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.
When governments, their agencies and their advisors base their ‘catastrophic man-made global warming science’ on computer model-based predictions or scenarios, it says how totally unscientific they all are. The IPCC’s mantra is heavily reliant on these model-based predictions or forecasts. The models themselves are not the work of scientists, and do not reflect the real world observational data. They are not even audited.
Today’s state-of-the-art climate models fail to accurately simulate the physics of earth’s radiative energy balance, resulting in uncertainties as large as, or larger than, the doubled CO2 forcing.
A long list of major model imperfections prevents models from properly modeling cloud formation and cloud-radiation interactions, resulting in large differences between model predictions and observations.
Computer models have failed to simulate even the correct sign of observed precipitation anomalies, such as the summer monsoon rainfall over the Indian region. Yet it is understood that precipitation plays a major role in climate change.
As the saying goes… GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT! And that precisely sums up climate computer models.
Dear Real Warren
I see on your forbes piece that you continue to repeat the incorrect IPCC claim that each doubling of CO2 has the same effect.
This is completely wrong and has come about due to a simple schoolboy error.
Each doubling of CO2 absorbs half of the remaining unabsorbed energy, so each doubling has half the effect of the previous doubling (otherwise the first 20ppm couldn’t be responsible for half the warming effect of CO2)
The mistake came about because someone didn’t know the difference between the “absorption of energy” and “absorbance”(the -ve log of the proportion transmitted).
Some idiot used absorbance instead of absorption!
The real method they use to calculate CO2 forcing is not based on these silly mistakes though.
Lol Renewable Guy, how do you listen to science when science is nothing but a method!
Fortunately Most of us Aussie’s have woken up to the scam and are immune to the BS coming from the likes of you!
Phony Warren
I asked for a model which predicted the correct amount of warming from the date of it’s publication until now. [Quibble if you want to.]
The paper made no prediction and doesn’t qualify.
Ad hominem attacks abuse and name calling are an admission of defeat and poor thinking skills !. Any fool can do them and most fools do.
The opponent has run out of reasons and resorted to the oldest and least effective form of attack. The “Your mother wears army boots” style of discourse isn’t suitable for this or any other site.
So thank you for once again publicly admitting defeat.!
You will notice that I never reply in kind. [I am a bigger person than that] I argue the facts which are enough to defeat alarmism easily.
Renewable
The laundry list of other forcings don’t amount to 1 % of the big 900 pound gorilla which is water vapor.
It is my belief that if El Nino’s and La Nina’s were included with proper weighting almost all warming from 1978 to 1998 can be accounted for. El Nino’s predominate 3 to 1 during that period and would have caused warming without CO2.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
1) Without amplification the warming caused by CO2 is only 1 ° C which is far from alarming.
2)The amplification was based on the amount of water vapor INCREASING with temperature.
[Which sounded like a plausible guess at the time]
3) The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has gone down since 1950 or so. The theory obviously falls apart. Even if, for the sake of argument, water vapor was a positive feedback the fact that it is going down shoots the amplification theory in the foot.
Without strong amplification by water vapor CAGW is obviously untrue.
I disagree with you about phoney Warren.
Phoney warren never contributes any information which is germane to the discussion and never contributes a fact or insight which causes me to rethink my beliefs. He is simply a troll with the objective of disrupting rational discussion.
His use of a phoney name is your first clue. I remember when he used the names of the other people who were contributing in a failed attempt to disrupt communication. He just made a fool of himself.
I am done responding to him until he makes a worthwhile comment without abuse and poor thinking.
I am still waiting for the AGW pushers to answer my questions: What “alternative energy” schemes are viable on a large scale, taking into account standby facilities? How do you propose to get the Indians and Chinese on board the industrial self-immolation proposed by the AGW crowd? Please don’t say “but people are doing it”. I have heard that a million times as a way of dodging the issue.
Renewable Guy commenting on a post by Roger Pielke, Sr. says “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.”
I did indeed read the article as well as the series of follow up posts by Lacis, Pielke, Sr. and Spencer. You for some reason cited the Lacis article for a point you were going to make regarding water vapor feedback.
Pielke, Sr. says, “I agree with Andy’s conclusion that if CO2 were removed from the Earth’s atmosphere, the climate system would rapidly cool. I also concur that CO2 is a first order climate forcing and is a non-condensing greenhouse gas forcing. ”
I have no problem with that observation. Pielke goes on to say in the follow up: “The more interesting question, however, is how this applies both to how the Earth’s climate system actually evolved, and how incremental increases in CO2 above what was present in pre-industral times alter the climate.” http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/my-comments-on-the-andy-lacis-post-on-co2-as-a-climate-thermostat/
The article is “boring” because it makes a point that no one disputes, while ignoring the really pressing issue that is of interest to everyone.
