User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52

Thread: Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don’t Know Why

  1. #11
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Mike, you're telling how models of climate sensitivity are supposed to work. Problem is they now do not work. The OP link addresses that:




    You seem to be unskeptical of the models.
    These aren't models of climate sensitivity, they are complex models of the global climate, and climate sensitivity can be derived from them. I am skeptical of these results because the climate

    sensitivity derived from studying the palaeoclimate is much less than what we get from these latest models and the amount of climate change observe since around 1900 is also consistent with

    a lower climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2. However, these new models also reproduce the 20th century warming and other aspects of the climate better than previous models. If the climate

    sensitivity turns out to be around 3 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2 rather than 5 degrees C for a doubling of CO2, that still represents a good chance of catastrophic warming by the end of the 21st century.

    The most significant finding from these new models is that the net cloud feedback could result in more warming than previously expected. The net cloud feedback is the biggest uncertainty in climate

    science and it isn't known if the feedback is positive or negative but most of the evidence supports a positive feedback for clouds as the planet's surface warms. These new climate models support a

    higher positive feedback from clouds that is caused primarily by less reflection of sunlight.

  2. #12
    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)
    This article at ars technica is a good explanation of the new climate models and why the climate sensitivity is higher

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...ter-heres-why/

    In the new study, researchers found that the low cloud feedback in the new generation of models seems to have changed outside the tropics, particularly the mid-latitude Southern Hemisphere. The average feedback among the models is a little more positive, amplifying warming. That would mean that as the Earth warms, low cloud cover in this region is decreasing a bit and reflecting less sunlight back to space.

    The researchers dug a little deeper to see what was behind this shift and found that it’s probably related to some changes in the cloud physics equations. Comparisons to satellite data had shown that models should allow more liquid droplets to remain liquid at cold temperatures, and at least some models have been tweaked accordingly. That could be enough to alter how much the clouds change as temperatures increase.
    In short, the newer models don’t seem to be doing anything unrealistic to cause their higher sensitivities. But that doesn't necessarily mean they’re right. It’s going to take a lot more work to sift through these models and see which one has clouds that best match the real world. And as the Earth’s climate system is so interconnected, it’s even possible that some other factor—like a pattern of ocean temperature—is partly shaping cloud behavior.
    Models aren’t the only way scientists estimate the Earth’s climate sensitivity. It’s also done by studying the historical record, for example, and past climate changes recorded by things like ice cores. Evaluating the new generation of climate models against those events might also provide some clarity.
    This situation is certainly going to present a challenge for the authors of the upcoming IPCC report, though, as they’ll only be able to include studies published by September 2020. It’s a good bet that we’ll see more research on this topic in the coming months—and hopefully a lot of it, for the IPCC authors’ sake.
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 02-04-2020 at 05:59 PM.

  3. #13
    Points: 665,260, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,549
    Points
    665,260
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    These aren't models of climate sensitivity, they are complex models of the global climate, and climate sensitivity can be derived from them. I am skeptical of these results because the climate

    sensitivity derived from studying the palaeoclimate is much less than what we get from these latest models and the amount of climate change observe since around 1900 is also consistent with

    a lower climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2. However, these new models also reproduce the 20th century warming and other aspects of the climate better than previous models. If the climate

    sensitivity turns out to be around 3 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2 rather than 5 degrees C for a doubling of CO2, that still represents a good chance of catastrophic warming by the end of the 21st century.

    The most significant finding from these new models is that the net cloud feedback could result in more warming than previously expected. The net cloud feedback is the biggest uncertainty in climate

    science and it isn't known if the feedback is positive or negative but most of the evidence supports a positive feedback for clouds as the planet's surface warms. These new climate models support a

    higher positive feedback from clouds that is caused primarily by less reflection of sunlight.
    You were the one said "Much of the higher climate sensitivity with the new models" and I responded to that.

    The scientists themselves say the models are wrong.

    And they are not new models but the same old ones that once adjusted to fit historical data go way too hot for the future. It's like goldilocks and the three bears, they want predictions that are moderate.

    Maybe after much tweaking.
    Last edited by Chris; 02-04-2020 at 06:14 PM.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  4. #14
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by stjames1_53 View Post
    15000 years ago, the Ice age was ending. Sea levels were down 300 feet, most of the continents were covered in ice. There was hardly any place to set up shop by people.
    Now, remember, this planet has been changing since it first formed up. The whole planet underwent drastic changes as it warmed back up. It is continuing to change. Plate shifts, volcanic activity, one earth quake after another. That is the planet doing its own thing: Changing.
    You cannot stop the planet from changing anymore than you can change weather. It started out as on singular continent and split apart to form many. It has been speculated by leading geologists that it will reform as one continent again.
    How much money will it take to stop changing?

    ~snip~
    Geologically speaking, we live in a time period of intense climatic change. Since the last 1 million years, our species and our human forebears experienced a dozen or so major glaciations of the northern hemisphere, with the greatest ever occurring around 650,000 years ago. During this period of extreme ice buildup, the ice advanced deep into the Midwest, from its center around Hudson Bay in Canada, and deep into Germany, from its center on the Scandinavian Shield. So much ice collected in these two major regions and several lesser ones that the sea level dropped by some 400 feet and the overall global temperature was lowered by around 5°C (about 9°F). Mammoth, mastodon, wooly rhinoceros, giant bison, camels, horses, and many large predators (cats, wolves, bears) roamed the grasslands well south of the rim of the miles-high ice, both in North America and in Europe. Small bands of humans made a living by hunting and gathering in Africa, and perhaps elsewhere. The glaciation that occurred 650,000 years ago lasted some 50,000 years. It had a profound effect on the landscape, carving great glacial valleys and fjords and lakes, and making moraines and glacial outwash plains around the perimeter of its extent. The greatly lowered sea level allowed rivers to cut deeply into the shelves of the continents and into the edges of the shelves, where the sea floor drops off into the deep ocean. Here canyons could form which would later serve to funnel sediments from the shelf into the deep sea.
    ~snip~
    http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/01_1.shtml

    Where was Man during these massive changes?
    It's easier just to hold your hand out and demand we pay for nothing, than to accept the truth of the matter.
    No one disputes that there has been massive climate change in the past before humans lived or could have influenced the climate. That doesn't mean that humans can't cause catastrophic

    climate change on a very short geological time frame.

  5. #15
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    The scientists themselves say the models are wrong.

    And they are not new models but the same old ones that once adjusted to fit historical data go way too hot for the future. It's like goldilocks and the three bears, they want predictions that are moderate.

    Maybe after much tweaking.
    The models are always changing and probably will continue to change in the future because the science is so complex. These latest changes seem to

    confirm that a low climate sensitivity is unlikely and that we should expect significantly warmer temperatures if we continue down the path we are on.

  6. #16
    Points: 665,260, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,549
    Points
    665,260
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    The models are always changing and probably will continue to change in the future because the science is so complex. These latest changes seem to

    confirm that a low climate sensitivity is unlikely and that we should expect significantly warmer temperatures if we continue down the path we are on.

    Indeed, as Judith Curry says, climate change is a wicked problem.

    The scientists themselves disagree with you.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  7. #17
    Points: 138,396, Level: 89
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 1,054
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    stjames1_53's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    58242
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    50,622
    Points
    138,396
    Level
    89
    Thanks Given
    104,276
    Thanked 29,263x in 20,294 Posts
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    No one disputes that there has been massive climate change in the past before humans lived or could have influenced the climate. That doesn't mean that humans can't cause catastrophic

    climate change on a very short geological time frame.
    And yet your models are failing. We don't actually know if we are having any impact on what was put into motion 4.3 billion years ago. These so-called climate experts have only been at it for about 35 years seriously.
    They are only building on what has already been happening. We are undoubtedly at the end of the last Ice Age, and have no idea what comes next.
    And just who is to say that any attempt to correct this life-altering event just wont make matters worse. We do have a record of that. I'm not in favor of betting on a horse without seeing it's running sheets and stats.
    For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
    "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
    - Thucydides

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

  8. #18
    Points: 665,260, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,549
    Points
    665,260
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stjames1_53 View Post
    And yet your models are failing. We don't actually know if we are having any impact on what was put into motion 4.3 billion years ago. These so-called climate experts have only been at it for about 35 years seriously.
    They are only building on what has already been happening. We are undoubtedly at the end of the last Ice Age, and have no idea what comes next.
    And just who is to say that any attempt to correct this life-altering event just wont make matters worse. We do have a record of that. I'm not in favor of betting on a horse without seeing it's running sheets and stats.

    I wouldn't say failing but as is the very nature of modern science, which operates under falsifiability, "The models are always changing and probably will continue to change in the future because the science is so complex."
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  9. #19
    Points: 43,584, Level: 51
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 1,666
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    10173
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13,643
    Points
    43,584
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    1,411
    Thanked 10,164x in 6,407 Posts
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The previous models mean was running too hot so hotter models are not the answer.
    When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.

    When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.

    And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.

    War is peace.

    Freedom is slavery.

    Ignorance is strength.

  10. #20
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,011, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496556
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,683
    Points
    859,011
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,214
    Thanked 147,566x in 94,410 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier8 View Post
    The previous models mean was running too hot so hotter models are not the answer.
    One issue is that today we are measuring a lot of temperature from airports which are big heat islands since they are large areas of concrete.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


+ 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