tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post6101492215821364374..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: A reality check of temperature for Wondering Willis EschenbachSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15831178973467695042014-10-31T20:00:13.488+11:002014-10-31T20:00:13.488+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17117211543270244122014-10-31T09:12:51.653+11:002014-10-31T09:12:51.653+11:00Rum Runner
What point? Where? You didn't link...Rum Runner<br /><br /><i>What point? Where? You didn't link to one of my points!</i><br /><br />You surprise me. Normal practice is to use the browser text search function. Type in 'Rum Runner' and step through the results. <br /><br />Anyway, that aside, since you insist and for only the third time, the specifics.<br /><br />For the standard calculation: <br /><br />dT = λ*dF <br /><br />dT = temperature *at equilibrium* but you used observational TRANSIENT response instead (0.8C). <b><i>As soon as you did that, everything went wrong.</i></b> <br /><br />Here's what you wrote, with my comments in square brackets:<br /><br /><i>dT [at equilibrium] = sensitivity x forcing<br />dT [at equilibrium] = (lambda) x (5.35 x ln(C1/C0)) <br /><br />CO2 has risen from 280 to 400 ppm. Temperature has risen 0.8C. Solve for lambda.<br /><br />0.8 [WRONG VALUE. 0.8C is the transient response *not* the equilibrium response] = lambda x 5.25 x ln(400/280) <br /><br />0.8 = lambda x 1.872543 [NO]<br /><br />lambda = 0.427227 [WRONG]<br /><br />Using lambda we can now calculate 2 x CO2:<br /><br />dT = 0.427227 x 5.25 x ln(2) <br /><br />dT = 1.55C [WRONG RESULT]</i><br /><br />You have been very clear about this, which I think is admirable so long as you honour your word:<br /><br /><i>I'll make a deal with you BBD. If you can prove something substantive that I've said that was wrong - I'll never darken Sou's doorstep again. <br /><br />1) You have to prove (which includes providing data and, where necessary, calculations) that I'm wrong on a substantive point</i><br /><br />You made a substantive error. That's okay because we all stuff up from time to time, but the problem here is that you refuse to admit your mistake. But there it is, plain as day. <br /><br />It isn't possible to deny this and retain a single shred of intellectual integrity. So I must assume this will be your last comment here. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88912279640721381592014-10-31T08:51:47.231+11:002014-10-31T08:51:47.231+11:00:-D
What point? Where? You didn't link to one...:-D<br /><br />What point? Where? You didn't link to one of my points!<br /><br />I know it must be hard, but I believe in you BBD. You CAN do better.<br /><br />I'm off to bed so you've got plenty of time. See what you can knock up and I'll see you in the morning. Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82184008711518858662014-10-31T08:02:31.907+11:002014-10-31T08:02:31.907+11:00Look here. You were flat-out wrong on a substanti...<a href="http://hotwhopper.com/HotWhoppery.html" rel="nofollow">Look here. </a> You were flat-out wrong on a substantive point.<br /><br />Goodbye. <br /><br /><i>2) I get unmoderated right of reply - 1 for 1 with every criticism you make. </i><br /><br />That is up to Sou. I should not have asked her to chuck you out either. It's not up to me. But since you will now leave of your own free will it doesn't matter. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21572209683322890442014-10-31T07:15:49.985+11:002014-10-31T07:15:49.985+11:00Oh my dear BBD!
>>"Get this idiot off ...Oh my dear BBD!<br /><br />>>"Get this idiot off this blog Sou. Please. "<br /><br />I'll make a deal with you BBD. If you can prove something substantive that I've said that was wrong - I'll never darken Sou's doorstep again. There's two conditions: <br /><br />1) You have to prove (which includes providing data and, where necessary, calculations) that I'm wrong on a substantive point, and,<br />2) I get unmoderated right of reply - 1 for 1 with every criticism you make. <br /><br />Deal?Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72959687902933096582014-10-31T04:13:59.572+11:002014-10-31T04:13:59.572+11:00Oh, the sweet sound of victory...
Nope, that'...<i>Oh, the sweet sound of victory...</i><br /><br />Nope, that's the sound of the troll who was too stupid to get the equations right and too dishonest to admit his errors braying instead of responding to my points about equatorial convection and denier rhetoric about models.<br /><br />Get this idiot off this blog Sou. Please. <br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76582045473343645432014-10-31T02:57:23.822+11:002014-10-31T02:57:23.822+11:00"or through poor characterization of El Niño ..."or through poor characterization of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) [in both frequency and magnitude; Guilyardi et al. , 2012]."<br /><br />A recent study found that when the model runs closely matched ENSO they closely matched the temperature record. So that seems consistent with this paper.Josephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11362172367754552792014-10-31T02:19:59.219+11:002014-10-31T02:19:59.219+11:00@RR
Troposphere temps _are_ rising faster than su...@RR<br /><br />Troposphere temps _are_ rising faster than surface temps - see <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1756/pdf" rel="nofollow">Santer et al 2008</a>, stating <i>" There is no longer a serious and fundamental discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates"</i>. and <a href="http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/Users/mitchell/grl50465.pdf" rel="nofollow">Mitchell et al 2013</a> <i>(which you _claim_ to have read)</i> - higher than surface trends for 500hPa, for 300hPa, with that changing only around 150hPa <i>(near tropopause)</i>. This is evident in all Mitchell figures, 1, 2, and particularly Fig. 3, "Scaling Ratio" - I find it incredible that you are claiming otherwise. <br /><br />You've ignored relevant papers that have been part of the discussion to repeat your <i>(incorrect)</i> assertions. You are clearly not discussing this topic in good faith. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50045567220763024682014-10-31T01:56:29.969+11:002014-10-31T01:56:29.969+11:00@BBD,
>>"Rum
I'm not playing stup...@BBD,<br /><br />>>"Rum<br /><br />I'm not playing stupid games where you fixate on an irrelevance rather than address the core point. Do that again and I will ask that you are moderated for intellectual dishonesty.<br /><br />Read the words and engage in discourse like an adult or sod off.<br /><br />After your last shameful performance here, you have no credit left with me. "<br /><br />Oh, the sweet sound of victory...Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55989237836120735232014-10-31T01:54:28.409+11:002014-10-31T01:54:28.409+11:00@ DJ
>> "and it is."
Both you an...@ DJ<br /><br />>> "and it is."<br /><br />Both you and KR have made this bizarre claim (of the troposphere Ts rising faster than the surface). But where's the data? Sou's chart says: No. The papers we've been looking at here say: No. All the data that I've seen says: No.<br /><br />So, sorry, you can't just claim "Yes", and expect that people aren't going to ask you to prove it. So kindly put up - or concede the point. <br /><br />The rest of your post is just ventingRum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71941366014896142732014-10-31T01:25:30.062+11:002014-10-31T01:25:30.062+11:00To illustrate just how tired and old and tedious R...To illustrate just how tired and old and tedious RR's shtick is, here is <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/treehugger-radio/nasas-james-hansen-on-climate-change-and-intergenerational-justice-podcast.html" rel="nofollow">well-known model sceptic James Hansen</a> on denialist rhetoric and models:<br /><br /><i>[TH:] A lot of these metrics that we develop come from computer models. How should people treat the kind of info that comes from computer climate models?<br /><br /><b>[Hansen:]</b> I think you would have to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Because if computer models were in fact the principal basis for our concern, then you have to admit that there are still substantial uncertainties as to whether we have all the physics in there, and how accurate we have it. But, in fact, that's not the principal basis for our concern. It's the Earth's history-how the Earth responded in the past to changes in boundary conditions, such as atmospheric composition. Climate models are helpful in interpreting that data, but they're not the primary source of our understanding.<br /><br />[TH:] Do you think that gets misinterpreted in the media?<br /><br /><b>[Hansen:]</b> Oh, yeah, that's intentional. The contrarians, the deniers who prefer to continue business as usual, easily recognize that the computer models are our weak point. So they jump all over them and they try to make the people, the public, believe that that's the source of our knowledge. But, in fact, it's supplementary. It's not the basic source of knowledge. We know, for example, from looking at the Earth's history, that the last time the planet was two degrees Celsius warmer, sea level was 25 meters higher.<br /><br />And we have a lot of different examples in the Earth's history of how climate has changed as the atmospheric composition has changed. So it's misleading to claim that the climate models are the primary basis of understanding.</i><br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2107958377310254042014-10-31T01:12:42.271+11:002014-10-31T01:12:42.271+11:00Rum
