My article this week at Forbes.com digs into some fundamental flaws of climate models
When I looked at historic temperature and CO2 levels, it was impossible for me to see how they could be in any way consistent with the high climate sensitivities that were coming out of the IPCC models. Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10 (I show this analysis in more depth in this video).
My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).
The answer to this paradox came in a 2007 study by climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl. To understand his findings, we need to understand a bit of background on aerosols. Aerosols are man-made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth’s climate.
What Kiehl demonstrated was that these aerosols are likely the answer to my old question about how models with high sensitivities are able to accurately model historic temperatures. When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.
Specifically, when he looked at the climate models used by the IPCC, Kiehl found they all used very different assumptions for aerosol cooling and, most significantly, he found that each of these varying assumptions were exactly what was required to combine with that model’s unique sensitivity assumptions to reproduce historical temperatures. In my terminology, aerosol cooling was the plug variable.
Most commonly known as the “Fudge Factor”.
The points made in the post are so important to understand, I would suggest reading the Kiehl article in full. For those who are interested, here is the citation to the Kiehl: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007)
Here are two more peer-reviewed articles that make similar points:
Stephen E. Schwartz, Robert J. Charlson and Henning Rodhe, Quantifying Climate Change – Too
Rosy a Picture?, 2 Nature Reports: Climate Change 23 (2007)
.
Reto Knutti, Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well?, 35 Geo. Res. Lett. L18704 (2008).
All the full articles can be found on the internet through Google. I would provide the hyperlinks, except that doing so would cause the post to be stuck in Warren’s filter.
Acertion? Never heard of it.
Predicting the past [back casting] impresses the non technical mind but it is easy and does not indicate that the model will predict the future.
This is like a man I knew who had a system to predict horse race winners. He gave each variable like jockey weight or past performance a weight. He produced a computer model which back castes correctly over “N” races.
He then goes to the track and applies his model and it fails. Next he tweaks his model so it works over both the old and new data. He then goes to the track and again the model fails.
This is why the climate models fail to predict the future but predict the past just fine. The models always predict more warming than actually happens.
Dr Hansen’s 1988 model looks terrible in 2011.
The actual temperature is below the “control” scenario “C” which assumes stringent CO2 restrictions.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
The 1990 IPCC guesses look just as bad.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/
Why do all models show more warming than actually happens ?
The aerosols are the SOFTWARE PLUG which allows all models to predict the past accurately and yet predict catastrophe which fails to happen ! We don’t know how much effect they have today let alone 100 years ago.
I think this sums up the reliance on models quite well:
If we can rely so squarely on computer modeling to confirm global weather patterns decades into the future then why not expand this miraculous technology into every aspect of scientific and safety testing?
Why conduct expensive drug trials for example, when we could simply create computer models to demonstrate if a new drug is safe?
Why worry about physically testing new materials for safety at all? New car crash tests, for example, could be modeled instead. Better yet, let’s allow the car companies to generate their own crash test computer models based on data they collected themselves with no oversite. Then the car companies could submit their models to prove a new vehicle’s safety. There would be no need to verify their data, the computer models would tell us everything we needed to know.
source: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, June 9th 2011
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
Dr Hansen’s 1988 model looks terrible in 2011.
The actual temperature is below the “control” scenario “C” which assumes stringent CO2 restrictions.
######################################################
NetDr
You seem to have forgot about Mt Pinatubo in 1991. Hansen actually put in a simulation of a volcano and what it would do to the atmospheric energy balance. Hansen got it right and that is why he has won science awards.
#######################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
we take into account the slightly lower atmospheric greenhouse gas increases and compare the observed versus projected global temperature warming rates, as shown in the Advanced version of this rebuttal, we find that in order to accurately predict the global warming of the past 22 years, Hansen’s climate model would have needed a climate sensitivity of about 3.4°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
((((((((This is within the likely range of climate sensitivity values listed as 2-4.5°C by the IPCC for a doubling of CO2, and even a bit higher than the most likely value currently widely accepted as 3°C.)))))))))