You cited the Lacis article with the intention to follow up with a comment regarding water vapor feedbacks. What was the point you intended to make?
To recap, what I think is evident from the comments is that there is a dispute regarding whether the water vapor feedback is positive and, if it is positive, the strength of the feedback. The IPCC and the models that it relies upon take the position that water vapor is a strong, positive feedback. The post that I previously cited by Dr. Roy Spencer suggests several reason to questions this. The posts I have previously cited by Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. argue that the evidence contained in the peer-reviewed literature is ambiguous and that the IPCC at the very least overstates the evidence of a strong, positive water vapor feedback.
What we do know (although based on short-term trends) is that the IPCC’s models have forecast more warming than has actually occurred by a significant margin. I would suggest that one possible explanation for the inaccurate predictions that needs further exploration is that water vapor feedback is overestimated in the models.
Moreover, getting back to the point of the main posts, the only reason that model’s with high climate sensitivity and high water vapor feedback are able to replicate historical data is that they use high estimates of historical aerosol cooling. Models with lower estimates of climate sensitivity use low estimates of historical aerosol cooling. This is well-documented in the peer-reviewed articles that I cited in comment number 2 above. Dr. Richard Lindzen has summarized the state of the science with this comment:
” So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
This is exactly the real Warren’s argument in the main posts.
I’ve noticed that no one in these comments has made any attempt to rebut the real Warren’s central point. I would suggest that the reason is that it is not disputed by climate modelers. In fact, I once asked Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate .org to comment on the above quote by Dr. Lindzen. Here is his inline response:
Comment 56: Gavin’s response: “there is uncertainty in both climate sensitivity and the degree of aerosol forcing (see figure 2.20). No model simulation can ‘prove’ that it has exactly the right sensitivity and aerosol forcing, but each of the simulations that match the 20th Century trends are plausible estimates of what might have happened. Projections going forward are obviously going to be a little different depending on that balance, but that is a real part of the uncertainty in those projections and shouldn’t be swept under the rug. – gavin http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2187
Isn’t it nice that Gavin acknowledges in a blog comment that the issue should not be swept under the rug, while none of IPCC reports makes any mention of it.
Fake Warren: Could you show me a model which didn’t predict substantially more warming than 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.
Fake Warren says:
“Inexplicably you have failed to post a link to a model which did predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened, although I’ve asked four times. I wonder why.”
I can help out here. Lucia at rankexploits.com has been tracking the model mean forecasts v.the three of the major temperature series for some time now.
Here is the model mean v. RSS http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/rss-april-anomaly-up-2/ Read this one first because it gives a bit of explanation as to what the graph shows.
Next here is model means v. NCDC http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/noaa-ncdc-april-warmer-than-march/
Finally, here is model means v. UAH http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/uah-may-anomaly-a-wee-bit-warmer-than-april/
Fake Warren says:
“Inexplicably you have failed to post a link to a model which did predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened, although I’ve asked four times. I wonder why.”
I can help out here. Lucia at rankexploits.com has been tracking the model mean forecasts v.the three of the major temperature series for some time now.
Here is the model mean v. RSS http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/rss-april-anomaly-up-2/ Read this one first because it gives a bit of explanation as to what the graph shows.
Next here is model means v. NCDC http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/noaa-ncdc-april-warmer-than-march/
Lucia calculates others, but I cannot include links without getting caught in the moderation filter.
Fake Warren: Could you show me a model which didn’t predict substantially more warming than 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.
Try again !
PaulD;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
There are two ways of working out what climate sensitivity is (a third way – waiting a century – isn’t an option, but we’ll come to that in a moment). The first method is by modelling:
Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).
The second method calculates climate sensitivity directly from physical evidence:
These calculations use data from sources like ice cores, paleoclimate records, ocean heat uptake and solar cycles, to work out how much additional heat the doubling of greenhouse gases will produce. The lowest estimate of warming is close to the models – 1.8°C (3.24°F ) on average – but the upper estimate is a little more consistent, at an average of around 3.5°C (6.3°F).
####################################################
The reason I have gone to climate sensitivity, is that it is inclusive of all that we are talking on here.