I'm not playing stupid games where you fi...Rum<br /><br />I'm not playing stupid games where you fixate on an irrelevance rather than address the core point. Do that again and I will ask that you are moderated for intellectual dishonesty. <br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/a-reality-check-of-temperature-for.html?showComment=1414628322914#c384331882211013185" rel="nofollow">Read the words</a> and engage in discourse like an adult or sod off.<br /><br />After your last shameful performance here, you have no credit left with me. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-92056341125359244742014-10-31T00:37:14.689+11:002014-10-31T00:37:14.689+11:00RR writes "The troposphere should be warming ...RR writes "The troposphere should be warming *faster* than the surface"<br /><br />and it is.<br /><br />"While satellite MSU/AMSU observations generally support GCM results with tropical deep-layer tropospheric warming faster than surface, it is evident that the AR4 GCMs exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere during the last three decades"<br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048101/abstract<br /><br />And yes generally the models overestimate the warming trends, but so what. That's where you are getting muddled.<br /><br />Do you remember when we discussed climate sensitivity? That for every 1 W/m2 of forcing there will be about 0.8C of warming at equilibrium. Well guess what. That hasn't changed. WHY? Because it's not model dependent, but based on ACTUAL proxy data stretching back over the last 200 million years. <br /><br />Now, even if there was no tropospheric amplification, or that models overestimate the amplification that is occurring, it doesn't matter. We know from the earth's past climate history that a RF perturbation will cause warming. Period. Your exasperated diversionary tactics, no matter how obtrusive, will never change that. You're obsessiveness with tropospheric amplification or lack of, is just extraordinary and ultimately futile.<br /><br />Look, model discrepancies for one particular section of climate science does not, as you would probably like to believe, suddenly make the climate sensitively lower. It just means more research is required.<br /><br />In any mature science, from microbiology to geology, especially on the leading edge, there will be always new knowledge and new research. This is how science works. It doesn't bother me that we don't have a cure for the common cold, but it doesn't change the basics of germ theory. It's the same with climate science. Yes, there is still a lot of knowledge to be gathered, but does this change the fact that greenhouse gases if continued to be emitted at the current rate will cause serious consequences. No. Does the fact that there are model discrepancies change the earth's reaction to radiative forcing. No.<br /><br />I doubt that any of this will make the slightest sense to you. As we have already seen, even the most simplest concepts elude you. Climate science is just not your thing. Just accept it, and move on. Sure, you get a perverted satisfaction from trolling websites that are an aberration to your ideology, but maybe it's time for a change. It is apparent that your cognitive ability to learn and interpret is severely lacking, which is why you are so addicted to the cheap thrills of trolling. You should instead direct your pathological anger to things that are better suited to your mental abilities. Try making models with play-doh, or finger painting. I guarantee that you will be much happier doing that then obsessively trolling climate science websites. DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50613662134986197312014-10-30T18:39:25.413+11:002014-10-30T18:39:25.413+11:00Hi BBD,
>>"This isn't going to get...Hi BBD,<br /><br />>>"This isn't going to get you a low climate sensitivity, Rum:" <br /><br />I don't know if you've ever played the great sport of Rugby? One of the terms to describe a badly thought out pass is "hospital pass". In it the man with the ball passes to his team-mate just as his team-mate has a 20 stone prop forward about to hit him at 20 miles an hour. His team-mate would have been "safe" a millisecond previously because in Rugby you are only allowed to tackle the man with the ball. Pass. Crunch. Ouch. Hospital.<br /><br />This is similar to what's happened in Mitchel '13. They've "fixed" the difference between modelled output and tropospheric temperatures, by throwing a hospital pass to the SST models.Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74112922531778639852014-10-30T18:30:32.700+11:002014-10-30T18:30:32.700+11:00@KR