In short, the main reason Hansen’s 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity, and his results are actually evidence that the true climate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC.
#######################################################
The “Hansen got it right” scenario backed up by evidence.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Models are unreliable
“Models do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They are full of fudge factors so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2.” (Freeman Dyson)
#######################################################
So says Freeman Dyson
########################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
There are two major questions in climate modeling – can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800’s – both with and without man-made forcings.
((((((((All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account.))))))))
Noone has created a general circulation model that can explain climate’s behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.
########################################################
If you choose to look at the link, you will see that the equations to describe the actions of co2 are necessary for the models to be useful.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 °C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007).
#######################################################
The models seem to be reasonably accurate. This is exactly what this blog was talking about was aerosols being the fudge factor. This was not a fudge factor but an accurate prediction of what the aerosols would do to the radiative balance of the atmosphere.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Do we know enough to act?
Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for 100% certainty, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of development to include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be a process of refinement and improvement. The main point is we now know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).
#######################################################
So how long does it take to realize that the models are good?
What does it take to get it in the real world that the models are good enough to know that the world will warm with 3 degrees celcius senstivity to a doubling of co2?
Renewable guy says: “The models seem to be reasonably accurate. This is exactly what this blog was talking about was aerosols being the fudge factor. This was not a fudge factor but an accurate prediction of what the aerosols would do to the radiative balance of the atmosphere.”
Neither the main post nor Theil’s article has anything to do with aerosols from Volcanos. Read Theil’s articles and the additional articles I provided above. Nothing that you have written in your numerous posts is responsive to the point that Warren makes or that Theil makes.
You say: “There are two major questions in climate modeling – can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future?”
The blog post, Theil’s article, and the additional peer-reviewed articles I mention address the first of your two major questions: can models accurately reproduce the past (hindcast)? It turns out that the appearance that models can hindcast accurately exists only because modelers make vastly different assumptions about historical emissions of aerosols.
Your information source, John Cook’s skeptical science cite, does not address the point made in this blog post, so don’t bother going there to copy material.
Renewable
Dr Hansen’s model included a simulated volcano. Without it the model would have predicted even more warming and been even more wrong.
He is exactly like the poor horse player that says “I should have weighted the jockey’s past winners more”!
When the horse player changes the weightings and goes back to the track he still loses just like Dr Hansen will.
Since we are at the top of a 60 year sine wave there will be even less warming or even cooling during the next 10 years. [We won’t know for certain until the end of that time.] Saying “It was wrong but now it is fixed” is just a guess.
Renewable
Climate models are subject to “NetDr’s Law”:
“The likelihood of a climate model being correct is inversely proportional to its likelihood of being published.” There might be correct models somewhere but they aren’t scary and so will never be published.
I have noticed that the predicted warming rate has gone down greatly from when I first started watching it. At one point it was 6 degrees C [in 100 years] and now it is just over 1 degree. When they get to 1/2 degree or less they will be correct.
The first IPCC report in 1990 chaired by Prof. Houghton made a prediction for a rise in global temperatures of 1.1 degrees C from 1990 until 2030. This prediction can now be compared with the actual data as measured up to now (May 2011).
As usual they got it wrong and predicted far more warming than actually happened.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/
But you don’t dispute that the models have been totally wrong so far.
Why should we believe they will suddenly be correct 100 years from now and waste tens of trillions of dollars on their worthless predictions?
“The likelihood of a climate model being correct is inversely proportional to its likelihood of being published.”
Phoney Warren
“But you don’t dispute that the models have been totally wrong so far.” – don’t I? Really?
*************
I mean with facts and figures instead of guesses.
I have the facts and apparently you just have emotions, which are a poor substitute.
I have looked and looked and haven’t been able to find a model which didn’t greatly exaggerate warming.
[There may be some which have been hidden from the public because they weren’t alarming enough.]