There are 13 different studies in the two groups cited showing a range of results. If you decide that you want the one that scares you the least, that’s your perrogative. Nevertheless there has been a lot of work done on the subject of climate sensitivity.
Keep in mind Lindzen is a paid scientist for the doubters. That’s his job. His latest paper flunked out and needs to be rewritten. The criticism by other scientists was pretty harsh.
For doubled co2, 1 degree for co2 and about 2 degrees for water vapor and other pos and neg feedbacks combined. That is for fast feedbacks. Slow feedbacks are pos and go higher beyond 100 years.
PaulD;
I don’t have a problem with exact values not being known. This is ok as long as its open and dealt with honestly. I don’t know the exact nature of things. If they know enough to have certainty is the issue. A blog like this one is about exagerating the uncertainty and therefore AGW is no big deal. If 97 out of 100 peer review writing scientists say its real and should be dealt with, then it should be taken seriously and looked at.
This hate thing isn’t working when the potential consequences are on the harsh side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
1 Definition of climate change
2 Temperature changes
3 Physical impacts
3.1 Effects on weather
3.1.1 Extreme weather
3.1.2 Local climate change
3.2 Biogeochemical cycles
3.3 Glacier retreat and disappearance
3.4 Oceans
3.4.1 Acidification
3.4.2 Oxygen depletion
3.4.3 Sea level rise
3.4.4 Temperature rise
4 Social systems
4.1 Food supply
4.2 Health
4.2.1 Specific health impacts
4.3 Water resources
4.4 Migration and conflict
4.5 Aggregate impacts
5 Regions
6 Biological systems
7 Abrupt or irreversible changes
7.1 Abrupt climate change
7.2 The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
7.3 Irreversibilities
####################################################
Instead of reading things like coyote blog, how about knowing the information of which you so object to. Although I think this would scare NetDr too much.:)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm
However, a response to this paper, Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation (Trenberth et al 2010) revealed a number of flaws in Lindzen’s analysis. It turns out the low climate sensitivity result is heavily dependent on the choice of start and end points in the periods they analyse. Small changes in their choice of dates entirely change the result.
(((((((((Essentially, one could tweak the start and end points to obtain any feedback one wishes.))))))))
####################################################
Lindzen just isn’t doing the job.
http://www.globalenergywatch.com/news/705/Torresol_Energy_Commissions_199MW_Gemasolar_CSP_Plant_in_Spain.htm
The innovative molten salt heat transfer technology deployed at the Gemasolar greenfield independent power project helps avoid fluctuations in power supply through a system that is capable of 15 hours of energy production without sunlight. This accordingly allows for generation of electricity 24 hours a day for many months of the year, even during the hours of darkness or poor daylight during winter.
#####################################################
For Ted
Fake Warren: as I was too stupid even to look up the Manabe paper, let alone understand anything of its contents, could you show me a model contains a really simple graph with a caption in large print that shows exactly what I want it to show? Regardless of what papers you might find, I’ll say that they don’t contain anything because I think that’s a great way to make myself look even more retarded than I already do.
The article you cited contains many forecasts. Sadly my limited intellect does not allow me to understand them.
Try again !
Renewable guy says: “Keep in mind Lindzen is a paid scientist for the doubters. That’s his job.”
No Dr. Lindzen is a professor at MIT, that is his job.
I am not sure why you want to focus on him. I quoted him briefly for two purposes. First, he provided a quick summary of what is said in three peer-reviewed articles that I cite in comment two. Do you disagree with his comment on Theil’s article? You know when you attack the person who says something rather than the substance of what he says, the is called an ad hominem argument. Please make an effort to avoid such arguments.
Second, I cited him because I had previous asked Gavin Schmidt, one of the most prominent climate modelers, to to specifically respond to the quote. When Gavin Schmidt did, his answer was somewhat evasive, but I couldn’t detect any real disagreement from him.
I have been trying to keep coming back to Warren’s argument in the main post. No one wants to discuss it. I suspect the problem you are having is the point is not discussed at John Cook’s site
Now you want to go back to a discussion of climate sensitivity. It is a big topic that is pretty much impossible to discuss in comments to blog posts, particularly since Warren filters comments with too many links. In general, I would say that papers that have attempted to determine climate sensitivity from physical evidence are not convincing. If there is a specific paper you would like to discuss, please provide a citation and I will take a look at it.
By the way, you keep going back to John Cook’s site for ammunition. Lubos Motl posted a nice quick run through of 104 of Cook’s talking points. http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html It is obviously a cursory discussion of each of the 104 points, but you might benefit from taking a look at it.