>>"Issues such as your quoting fro...@KR<br /><br />>>"Issues such as your quoting from Santer et al 2005 without full context," <br /><br />How deliciously ironic considering you then go onto quote Mitchel '13 thus:<br /><br />>>"it is shown that within observational uncertainty, the 5–95 percentile range of temperature trends from both coupled-ocean and atmosphere-only models are consistent with the analyzed observations at all but the upper most tropospheric level (150 hPa)"<br /><br />without even acknowleding that this was as a consequence of their novel treatment of substituting modeled SST for their cooler observations! <br /><br />The difference between *complete* GCM models and tropospheric temperatures <b>IS REAL</b> - and is very well highlighted in Mitchel '13. It's <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/grl.50465/asset/supinfo/SI_Fig1.pdf?v=1&s=25e6f96ab7542cebf5ed2ef7f08310689f73d7ab" rel="nofollow">figure ONE of the paper</a>! The issue was real when Santer said it. It's still real 8 years later when Mitchel says it. It is in the data (both satelite datasets, AND radiosonde). It is in the model output (dozens of different models). Get over it.<br /><br />Mitchel '13 hasn't "solved" the issue, they've just said "look, if we remove the model output for the oceans and slip in the heck of a lot cooler observed temps then the match ain't that bad". Doing that is fine, but it opens up the can of worms as to WHY the GCMs don't model oceans well. It passes the buck. Do you really want to go there?<br /><br />>>"The troposphere, contrary to your initial claim, _is_ warming faster than the surface." <br /><br />Show me the data. And show Sou too, because she says <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-whLPx8OCCE8/VEtegdzW43I/AAAAAAAAGsk/rbnt5QvXjdA/s1600/realitycheck.png" rel="nofollow">"Computer says: No."</a>Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22029503246204724222014-10-30T16:01:36.122+11:002014-10-30T16:01:36.122+11:00@RumRunner
Issues such as your quoting from Sante...@RumRunner<br /><br />Issues such as your quoting from Santer et al 2005 without full context, not referencing (or not knowing about) current literature, and in general invoking the 'skeptic' myth of _major_ differences between observations and models of the troposphere that wholly invalidate said models? As Mitchell et al state:<br /><br /><i>" it is shown that within observational uncertainty, <b>the 5–95 percentile range of temperature trends from both coupled-ocean and atmosphere-only models are consistent with the analyzed observations at all but the upper most tropospheric level (150 hPa)</b>, and models with ultra-high horizontal resolution ( 0.5ı 0.5ı) perform particularly well. Other than model resolution, it is hypothesized that this remaining discrepancy could be due to a poor representation of stratospheric ozone or remaining observational uncertainty. "</i> (emphasis added)<br /><br />In short, the major differences touted as evidence against climate science just don't exist - and the remaining differences appear to be addressable. The troposphere, contrary to your initial claim, _is_ warming faster than the surface. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3843318822110131852014-10-30T11:18:42.914+11:002014-10-30T11:18:42.914+11:00If equatorial convection was the big get-out card ...If equatorial convection was the big get-out card that some contrarians have argued, it would, by definition, be a strong negative feedback. Existence of such would render the climate system relatively insensitive to radiative perturbation. But paleoclimate behaviour verges on the inexplicable if the climate system is relatively insensitive to radiative perturbation. The climate system is not dominated by negative feedbacks and never has been. <br /><br />We can do the trop-top-trop gavotte for ever and a day but it won't get rid of the facts. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41434150845329446392014-10-30T09:27:17.381+11:002014-10-30T09:27:17.381+11:00RedRum,
misquoting and cherry-picking is great wh...RedRum,<br /><br />misquoting and cherry-picking is great when you can get away with it. The abstract from the study also said this:<br /><br />"These results suggest either that different physical mechanisms control amplification processes on monthly and decadal time scales, and models fail to capture such behavior; or (more plausibly) that residual errors in several observational data sets used here affect their representation of long-term trends."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74761014115232162592014-10-30T09:17:34.798+11:002014-10-30T09:17:34.798+11:00My wife used to give me good advice too, until the...My wife used to give me good advice too, until they discovered I was not married :-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8855258175651362312014-10-30T09:15:34.434+11:002014-10-30T09:15:34.434+11:00This isn't going to get you a low climate sens...This isn't going to get you a low climate sensitivity, Rum:<br /><br /><i>Using coupled-ocean atmosphere models from CMIP 5, we highlight the discrepancy in surface temperature trends between model simulations and observations (especially over the 1979–2008 period). When the models are constrained in a more physically meaningful manner, through using either fixed SSTs or considering air temperatures as an amplification of the surface temperature, we show robust<br />evidence for good agreement in the low-mid tropical troposphere<br />but with some (reduced compared to previous studies) discrepancy in the upper tropical troposphere. This holds true even for the 1979–2008 period where the issue appears to be particularly pronounced [Thorne et al., 2011a].</i><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15312442685270389392014-10-30T06:47:13.053+11:002014-10-30T06:47:13.053+11:00@KR