Here is another example of a model which has seriously “jumped the shark”
The IPCC AR4 debacle:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html
According to it we should have experienced .2 degrees of warming since 2000, and it hasn’t happened.
[Even including parking lots]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif
Climatologists obviously do not understand climate well enough to predict what will happen for even a short period like 20 years so why believe they can do it for 100 years?
Please show me a model which didn’t predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened.
In other words “Put up or shut up”.
Warren is a deluded retard
Phoney warren.
Try again!
The articles Google turned up just gave a guess about the sensitivity to CO2. Translate that to a prediction which can be checked.
.
Give me a link to a model which was done a few years ago which doesn’t greatly overstate the warming as observed today.
I isn’t rocket science.
a) Model prediction graph. Temp vs year.
b) Actual temp vs year to today.
“a” should not predict more warming than “b” observes. Simple ?
NetDr’s law applies:
Non frightening model predictions are never published.
A bright person once said:
“You have a right to your own opinion you do not have a right to your own data.”
Show me your data. I showed you mine.
Show me the prediction in degree’s C by year “X”
I can’t be any clearer.
netdr:
I have looked and looked and haven’t been able to find a model which didn’t greatly exaggerate warming.
#######################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basic.htm
As climate scientist John Christy noted, “this demonstrates that the old NASA [global climate model] was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere.” Unfortunately, Dr. Christy decided not to investigate why the NASA climate model was too sensitive, or what that tells us. There are two main reasons for Hansen’s warming overestimates:
Scenario B, which was the closest to reality, slightly overestimated how much the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would increase (particularly methane and chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]).
Hansen’s climate model had a rather high climate sensitivity parameter. Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere (a.k.a. a radiative forcing).
####################################################
Look no more Net,
Hansen gave three scenarios,
A was an agressive use of burning fossil fuels
B was just 10% high.
c was set up for agressive cutting of co2.
For a 1988 model 10% off isn’t all that bad. I don’t know if you understand climate sensitivity. WIth a slight adjustment of climate sensitivity downward, he would of been on track.
Would you care to make your case for wild failure?
The discussion about the ability of models to make accurate projections of the future is interesting and worthy of discussion, but it is irrelevant to the point of the blog post, which is this:
1) Modelers claim that they are able to replicate historical data with their models;
2) When this claim is examined it turns out that modelers make vastly different assumptions about historical emissions of cooling aerosols.
3) Models with high climate sensitivities to CO2 use high estimates of historical aerosols to dampen the effect of CO2 so that the models can match the historical temperature record.
4) Models with relatively low climate sensitivities to CO2 use low estimates of historical aerosol emissions.
5) The apparent ability of climate models to replicate historical temperatures is entirely dependent on modelers ability to choose different assumptions about aerosol emission because the actual amount of historical emissions are not well-known.
I can understand why the warmest here want to change the subject. I have yet to read in the comments a rebuttal of the basic point made in the post, which undercuts one the major reasons the IPCC suggests we should have confidence in the models.
Renewable
The model obviously jumped the shark because warming didn’t continue as it had been from 1978 to 1998 when there were excess El Nino’s. The model assumed the warming was from CO2 not the excess El Nino cycle and so it was wrong.
How wrong is terrible is a value judgment. I think 10 % is being too kind to him.
[And using sloppy logic, instead of looking at the temperature that analysis looks at sensitivity and says that is wrong by 10 % which fools only fools.]
Phony Warren.
I asked for a link to the paper[graph]. You didn’t provide it because you are a phoney and cannot do so.
Renewable
So, according to Hansen’s 1988 predictions, the global temperature anomaly should be about 90% of the way from Scenario “C” to Scenario “A”… ~0.97°C. In reality, the global temperature anomaly is about half of what Hansen predicted for a similar rise in greenhouse gases.
The actual warming has been slightly less than Hansen’s Scenario C…
“In scenario C the CO2 growth is the same as scenarios A and B through 1985; between 1985 and 2000 the annual increment is fixed at 1.5 ppmv/yr; after 2000, CO2 ceases to increase, its abundance remaining fixed at 368 ppmv.”