PaulD:
I depend on sites to talk about certain subjects, no doubt. sulphates and models come together in climate sensitivity. Like Gavin was saying it can vary within the model. Which actually is the power of the model. You can plug in different values and look at the results. Which results match the observations on the earth. More than likely several different combinations will approxiate observations. This is why sulphates can balance out different climate sensitivities.
But they are able to take out co2 completely and see that the results are way off compared to observations. That is the power of the computer models.
http://www.emep.int/UniDoc/node13.html
10.1 Introduction
The EMEP aerosol model (UNI-AERO) describes emissions, chemical transformation, dynamics, transport, and dry and wet deposition of atmospheric aerosol. The aerosol model considers primary and secondary aerosols. Primary particles are those directly emitted in the atmosphere, while secondary aerosols are formed in the atmosphere through gas-to-particle conversion.
The aerosol model includes 14 chemical prognostic components:
http://www.emep.int/UniDoc/node13.html
Gases – SO, HSO, NO, NO, HNO, PAN, NH;
Aerosols – SO, NO, NH, organic carbon(OC), elemental carbon (EC), mineral dust, sea salt (NaCl);
Aerosol liquid water is a diagnostic component.
Secondary Organic Aerosols (SOA) and re-suspended and wind eroded mineral dust are not presently accounted for in the model.
###################################################
It is easier if someone brings this down to a simpler level.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/aerosols-as-fudge-factor-nipcc-vs-lindzen.html
Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Posted on 22 February 2011 by Bart Verheggen
The greatest source of uncertainty in understanding climate change is arguably due to the role of aerosols and clouds. This uncertainty offers fertile ground for contrarians to imply that future global warming will be much less than commonly thought. However, some (e.g. Lindzen) do so by claiming that aerosol forcing is overestimated, while others (e.g. the NIPCC) by claiming that aerosol forcing is underestimated. Even so, they still arrive at the same conclusion…
####################################################
Deniers try to have their cake and eat it too.
Fake Warren: pretending to be me is childish.
Could you show me a model which didn’t predict substantially more warming than 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.
Try again !
Fake warren
Since you don’t understand what a model is I will summarize for you.
There is the 1988 model published by Dr Hansen which was published because of his testimony to congress.
It has seriously jumped the shark by 2011. It did fairly well until the 1998 to present failure to warm got it.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
Then there are the AR4 group which have all gone off track almost immediately.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html
If there are any models which made accurate predictions they haven’t been published, or at least I and phony Warren can’t find them. Phony warren wouldn’t recognize a climate model if he saw one.
He somehow thinks a paper that mentions a value for climate sensitivity is a model. Silly rabbit!!
The reason others weren’t published is that they didn’t generate enough fear and hence dollars [marks & yen] !
“But they are able to take out co2 completely and see that the results are way off compared to observations. That is the power of the computer models.”
This is essentially what the IPCC does in an attempt to determine the portion of the current warming caused by CO2 emissions. It just so happens that Dr. Judith Curry, the Chair of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech., has in the past few days posted at her website a portion of an article she has submitted for publication that analyzes IPCC’s attribution studies. It is in my humble opinion exceptionally well done. I particularly like her discussion of the articles I posted in comment 2 as they relate to her topic.
My response to your quote above will simply be to refer you to her article found here: http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/14/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-iv/
You also cite the EMEP aerosol model. What is the relevant point you think is made by the article describing this model?
Finally, with respect to the use as of aerosals as a “fudge factor”, you say, “Like Gavin was saying it can vary within the model. Which actually is the power of the model. You can plug in different values and look at the results. Which results match the observations on the earth.”
The point of Warren’s main post is that different models use widely different assumptions about aerosal cooling to replicate historical data. Models with high climate sensitivites match historical data only if they use high-end estimates of aerosal cooling. Vice-versa for low sensitivity models.
As Gavin notes, it is not possible to “prove” which assumptions regarding aerosal forcings are correct. Since all of the models that replicate historical temperatures are plausible(including those with low climate sensitivies)there are substantial uncertainties in the model projections going forward. I would view this as a problem for those relying on models, not a strength of the models.
Fake Warren was and is the kind of child that called a pig a cow and when his mother corrected him insisted that it was a pig.
A model has certain characteristics and the paper he cited doesn’t have them. Simple isn’t it?
Calling a guess at climate sensitivity a model which predicts today’s temperature is beyond pathetic.
As the real Warren pointed out:
If 10 groups of climate scientists made a model from different guesses about climate sensitivity all would get the same answer [for today’s temperature] because they would adjust aerosols and other variables until their MODEL matched past and present temperatures as well as possible.
Then when time passes their model would fall on it’s face like all of the other ones do.
Renewable Guy says: “If 97 out of 100 peer review writing scientists say its real and should be dealt with, then it should be taken seriously and looked at.”
That is not what the poll asked. It asked two questions:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
I am a what some have called a “lukewarmer”, but I would answer “generally warming” to the first and “yes” to the second questions. In other words, I would be in the 97% group.
The first question is not really disputable since we have emerging from a “little ice age” that ended at about 1850. Although I think reasonable arguments can be made that the amount of warming shown in the temperature indexes is overstated, I don’t find the warming that has been observed is “alarming”.
The second question is so broad that it would be difficult to answer “no”. For example, those who think the likely climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is in the range of 1 degree C would have to answer “yes” as such warming would not be “insignificant”.
I think it is fair to say that Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christie, and even the proprietor of this blog, would likely answer both questions similarly.
The questions do not establish much about anything that is particularly controversial.
Fake Warren is a believer in the Humpty Dumpty theory of word meanings.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
The reference to the Spanish 19.9 solar power plant that claims to be capable of 15 hours of power production without sunlight needs some explanation. The article does not stat how the system works. A few simple calcs raise some questions:
19.9 mw equals 68 million BTU/hr at 100% efficiency. (Thermal power plants are in the 35% eff. range). Fifteen hours storage then is 1020 million BTU to be stored. If each pound of salt could store 100 BTU, then over a million pounds of salt is required. The problem: unless latent heat of fusion is utilized, this cannot be realized. If you resort to latent heat, salt would freeze on the heat transfer surface and stop heat transfer. If only sensible heat is used, then the amount of salt is hugely increased. Perhaps they mean that if solar input stops, SOME power coul be generated as the salt cools down.
Clearly, some explanation (complete with flowsheet and energy balances) is required to understand the press release. Anyone with a flowsheet and heat balance is invited to explain.
This is another case of some AGW zealot charging off with a press release without supporting data. Among other things, what is the cost of the power? What does the flowsheet and energy balance look like? Any professional would know better than to charge off with this without supporting data and explanation.
People are doing virtually anything and everything in the energy field. That does not prove that they are all good ideas. It usually means they are pissing away government grants or subsidies.
Renewable,
You’re showing your gross ignorance in mathematical modeling yet again:
“Which actually is the power of the model. You can plug in different values and look at the results. Which results match the observations on the earth. More than likely several different combinations will approxiate observations.”
That is not a “power” of a model, that is actually mathematical modeling’s largest weakness. This weakness is only balanced out by one thing, experimentation. Otherwise, how do you know which one of the usually infinite sets of models one could come up with to match historical data is correct?
“But they are able to take out co2 completely and see that the results are way off compared to observations. That is the power of the computer models.”
Again, this is actually not a “power” of modeling. Models do not test a hypothesis. They can only create them or illustrate them. You can only test a hypothesis through experimentation. In the modeling world this is known as model verification. You can go take CO2, or anything else, out of your models all day long, but I’m not going believe a single thing until you provide some evidence that your model might be correct.
Wally says: “You can go take CO2, or anything else, out of your models all day long, but I’m not going believe a single thing until you provide some evidence that your model might be correct.”
I agree completely. If one reads the IPCC one of the major arguments in support of the models is that they can replicate historical temperature trends. Warren’s main post pretty much pulls the rug out from that argument.
If the model’s could make accurate forecasts, that would be a reason to think that they might be accurate. The comparisons of forecasts v. empirical data, however, undermines the case for the models.
At best, climate modelers are left with the argument that they believe the models accurately represent the physics of the climate–that is except for the parts they admit they don’t understand such as clouds, precipitation, aerosals etc.
I have carefully considered everything said on this thread and I have determined that Fake Warren is….
Stupid
Wally:
Your point about model verification is right on. I developed computer models of chemical processes and plants for a number of years before I retired. The model MUST be validated over a broad range of conditions. It must be based on first priciples rather than empirical correlations. The latter are notoriously bad. No “fudge factors” are permissible. This is necessary before it is put to use, where huge amounts of money will be spent based on model calculations. He who pushes bad models soon becomes an ex-employee.
In the case of the climaste models, it is far worse. We are being asked to destroy modern industrial civilization based on model output. The argument that we will think of some “alternative energy” is bogus. Let’s develop a sure-fire alternative energy before we hit the self-destruct button. As of now, there is none. Many are being proposed, but all are flawed. The fact that some are being tried is not a proof that they are a good idea. It merely shows that much government money is being spent on nonsense (so what else is new?). If it is really a good idea, unsubsidized private funds would pour in.
Let’s suppose that the AGW people win out and we destroy modern industry. Suppose that they do not find a workable “alternative energy”? Will they get fired? There won’t be anyone around to fire. We will have all starved.
For the life of me, I don’t understand why the AGW people are so averse to doing things in the sequence done 100% of the time in industry. Oh, I know. The world is comming to an end. Do something now!!
You can tell who has experience with models and who doesn’t. The people who have actually worked with them or come in close contact generally know that they are a useful tool but not a way to confirm any hypothesis. They are only as good as the data and programming and assumptions that go into the programing of the model and if you make any mistake in any of that the model will fail. It will particularly not do well if it tries to model an overly complex system without accurately including every possible variable that might influence the complex system. And climate/weather is a massively complex system with huge numbers of variables many of which we don’t even know yet. Others which there is debate about the role of and yet others were there is disagreement on how they work.
Any model of the climate will have to make assumptions about those variables and by definition that means any model will not be an accurate representation of the climate.
This doesn’t mean you can’t use a model to help you in climate research. You can, but you can’t make accurate predictions based on the output of a model. What you instead do is run a model and then compare the results of your model run to reality and figure out why they vary. That is where real actual climate science happens.
And guess what that isn’t what a large proportion of the current advocates of models are doing. They are proclaiming that the results of their model runs are absolutely accurate predictions which anyone familiar with computer modeling knows is bunk.
Ted Rado:
The reference to the Spanish 19.9 solar power plant that claims to be capable of 15 hours of power production without sunlight needs some explanation. The article does not stat how the system works. A few simple calcs raise some questions:
######################################################
Should they have consulted you before they started? They are already doing it Ted.
Its more effective to be doubtful before they start. 3 or 4 years ago they were at 7 hours storage with molten salt.
The example below has 28000 metric tons of molten salt for absorbtion and storage of heat.
#####################################################
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Melting salts at temperatures above 435 degrees Fahrenheit (224 degrees Celsius), however, can deliver back as much as 93 percent of the energy, plus the salts are ubiquitous because of their application as fertilizers.
“There’s a term called round-trip efficiency. Basically, it’s a measure of how much electricity is produced if the thermal energy that’s generated is first stored and then used compared to just directly taking the energy. That number is around 93 percent,” explains NREL senior engineer Greg Glatzmaier. “[For] things like compressed air and mechanical type storage, there’s more significant losses,” an average of at least 20 percent over all the various technologies.
Ted:
Let’s suppose that the AGW people win out and we destroy modern industry. Suppose that they do not find a workable “alternative energy”? Will they get fired? There won’t be anyone around to fire. We will have all starved.
#######################################################
Talk about the sky is falling attitude. I’ve shown many a time that models and observations correlate very closely. The uncertainty is low enough that the scientists know within a range where the climate is headed.
AGW is theory and not a hypothesis.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/15/245880/top-5-coolest-ways-companies-are-integrating-renewable-energy-into-the-grid/
Here are developments for integrating renewable energy into the grid.
1. Intelligent Demand Response
2. Microinverters and Maximum Power Point Trackers
3. Wind Energy Management Tools
4. The Virtual Power Plant
5. The Hybrid Solar-Gas Power Plant
There are 5 different videos discussing these issues.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).
#################################
Again the power of a good model can teach us more than just the observations. This model used by the ipcc shows what forcings by themselves vs combined to get observed results.
###############################################
Figure 2: Global surface temperature computed for scenarios A, B, and C, compared with two analyses of observational data (Hansen 2006).
#################################################
Again this is the power of the computer model.Hansen projected co2 5 to 10% high. That was back in 1988. Back then he guessed at future projections of co2 emissions. That’s something that can’t be predicted. That is just plain old human behavbior.
####################################################
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). More on predicting the future…
#####################################################
THe models have done many things well. And the scientists themselves know better than we do what they don’t do well.
I believe its just the blinders that many people have on who just can’t shake out that climate change is happening the way scientists say it is.
