T00:16:55.209+11:002014-03-01T00:16:55.209+11:00But rather than question the viability of the mode...<i>But rather than question the viability of the models, he blames nature for not playing the game</i><br />But nature still has to obey the laws of physics, or - at least - we still think that nature obeys the laws of physics. If you were able to show that it does not obey the currently known laws of physics, that would be amazing. Otherwise, trying to reconcile why the results from climate models are not quite what was observed is typically called "doing science".And Then Theres Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82159870073015006302014-02-28T23:57:30.319+11:002014-02-28T23:57:30.319+11:00So Gavin Schmidt admits that the climate models ha...So Gavin Schmidt admits that the climate models have failed,<br /><br />“Here we argue that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992. CMIP5 model simulations were based on historical estimates of external influences on the climate only to 2000 or 2005, and used scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs) thereafter4. Any recent improvements in these estimates or updates to the present day were not taken into account in these simulations.”<br /><br />But rather than question the viability of the models, he blames nature for not playing the game,<br /><br />“We conclude that use of the latest information on external influences on the climate system and adjusting for internal variability associated with ENSO can almost completely reconcile the trends in global mean surface temperature in CMIP5 models and observations.”<br /><br />But Gavin you told us that “the science was settled”<br /><br />Seriously you couldn't make this shit up!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72178951974643532462014-02-28T19:57:44.777+11:002014-02-28T19:57:44.777+11:00I think that was Greig, who is not welcome because...I think that was Greig, who is not welcome because of his unacceptable behaviour.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39778505042469984752014-02-28T18:08:44.681+11:002014-02-28T18:08:44.681+11:00Great, in the deniosphere entering *actual measure...Great, in the deniosphere entering *actual measured values* into your model is now considered "fiddling with model parameters"...Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85224497066091221952014-02-28T17:24:47.200+11:002014-02-28T17:24:47.200+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com