In most branches of science, when experimental results falsify the original hypothesis, scientists discard or modify the original hypothesis. In Hansen’s case, he just pitches the story with zealotry rarely seen outside of lunatic asylums…
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-hansen-model-another-very-simple-disproof-of-anthropogenic-global-warming
The bait and switch trick fools only fools.
The only objective measure of the performance of a model is expected difference vs actual difference. Pulling out a variable which is itself only part of the output and saying it is only off by 10 % is just poor thinking skills.
Phony Warren
Show me the graph and stop being a phoney. Expecting an obvious phony to actually present information is not reasonable.
Phony Warren
As expected a cop out. What was his predicted temperature for 2011 ?
I can’t even find the document you refer to and you probably can’t either but are too phony to admit it.
I have asked you for it repeatedly. Why won’t you include the link ? Because it is a figment of your imagination ?
Giving a guess on climate sensitivity is a long way from making an actual prediction and you know it.
Phony
Until you provide the link to your imaginary paper this conversation is pointless and I won’t respond further.
Phony
I cannot find the paper online and I admit it [BIG DEAL] and neither can you obviously.
This conversation is over until you provide the link.[Your bluff has been called 5 times now]
Phony
I found the paper and, surprise, there is no prediction of what the temperature would be in 2011 or any other year.
.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/rtw7501.pdf
.
That wasn’t hard was it ?
.
I found it and you obviously didn’t or you would have provided the link.
If you had found it you would know there was no chart graph or other prediction of warming.
.
Depending upon aerosols and sun irradiation and PDO you could predict any amount of warming as the real Warren pointed out.
.
Your phoniness has been revealed.
Thanks for playing and losing.
PaulD;
One of my annoyances with skeptics (deniers) is that statements are made with no substantiation. I like your list of boiling the article down. I will leave it up to the author to prove his point. I don’t know if that is true and it would take a great deal of time on my part to look into this. So by judgement, when is it wrong to add aerosols and when is it the right thing to do? I don’t think our blog author really knows.
Now Mt Pinatubo was about aerosols. That is why I brought it up. Mt pinatubo was an exercise in getting the sensitivity of the earth gauged.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509166.pdf
In summary, we have shown that Hansen’s hope that the dramatic Pinatubo climate event would provide an “acid test” of climate models has been achieved, although with an unexpected result. The effect of the volcano is to reveal a short atmospheric response time, of the order of several months, leaving no climate in the pipeline, and a negative feedback to its forcing.
####################################################
TThis is just one paper but there are several others.
http://www.bibliociencias.cu/gsdl/collect/revistas/import/Climate_Model_Simulation_Volcanic…pdf.pdf
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/319378.pdf
THe above criticizes a paper using Mt Pinatubo to show low climate sensitivity for the earth.
http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/2011/06/09/model-behavior-in-climate-science-its-all-about-the-computers/
Suffice it to say that this lab-measured temperature sensitivity to CO2 of about 1.2 falls well short of the catastrophe we’ve been threatened with in the press. Climate scientists must assume large numbers of amplifying effects to multiply this sensitivity three to five times or more to get the scary forecasts that we are used to seeing.
The evidence for these amplifying or “feedback” effects is at best equivocal. In part, this is because isolating and measuring these effects in the real, horrendously complex and chaotic climate is very hard.
#####################################################
Back to basics of climate science is that the 1.2 deg centigrade from a doubling of co2 from the origonal 280ppm. What the scientists model is that the water vapor will increase for every 1 deg cent increase will increase vapor by 6.5%. Its bizar that its not even being talked about in the article. Water vapor’s strong feedback is what makes this so devastating. I have talked about this in the past and it is the foundation of the models.
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/071029Wentz.pdf
The reason the future could potentially be quite miserable is the really high water vapor increases with temperature.
co2 controls the amount of water vapor in the air. There is no way around it. Deniers can win in the politics in the United States to put the earth in a steamy future.
Renewable Guy says: “The reason the future could potentially be quite miserable is the really high water vapor increases with temperature. co2 controls the amount of water vapor in the air. There is no way around it. ”
Take a look at Dr. Spencer’s post on this topic: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/
Also take a look at this http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/water-vapor-feedback-still-uncertain-by-marcel-crok/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/
1) Evaporation versus Precipitation
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
Water is a condensing gas. Higher precipitation with temperature is what speeds up the carbon cycle in paleoclimate studies. Co2 is a noncondensing gas and therefore becomes the dominant driver of temperature on earth.
I’ll come back to this later, I have limited time right now.
Renewable Guy cites, “CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature by Andrew Lacis” for a point he wants to discuss further.
If you want to discuss this paper you should read the extensive discussion of it at Roger Pielke, Sr.’s website.
Dr. Pielke first comments on it, and then publishes Andrew Lacis’s responses in two guest posts. There is then further back and forth in a series of posts and guest posts between Dr. Pielke, Dr. Roy Spencer and Andrew Lacis.
I cannot post all the links because of Warren’s filter, but the discussion starts here: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/my-comments-on-the-andy-lacis-post-on-co2-as-a-climate-thermostat/ . The are a number of unrelated posts interspered on the website, but you can just scroll forward to read the entire discussion.
opps, wrong link provided above. The discussion starts here: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/comment-on-the-science-paper-atmospheric-co2-principal-control-knob-governing-earth%e2%80%99s-temperature-by-lacis-et-al-2010/
Phony
I asked for a model which predicted the correct amount of warming from the date of it’s publication until now.
The paper made no prediction and doesn’t qualify.
I won’t lower myself to name call and attack you. I am a bigger person than you are apparently.
Name calling and abuse are admissions of defeat.
Since you are unable to provide a model which is essentially correct and instead resort to abuse I ACCEPT YOUR ADMISSION OF DEFEAT.
THANKS FOR PLAYING !
NetDr’s law says that:
“Non frightening model predictions are never published”
I collect model predictions and was foolish enough to believe that Phony would have a contribution to my collection but he didn’t even understand what I was looking for or was unable to respond so he responded with bovine scatology.
I admit that I was foolish to believe a phony could be honest enough to provide a serious answer to a question. If anyone else has the output of a model for my collection I would appreciate it !
I have shown that two famous models are seriously off track as of 2011:
Dr Hansen’s 1988 model is so far wrong that actual temperatures are well below what he predicted with stringent CO2 control. That is pretty far wrong.
Despite Renewable’s efforts to bait and switch if you put lipstick on a pig it is still a pig.
The AR4 models have similarly jumped the shark since they were published.
Since the purpose of the models is to pry cash out of willing congressmen they don’t have to be correct and apparently aren’t.
CO2 is not necessary to catalyze warming via water vapor. If temperature goes up for any reason (el nino or whatever), partial pressure of water will increase. This will raise temperature even more, increasing water vapor again. CO2 is not required. ANY cause of a slight increase in temp will set the process in motion. Thus, the temp should increase exponetially, with or without CO2. It doesn’t, so there must be some offsetting mechanism which we do not understand.
Similarly, if temp goes down, the process should reverse and we would plnge into a cooling cycle. This doesn’t happen, so again there must be some modulating mechanism.
Perhaps the AGW pushers could explain all this. If they are correct, temp should run away every time there is an el nino or other cause of temp rise. I would like an explanation, not another AGW tirafe.
On the issue of water vapor feedbacks, this summary of a presentation is worth looking at: http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2011/04/22/water-vapor-feedback-still-uncertain/
This post is discussed in one of the Pielke, Sr. post I cited above, but is worth looking at in full for its overall discussion of the controversy.
Here is yet another webpost by Pielke, Sr. that discusses the current state of the science on water vapor feedback. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/reply-to-andrew-dresslers-guest-post-on-water-vapor-feedback/
I encourage everyone to take a look at all the webposts I have cited. They each give citations to peer-reviewed literature as support. Their overall point is that water vapor feedback is not well-understood and that the current viewpoint expressed in the IPCC that water vapor is a strong positive feedback is not well-supported by empirical evidence.
Ted,
I’ve said that same thing to Renewable probably 100 times and he still has yet to understand it. Positive feedback is unstable. Any slight disturbance and you’ll set it off, no matter how small. It could be a dog fart, it doesn’t matter.
Renewable guy quoting John Cook says,”In short, the main reason Hansen’s 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity [to CO2], and his results are actually evidence that the true climate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC.”
This argument illustrates the logical fallacy of assuming the point in contention. There are many alternative hypotheses about what has caused the long-term warming trend. One is that it is the result of natural climate variations. Another is that the warming is a return to more normal climate as the earth emerges from a little ice age. Another is that Co2 is one of many multiple diverse climate forcings such black soot emissions, and land use changes that have contributed to warming. Cook assumes his conclusion that CO2 is the primary driver and therefore any deviations from the forecast has been caused by an inaccurate estimate of the climate’s sensitivity to CO2.
Wally:
You are absolutely right. Many processes are autocatalytic. For example, if hydrogen peroxide starts to decompose (exothermic), the temp rises and the rate of decomposition increases. Ultimately, the rate gets so high the tank explodes. The vessel must therefore lose heat faster than the decomposition creates heat in order to be safe. As we both know, a similar situation would arise in global warming if there was nothing to interfere with the process. Perhaps cloud formation increases fast enough to offset the warming effect of the higher water vapor pressure. This has been postulated but is not well understood.
The bottom line still remains: are we willing to destroy our modern industrial society based on our current understanding (or lack thereof) of climate? We have no viable “alternative energy” schemes and the Indians and Chinese will not go along with stopping CO2 production. Until someone addresses these issues in a calm, rationaal way, we have nothing. Endless zealotry and hysteria does not answer these questions.
As I have stated before, any engineer can quickly show that solar, wind, and biofuels are nonsense. I have done this many times myself. When this is pointed out, with much explanation, there is never an answer from the AGW crowd but renewed hysteria, or saying that “someone is doing it, so it must be right”.
A sad fact is that universities and other research organizations have been corrupted by government handouts. They are paid huge sums to do studies that they could easily show to be idiotic. Their work is then quoted as showing that progress is being made. When all of this is over, I would hate to be a professor trying to explain why he wasted millions trying to make fuel out of zilch. This is probably why many of them continue the argument. Otherwise, they would have to admit to intellectual fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Water_vapor_feedback
If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and
((((((so on until other processes stop the feedback loop.))))))
In answer to Ted’s runaway thoughts. Paleoclimatology
studies back this up. It just reaches a new higher balance. From the previous links co2 is the dominant noncondensing GHG. Therefore it is the main driver of temperature on earth. Co2 is 80% of the non condensing ghg’s.
The result is a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. Although this feedback process causes an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air,
((((((the relative humidity stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly because the air is warmer.[38])))))
Climate models incorporate this feedback. Water vapor feedback is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur. [52] Considered a faster feedback mechanism.[42]
Fake Warren: Could you show me a model which didn’t predict substantially more warming that subsequently happened or. better yet, one which predicted the correct amount of warming from the date of its publication until now?
The article you cited does not contain any forecasts. It contains an estimate of climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. I think my questions are fairly straightforward, but let me know whether you need any clarifications.
From 1994 to 2009, the warming trend in the HadCRUT dataset was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (CL). It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing magical about the 95% CL – it’s simply the most commonly-used interval in scientific research, but it’s also true that the HadCRUT 1995-2009 trend was statistically significant at a 93% confidence level.
In other words, using Jones’ data, we could say with 93% confidence that the planet had warmed since 1995. Nevertheless, this did not stop numerous mainstream media outlets like Fox News claiming that Phil Jones had said global warming since 1995 was “insignificant” – a grossly incorrect misrepresentation of his actual statements. The Daily Mail warped the truth even further, claiming Jones had said there was no global warming since 1995. These media outlets turned 93% confidence of warming into “no warming”.
#################################################
Soooooo at 93% confidence level there is no waring? How odd.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html
forgot the link
Why is ‘Warren Meyer’ tolerated on these pages?
His use of the host’s name is purile.
He actually writes down his own maniacal laughter!
If he has a point to make, he just can’t seem to make it without being apallingly arrogant, rude and abusive, he is a blatant troll who deliberately detracts from the discussion with his behaviour – and how on earth does calling people a ‘dopy (sic) c**t’ make it past the filters?
PaulD:
While, they have reconfirmed the importance of CO2 as a first-order climate forcing, they have not added anything that is new. Thus, in terms of further model predictions using the GISS model (or other IPCC model) what are they going to add that is policy relevant beyond what has already been achieved with their model?
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/comment-on-the-science-paper-atmospheric-co2-principal-control-knob-governing-earth%e2%80%99s-temperature-by-lacis-et-al-2010/
######################################################
If I sum up this commentary, all he is saying is that it is boring. But he doesn’t really refute anything in the article.
It works for me as an educational tool on perspective of the earth’s climate on how co2 drives the temperature.
Of course Paul you read the article and already knew that.
Jim T:
Why is ‘Warren Meyer’ tolerated on these pages?
#######
What I observe on these pages is a lack of studying the subject. Most of you want to disbelieve without doing the work of really understanding what the science is really about. At least study the observations to gain a deep understanding. Truthfully I think fake Warren is really good for you guys. You might be just goaded enough to finally do some work.
Since we are discussing water vapor and all of you are just thirsting for more knowledge on the subject, here is a video by peter Sinclair from climate crock of the week. Peter does a good job of sticking to the science. Sorry NtDr, but there is fear in this. Hold your nose at being called deniers and you will be able to understand more of what the scientists are talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/53/LAtD9aZYXAs
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/10/26/203243/study-water-vapor-feedback-is-strong-and-positive-so-we-face-warming-of-several-degrees-celsius/
The major climate models are missing key amplifying feedbacks, some of which were discussed in “Are Scientists Underestimating Climate Change, Part II.” These feedbacks include:
•The defrosting of the permafrost
•The drying of the Northern peatlands (bogs, moors, and mires).
•The destruction of the tropical wetlands
•Decelerating growth in tropical forest trees — thanks to accelerating carbon dioxide
•Wildfires and Climate-Driven forest destruction by pests
•The desertification-global warming feedback
•The saturation of the ocean carbon sink
##################################################
I know this might come as a shock to you guys, but I’ll let you in on a little secret, the models are actually conservative. Above is what is not included in the models. So when you guys say that the models are wrong, you are absolutely right. They are too conservative.
Renewable guy,
Water vapour is not increasing in any data set, unless you cherry pick a short period and ignore the changes in temp over the time period. Simple fact is that GCM’s have no clue about convection and have got water vapour positive feedback completely wrong. Increased convection dries out the upper troposphere which is why there is no hot spot or increased humidity.
The following paper based on observations describes this.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/albedo_and_olr.pdf
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/14/244114/australian-scientific-climate-change-is-real-medi/#more-244114
Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity.
A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businessmen are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity.
Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny.
Australians have been exposed to a phony public debate which is not remotely reflected in the scientific literature and community of experts.
We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.
The individuals who deny the balance of scientific evidence on climate change will impose a heavy future burden on Australians if their unsupported opinions are given undue credence.
####################################################
Gee skeptics (deniers) that don’t listen to the science.
Repeat the same stuff over and over and over no matter how many times its shown not to be true.
Boy am I glad you guys don’t do that. You’re different.