Wally:
Renewable,
You’re showing your gross ignorance in mathematical modeling yet again:
##################################################
I’ve done nothing but show models and observations where they agree. Granted there are places where the models and observations are far apart. Not being a modeler myself I’m limited to what’s on the internet. The straight dope on modeling is on skepticl science.
A bunch of vague mush is on climate skeptic. He hasn’t really shown what climate modeling does. He’s only implied it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-would-Solar-Grand-Minimum-affect-global-warming.html
Here is an erxample of the power of the computer model. Because you just can’t wait around for the results to come in.
################################################
Figure 1: Global mean temperature anomalies 1900 to 2100 relative to the period 1961 to 1990 for the A2 scenario. The red line represents temperature change for current solar levels, the blue line represents temperature change at Maunder Minimum levels. Observed temperatures from NASA GISS until 2010 are also shown (black line) (Feulner 2010).
#################################################
Anthony Watts thinks we have a get out of jail free card with a possible grand solar minimum coming up. Given that the computer model can successfully hindcast. My previous posts have the link. What will this grand minimum look like in surface temperature projections. You can go to the link I have provided to see what the computer model output is.
By the computer model there is no get out jail free. Just a mild reduction before we hit out peak temp in the future.
There is no doubt that heat can be stored in molten salt. The problem is that huge quantities are required for any significant amount of energy storage. The heat recovery efficiency is very high. There should be little heat loss. That is not the question. The fact that the Spaniards are doing it proves only that the Spanish government is wasting lots of money. They are pulling in their horns on solar and wind because they already hav $40 billion in bonds out that they have no way of repaying.
All sorts of things are theoretically possible, such as batteries, flywheels, etc. The question is which, if any, are feasible on a large scale. This is where science stops and engineering begins. Not pursuing the idea through the engineering and cost estimating phase is where the mischief starts.
If the sky falls, it will be due to the AGW pushers. The skeptics are trying to avoid an economic catastrophe that would result from shutting off fossil fuels. Talk about twisting things around!
Continuing to say “but someone is doing it, so it must be right” is idiotic. All sorts of nonsense is going on in the energy field with government subsidies. (Ethanol anyone?) That proves nothing except that our politicians are morons. The best thing would be for the USG to get out of it and let normal engineering and economic forces deal with the problem. Yes, I know. We will fry in the next 30 seconds if we do not destroy our economy immediately.
Hi I’m just writing generally to say thank you for your work. I’m in Melbourne, Australia. I am not a science person and just used to accept the CAGW line unquestioningly. The first thing that led me to read more and question what I was being told had to do with being introduced to the concept that global warming is not necessarily bad for humanity. From there I got onto the issues concerning the integrity (or lack thereof) of “hockey stick” graph and contrary information provided by other long term climate recors such as ice cores and written history. Then I was shocked by Climategate and its aftermath (including the unconscionable official whitewash). The more I looked the more I realised that I had been fed hogswash for years by the CAGW lobby. Anyway, I’ll go now but will close by saying that I suspect the CAGW day is just about over and sometime in the future people will look back and laugh about the folly of it all. To laugh though is to ignore the horrendous economic cost of the CAGW con artists.
sincere regards
p.s. I am trying to do my bit by openly disagreeing whenever a CAGW sentiment is expressed in front of me. I stick to firm short statements such as “there are other valid, competing theories of climate change” and “there are many highly credentialled scientists who do not believe that CAGW is significant.” At first I was amazed at the virulence (including assault) of the responses. But now I am used to it and have not been silenced. That’s price of freedom of speech, I suppose.
Renewable Guy says” “A bunch of vague mush is on climate skeptic. He hasn’t really shown what climate modeling does. He’s only implied it.”
You have yet to respond to the point that Warren makes in the main post. It is not vague nor is it mush. If you want to read the Kiehl article he cites, it is here: Kiehl: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007)
@Renewable:
“Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).”
Apparently you can’t read.
That a model can closely represent events that already happened is not surprising. Any model can be fit to do this. Universal tuning knobs like aerosol forcings make it *easy* – since there is little known about the underlying physical factors, the range in which these knobs can be turned is pretty large (hi, Gavin), thus you can simply set them to the position where they will cancel the idiocies created by your assumptions regarding other variables, like CO2 sensitivity, and the resulting model will remain “reasonable” and will match the past temperature record perfectly, even though all you did was plug in the values of a couple unknown parameters out of thin air.
What *does* matter is how well your model predicts the future.
Understood?
The true test of a model is predicted warming vs actual warming. That is what the congressman looks at when allocating money.
