User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 157

Thread: The great failure of the climate models

  1. #41
    Points: 432,071, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307964
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,417
    Points
    432,071
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,178
    Thanked 76,979x in 55,606 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    So is it reasonable to say that if our over population began to correct it's atmosphere decaying behavior, then we could restore good clean air and return the earth to its former stabilized temperatures.
    The earth’s atmosphere is not in decay. Our environment is cleaner today than it was 100 years ago.

    There has never been a period where the earth’s climate was stable. It’s always been cyclical and always will be. There’s nothing we can do about it.

  2. #42
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433315
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,904x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    The problem with topics like these that address specific points is some are triggered by certain words to trot out favorite but unrelated arguments.

    The OP is not an argument about climate change, only about climate models and their extreme predictions.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  3. #43
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496570
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,580x in 94,412 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    All of the predictions of doom have fallen flat.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  4. #44
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Where has Patrick Michaels lied? I have already posted some examples of where he has misled or made false statements. I know that he is a smart man, smart enough to know what the truth is.

    Where he discusses the first adjustment to the ocean surface, he says that the buoy temperatures were adjusted upwards and that is guaranteed to put some artificial warming in the data. It is true that the buoy temperatures were adjusted upwards and that is because prior readings were taken by a different methodology that involved ships throwing buckets overboard or by drawing buckets of water through the hull of a ship that produced warmer sea surface temperatures. The buoy temperatures were adjusted upwards and this was proper as I will show below. It did not put "some artificial warming in the data."
    NOAA argued that the transition from engine room intake (ERI) method of extracting water from the ocean surface to buoys introduced approximately 0.1 degree C. cooling bias. Buoy temperatures were adjusted upwards to match ERI records in forming a new data set, ERSST v4 shown in red below. There was also an adjustment made across ships to account for different biases with different ship water bucket methods.
    "As shown in Figure 3, a buoy-only record is quite similar to the ERSST v4 but shows statistically significantly more warming than ERSST v3b during the period from 1995 through the end of 2014 (p < 0.05 trend in the differences). This suggests that ERSST v3b suffered a cooling bias when blending buoy and ship records that is properly corrected in ERSST v4, at least for the areas where both ship and buoy records are available. Because the buoy record is relatively homogenous and requires no adjustments, it provides a good check in the validity of the combined ship-buoy series when normalized for spatial coverage." (From skepticalscience.com, A buoy only sea surface temperature record supports NOAA adjustments)

    This adjustment had no significant bias to Earth's global land-sea mean temperature computer modelling results. It also resulted in a lower amount of energy absorbed by the
    oceans over the 20th century.

    Figure 3: ERSST v3b, v4, and Buoy-Only SST anomalies and trends from 1995 through the end of 2014. The trend periods shown are the full record (1995-2014) and the “hiatus” period (1998-2014). 2015 is excluded as the year is incomplete, and the period prior to 1995 is excluded due to limited buoy coverage. The anomaly graph is baselined to 1995-2005 to show the time-evolution of differences (From skepticalcsience.com)
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 08-26-2019 at 03:42 PM.

  5. #45
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496570
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,580x in 94,412 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What are the warmists going to do when citizens do not vote for the radical Green Neal Deal?
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  6. #46
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433315
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,904x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    Where has Patrick Michaels lied? I have already posted some examples of where he has misled or made false statements. I know that he is a smart man, smart enough to know what the truth is.

    Where he discusses the first adjustment to the ocean surface, he says that the buoy temperatures were adjusted upwards and that is guaranteed to put some artificial warming in the data. It is true that the buoy temperatures were adjusted upwards and that is because prior readings were taken by a different methodology that involved ships throwing buckets overboard or by drawing buckets of water through the hull of a ship that produced warmer sea surface temperatures. The buoy temperatures were adjusted upwards and this was proper as I will show below. It did not put "some artificial warming in the data."
    NOAA argued that the transition from engine room intake (ERI) method of extracting water from the ocean surface to buoys introduced approximately 0.1 degree C. cooling bias. Buoy temperatures were adjusted upwards to match ERI records in forming a new data set, ERSST v4 shown in red below. There was also an adjustment made across ships to account for different biases with different ship water bucket methods.
    "As shown in Figure 3, a buoy-only record is quite similar to the ERSST v4 but shows statistically significantly more warming than ERSST v3b during the period from 1995 through the end of 2014 (p < 0.05 trend in the differences). This suggests that ERSST v3b suffered a cooling bias when blending buoy and ship records that is properly corrected in ERSST v4, at least for the areas where both ship and buoy records are available. Because the buoy record is relatively homogenous and requires no adjustments, it provides a good check in the validity of the combined ship-buoy series when normalized for spatial coverage." (From skepticalscience.com, A buoy only sea surface temperature record supports NOAA adjustments)

    This adjustment had no significant bias to Earth's global land-sea mean temperature computer modelling results. It also resulted in a lower amount of energy absorbed by the
    oceans over the 20th century.

    Figure 3: ERSST v3b, v4, and Buoy-Only SST anomalies and trends from 1995 through the end of 2014. The trend periods shown are the full record (1995-2014) and the “hiatus” period (1998-2014). 2015 is excluded as the year is incomplete, and the period prior to 1995 is excluded due to limited buoy coverage. The anomaly graph is baselined to 1995-2005 to show the time-evolution of differences (From skepticalcsience.com)

    Where has Patrick Michaels lied?
    No, I asked you specifically "Where in the OP article does Michaels lie?" Please answer that as that is the topic.


    In your log argument to show he lied elsewhere all you show is that you and he disagree. Disagreement is not a lie. Also, his argument was about bias in existing data and you argue "computer modelling results." Earlier we were discussing computer models and you argued existing data, and now he's talking existing data and you're talking models. You don't seem to want to address points directly.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  7. #47
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Patrick Michaels states that, "these models have produced dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences."

    The increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are not small. The increase from around 280 ppm pre-industrial, to 409 ppm (the current value) has resulted in 2.0 watts/square meter

    of radiative forcing relative to 1750. That is a big pertubation to the climate system. I don't know what "catastrophic consequences" that he is talking about. Climate scientists and

    climate models have not promoted the idea that this increase in carbon dioxide would produce catastrophic consequences.

  8. #48
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496570
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,580x in 94,412 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What are the warminsts going to do when citizens don't vote for the Green New Deal?
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  9. #49
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433315
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,904x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    Patrick Michaels states that, "these models have produced dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences."

    The increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are not small. The increase from around 280 ppm pre-industrial, to 409 ppm (the current value) has resulted in 2.0 watts/square meter

    of radiative forcing relative to 1750. That is a big pertubation to the climate system. I don't know what "catastrophic consequences" that he is talking about. Climate scientists and

    climate models have not promoted the idea that this increase in carbon dioxide would produce catastrophic consequences.

    You're not going to argue the overly simplistic and wrong liberal argument that CO2 drives temperature, are you? Indeed over the last decades, CO2 levels rose dramatically, while temp rise remained in hiatus. The relationship is so much more complicated--as Judith Curry says, it's a wicked problem.


    Listen, even if every point in your post was true, all you've done is show where you disagree with or are uncertain what Michaels says. Your claim was that he lied in the OP article.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (08-26-2019)

  11. #50
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433315
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,904x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    There's a serious disconnect between this paper's conclusions and the datas the conclusions are based on: How well have climate models projected global warming?

    Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
    And the data:



    30% difference, 16%? Not even close in horseshoes.

    They do admit:

    Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts