We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, September 14. 2021
The difference between climate and weather, and why models fail
STAY HOME, PEONS!
North Korean defector slams ‘woke’ US schools
Top earning New Yorkers and Californians could face 60% combined tax rate, while the top rate of corporate tax would be raised to 26.5% - higher than communist China - under House Democrats' bill to fund $3.5trillion spending plans
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"We have learned that a great many “liberals” are in fact proto-fascists who derive an unseemly satisfaction from bossing the rest of us around." This is not news to many of us.
Shots: I have in my shirt pocket my Covid shot record, so that I can pull it out, hold it out in my left hand, raise my right arm to
45 degrees, und zay "Hier ist mein papier, Herr/Frau OBERST!!"
Blinken Blames Trump for Biden's Failure to Develop an Afghanistan Withdrawal Plan: HEY!!!! Biden "wanted" the job!
Or the Democrat Party wanted him to have that job, so IT'S ON THEM!!!
The difference between climate and weather, and why models fail
Rehash of a rehash.
Firstly, they assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driven by human activity and that CO2 drives global temperature.
It's not an assumption. While CO2 is not the only driver of global temperature, the importance of the greenhouse effect to the Earth's surface temperature is based on the physics of heat, and supported by several lines of evidence, including direct observations of carbon dioxide's radiative effects in the atmosphere.
Feldman et al., Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature 2015.
They calmly ignore the moderating effects of oceans,
That's just silly.
the unmeasured effects of volcanoes,
Gerlach, Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide, EOS 2011.
and the declining effects of extra CO2.
The greenhouse effect of increasing CO2 is approximately logarithmic, which is why it's stated per doubling of CO2.
Secondly, they try to write formulae for the myriad of factors that drive the weather. Then these computers spit out their estimates for "average global temperature" — a bureaucratic invention — nothing lives or grows in "average global temperature".
Well, no. The global average temperature has very wide error margins; however, the global temperature anomaly can be constrained to much smaller margins. (Feel free to ask why.)
A canny and persistent mathematician and engineer, Milutin Milankovitch, was one of the first to suggest that changes in various solar cycle orbits and axial tilts cause changes in Earth's climate. . . . "Models" provide the comedy act in the climate circus.
That's funny. Milankovitch cycles are a model. In any case, while Milankovitch cycles are important, changes in insolation are insufficient to explain the Earth's oscillation between ice ages and ice-free ages, but are explained with Milankovitch cycles combined with positive feedbacks from greenhouse gases. Nor do Milankovitch cycles explain the current warming trend, as Milankovitch cycles are in a cooling trend.
Thirdly, these models have only one valuable feature — they are known to be consistently wrong.
Climate models and observations are in close agreement.
Tropical Mid-Troposphere Temperature Variations Models vs. Observations
1. The chart only concerns the tropical mid-troposphere.
2. The chart doesn't show error bars, which are very large for the observations.
3. Newer studies have largely resolved the discrepancy.
Santer et al., Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data, American Meteorological Society 2017.
Sherwood & Nishant, Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2), Environmental Research Letters 2015.
See, you repeat comments that have already been demonstrated to be incorrect and/or dishonest.
You are a liar.
DrTorch: See, you repeat comments that have already been demonstrated to be incorrect and/or dishonest.
Z: provides citations to the primary scientific literature and to leading scientific institutions.
DT: "Is not!"
Oh, like clockwork, the old "is not" meme.
You KiddieZ are so predictable in your shameless trolling.
Repetition of dishonesty is all the KiddieZ have.
Next they'll say "we've provided valid citations, all you've provided is handwaving and handwriting isn't much of an argument."
Wait for it.
Again, more narrative purchased by the government administrative state to promote more power, control, and of course money for their pockets.
You forgot the non-response response, changing of subject, and refusal to answer direct questions. The most tedious of all is pretending he is some think tank, with multiple people working through the issues.
A take down of the Sherwood citation is here.
Turns out, Sherwood has been caught manipulating data in the past, and may have been caught again. Par for the course, much like the Zach Foundation. Who funds the Zach foundation?
B. Hammer: A take down of the Sherwood citation is here.
Has JoNova published her "take down" in the peer journals?
JoNova quotes Sherwood, then leaves out the context (using an inappropriate period). Sherwood: "cooling has slackened in the stratosphere such that linear trends since 1979 are about half as strong as reported earlier for shorter periods; this may be due to the beginning of stratospheric ozone recovery."
That still leaves the large error bars missing from the chart, meaning there is no missing hot spot in the chart, just a lot of uncertainty.
More specifically, new satellite observational data, such as in Santer 2017, confirm the existence of the tropical tropospheric hot spot. So now we have two independent data sources that reach the same conclusion. That's why we said it was a rehash of a rehash.
Z: Has JoNova published her "take down" in the peer journals?
Classic Z misdirection, change of subject. Peer review, as any observant, none sycophant person knows, ain't what it used to be.
I will let JoNova answer you naïve response - since you obviously did not read the link; yet another classic Z troll.
Independent scientists and blogs are setting the agenda in the science debate, supported only by citizens donations (and we do need your help). Sherwood collects a UNSW professorial salary and gets full resources, PhD students, support, and superannuation to produce papers telling us essentially that we can’t even measure the temperature of the upper atmosphere without adjusting the data so much that the homogenized results look nothing like the raw measurements. If the models are that good that we are “correcting” data to fit, why bother taking the measurements? We could just figure out the temperature over Sudan from a computer in Pennsylvania, right?
Credit to the independent scientists fighting for the basic truth in the peer review medium: Fred Singer, David Douglass, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Garth Paltridge, Ross McKitrick, Steve McIntyre, Chad Herman, Benjamin Pearson, and others named in citations below. I’m pretty sure credit for the “hotspot” phrase itself goes to Christopher Monckton.
You can have the last word. That makes you feel like you have won the debate.
Sherwood collects a UNSW professorial salary and gets full resources, PhD students, support, and superannuation to produce papers telling us essentially that we can’t even measure the temperature of the upper atmosphere without adjusting the data so much that the homogenized results look nothing like the raw measurements.
All that says is that science is hard. Data often has to be homogenized. In this case, it's because the balloon radiosondes aren't held in place by sky-hooks, but drift. Sure, the process could be incorrect, but to make that argument, you have to actually address the adjustments and why they are wrong. Nor is the result inconsistent with the chart provided, as the error-bars would make clear if they had been provided.
And to reiterate, satellite data confirms the findings. So, two independent methods yield the same result. Lucky guess?
KiddieZ: ... this may be due to the beginning of stratospheric ozone recovery."
Or it may be something that's totally made up or something.
Then the KiddieZ go on and throw out another climategater Santer 2017, like he's reputable after getting caught fudging more ... um, "data".
Must be Zhithead’s last day at the troll farm. Gotta get all the BS talking points in to get a bigger paycheck because Mom raised the rent on his basement room.
Z seems to be thrashing and me thinks I detect a hint of desperation.
That would require reading the stuff, now he/they/zir makes it easier to just skip over and read real comments.
Democrats continue to believe that wealth is a pie, and you can just take more slices as taxes. But in reality, without profits a corporation has no money to stay modern, to give raises, and to expand--which is where new jobs come from. The insane high taxes will slam the brakes on the economy. Plus inflation. 1970s here we come.
I think "Blinken Blames Trump" is going to be the first words of a lot of headlines for years.
The thing missing in the climate debate is that after the mini-ice age ended in 1850 the climate had to warm up. Duh! That's what it means to end a "mini-ice age"!
Yes, one might expect temperatures to rise after the end of the Little Ice Age, mightn't one? It's like the old joke "After The Narrows, the river widened."
I am one who believes that burning coal and oil have had their effect, and have raised the global temperature - a bit. But I also think that there isn't much evidence of catastrophe, and if you are looking for solutions to that, please talk to India and China, not me.
If you want to get involved in saving the environment, folks, fresh water supplies and overfishing are much bigger deals than climate change.
WHY are all the comments (ON THE LIST OF COMMENTS) from YESTERDAY????? It's 9/15 today!