"I believe this exchange has corrected ...@KR <br /><br />"I believe this exchange has corrected the issues with your original comment above, on Santer et al 2005?"<br /><br />There was nothing to correct from me. Sou answered: "Time will tell if its the models were wrong in this regard or if the observations are wrong. The measurements are within the margin of error, but still, one would have thought that it would have shown up more by now. " <br /><br />I agree. Don't you?<br /><br />What "issues" do you want to "correct" for me? We can see that Mitchell '13 says "It is clear that the majority of the CMIP models overestimate the tropical temperature trends over this period". So your statement that "There is at present no convincing reason to believe that observations are wholly missing the tropical upper troposphere 'hot spot'" is wrong from the outset. <br /><br />Read the paper. Then read my comment. Then you can see if there's an "issue" you can "correct" for me. Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10693326337533842392014-10-30T06:21:13.993+11:002014-10-30T06:21:13.993+11:00@Rum Runner:
I believe this exchange has corrected...@Rum Runner:<br />I believe this exchange has corrected the issues with your original comment above, on Santer et al 2005?<br /><br />There is at present no convincing reason to believe that observations are wholly missing the tropical upper troposphere 'hot spot' so beloved by JoNova and others - rather that there there is general model/observation agreement, with some interesting areas for research in the details.KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77315107112776525132014-10-30T04:08:23.998+11:002014-10-30T04:08:23.998+11:00I think v6.0 must be in the same queue as the &quo...I think v6.0 must be in the same queue as the "Surface Stations" project.Anthony Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02513872551156179165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85555392425635112302014-10-30T02:24:14.574+11:002014-10-30T02:24:14.574+11:00I do wonder if Weng et al. will be the next big sh...I do wonder if Weng et al. will be the next big shake-up for the satellite temperature reconstructions. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33468475523541882502014-10-30T00:16:44.533+11:002014-10-30T00:16:44.533+11:00@Peter Thore [Thorne?]
The [your?] paper is avail...@Peter Thore [Thorne?]<br /><br />The [your?] paper is <a href="http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/Users/mitchell/grl50465.pdf" rel="nofollow">available here.</a> <br /><br />Nice paper, some very interesting points in it:<br /><br />a) particularly your approach to the bias in SST's in the CMIP models. (Which leads to the obvious question: Why are the models over-estimating SSTs...?) <br /><br />b) by replacing modelled trends in surface temperatures with their (cooler) observations, and treating the troposphere as an amplification of that observation at each pressure level, I would argue you are:<br /> i) simply matching the shape of the profile, not trend, as the errors are so large<br /> ii) filling in the "gap" in tropospheric trends by passing the buck onto the next "section" of the GCM models! <br /> <br />Whilst I know this stuff isn't easy, it seems to me to be a very incomplete solution. Decoupling sea and atmospheric temperatures in the real world can't be done, so doing so in a model basis isn't realistic. <br /><br />@ DJ:<br />"[19] It is clear that the majority of the CMIP models overestimate the tropical temperature trends over this period, although we note that the observed temperature trend at all heights lies within the 5–95 percentile range of simulated temperature trends. For example, at 300 hPa, the mean RICH temperature trend is ~0.2K/dec, but some of the models simulate trends of over double this. Some of this discrepancy arises because the models tend to overestimate the surface temperature trends. This is a common problem in global climate models and could stem from a poor representation of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) [Richter et al., 2012], or through poor characterization of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) [in both frequency and magnitude; Guilyardi et al. , 2012]. "Rum Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06198441561400270287noreply@blogger.com