.
Anything else is bait and switch.
.
[Singling out CO2 and blaming it for the error is simplistic. The amplification factors were wrong too and they amplified a small error into a much larger error.] The silly rabbits at skepticalscience need to be more skeptical.
.
Dr Hansen’s projections:
.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
1988 Observed [anomaly ].31 ° C
2011 predicted anomaly = 1.0 ° C
Projected warming = .69
Semi reality as shown by GISS.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
Temp 1988 =Year .31 5 year avg .25
Temp 2010 =Year .63 5 year avg .56
Actual warming = Year .32 5 year avg .32
Predicted / actual = .69/.32 = 215 %.
That proves the model is terribly inaccurate.
I saw the discussion in skeptical science and a child could have poked holes in it but the moderators block any attempt to do so.
I posted about what I posted here and it kept disappearing. They fear actual discussion like the plague.
Saying “I know what the problem was and have fixed it.” is wishful thinking and must be proven by performance over the next 20 years or so. Since the rate of warming is so low and probably going negative soon he will have to adjust the model again and again. It is like driving a car by looking in the rear view mirror.
The horse player who fixed his model hopes against hope that his fix makes his model correct but only future performance will tell if it is. I remain skeptical.
“Global warming is a theory, not a hypothesis”. ARE YOU KIDDING??
Renewable,
“I’ve done nothing but show models and observations where they agree.”
Maybe you have, maybe you haven’t. I sure haven’t noticed you point out anything particularly useful nor anything I haven’t seen before.
But that’s all besides my point. Through your last post that I responded to, you showed how little you actually know about working with mathematical models. The power of models is not to test a hypothesis that X will do Y to system Z. Their power is in generating the hypothesis that X will do Y to system Z, which can only be tested through experimentation. This is a common misunderstanding present in people not familar with the scientific process and mathematical modeling specificaly. You may think this is some subtile difference, or I’m being “vague amd mushy”, but I assure you this is the key thing to remember when working with models. You have to remember they are just that, only models.
Also, further observation of system is no replacement for experimentation. Future observation will not validate a model, nor test any hypothesis. In some sciences that is the best you can do, but it does not change the fact that you can not actually test the hypothesis. This is why, for example, you still find a great deal of debate regarding macro-economic theory, but none around DNA being the genetic matterial. In one field the hypothesis has been test and retested millions of times through experimentation until essentially zero doubt remains regarding its truth, in the other we only have observations and correlations in support of a variety of hypotheses. Now, which do you suppose climate science is more similar to?
Simply put, the bar for what we actually know about a system does not change based on what kinds of tools we currently have to investigate that system.
Ted Rado: All sorts of things are theoretically possible, such as batteries, flywheels, etc. The question is which, if any, are feasible on a large scale. This is where science stops and engineering begins. Not pursuing the idea through the engineering and cost estimating phase is where the mischief starts.
#########################################################
A new technology is going to cost more in the beginning. That’s why governments are needed in the beginning. An example of what you are talking about is nuclear power. It has been supported for over 50 years and still the private sector wont do it without gov help. Possibly this salt idea is too expensive. I don’t really have any data on it yet. Or it will work on its own later once the technology is developed. The salts themselves are cheap, I believe that is mentioned in the article. From memory nuclear power also uses a salt heat system.
Wally:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).
###################################################
Fig 1 is a classic shown by many a warmist like myself. It verifys that the climate model can hindcast the temperature record. When uncertainty is understood well enough, the modelors can start to forecast many different possiblities based on projected carbon emissions.
What many skeptics or deniers are guilty of is not even reading the science. Instead their whole world view are blogs like these.
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
This guy teaches a 100 level course on modeling the climate. I can easily say he understands climate much better than Warren Meyer. I haven’t finished listening to his lectures. So much denial is just pure ignorance from refusal to even learn.
########################################################
Figure 3: Observed and simulated global temperature change during Pinatubo eruption. Green is observed temperature by weather stations. Blue is land and ocean temperature. Red is mean model output (Hansen 2007).
######################################################
I can easily say Hansen knows modeling. This is modeling Mt Pinatubo which is everything Warren Meyer is talking about. Within a reasonable level of uncertainty we can have confidence that the model will give us trends for the future we can rely on.
Ted Rado:
“Global warming is a theory, not a hypothesis”. ARE YOU KIDDING??
########################################################
I’m surprised you bit on this one Ted. Global warming is shown by ample evidence. From this theory we can project into the future what will happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard.