Global warming wildly off

Sep 12, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Fox News

The predicted temperature changes due to global warming, based on data that scientists, policymakers and the public are now questioning.

Comments
1 - 8 of 8 Comments Last updated Sep 13, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

"But John Christy says that climate models have had this problem going back 35 years, to 1979, the first year for which reliable satellite temperature data exists to compare the predictions to."

The MSU instruments do NOT MEASURE SURFACE TEMPERATURE. They measure O2 microwave emissions which are a factor of temperature and concentration, which can be thrown off by density change, water vapor levels, etc and which can only SEE the upper atmosphere from which they EXTRAPOLATE the surface temperature.

And this is John Christy? Who, along with Roy Spencer got first stab at the data and FAILED their analysis EIGHT TIMES, each time quitting when they had a results that 'disproved AGW' then having to FIX the results when other scientists showed them their mistakes and DOING IT AGAIN over and over?

Yah. Real credible..
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Note. The actual instrument record from surface thermometers is more accurate than the MSU satellites which have EIGHT BIT converters so they can only distinguish 256 different values. Good enough for high altitude air temps but hardly the 'accurate satellite data' he trumpets.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Note. The actual instrument record from surface thermometers is more accurate than the MSU satellites which have EIGHT BIT converters so they can only distinguish 256 different values. Good enough for high altitude air temps but hardly the 'accurate satellite data' he trumpets.
So I downloaded the RSS numbers
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_se...
and the HADCRUT4 numbers
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut4110_ns_a...
and ran a slope 1979 to 2013 and HADCRUT4 comes out to 0.01545 degrees per year and RSS comes out to 0.01307 degrees per year. A difference of 0.00239 degrees per year Did I expect them to be the same? No. Is it a huge difference? No.

So exactly what are you trying to say?

I've compared all five temperature time series and they are very close to each other. Slopes except for RSS were identical, and RSS wasn't very different. I use HADCRUT4 because it's the longest and newest. I acknowledge that it's been "adjusted" but I have to use something.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

[Kosaka and Xie (2013, Nature, doi:10.1038/nature12534)] ran a global climate model (GFDL, from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab), but instead of letting all the variables roam free, they constrained sea surface temperature (SST) in the tropical east Pacific ocean (very much the el Niño region) to match observed historical data. By doing so, they constrained the model to mimic the observed pattern of el Niño fluctuations, in hopes (since el Niño is known to affect global temperature) of obtaining a better match to observed global temperature data. They dubbed their experiment POGA, for “Pacific Ocean Global Atmosphere.”

The attempt succeeded far better than expected — the match of model output to historical observations is uncanny. Nor can this be solely due to constraining SST in the el Niño region, since their chosen area of constraint is only 8.2% of the entire globe. Their research strongly suggests that the GFDL model correctly simulates the impact of forcing agents (both man-made like greenhouse gases, and natural like volcanic explosions and solar variations) on earth’s climate, so that when it’s given the right el Niño process — the strongest known agent of natural internal variability — it can reproduce temperature history remarkably well.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/season...

So, when the *short-term* effects of El Nino influence is taken into account, models are not "wildly off".

What we have is a short-term "pause" in warming.

Long-term warming is still very much something to worry about.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
[Kosaka and Xie (2013, Nature, doi:10.1038/nature12534)] ran a global climate model (GFDL, from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab), but ..
So, when the *short-term* effects of El Nino influence is taken into account, models are not "wildly off".
What we have is a short-term "pause" in warming.
Long-term warming is still very much something to worry about.
I read through your link, and there's this quote:

"This seasonal contrast is evident also in HIST. For 1970 - 2040, a period when the ensemble-mean global temperature shows a steady increase in HIST, the probability density function for the 11-year trend is similar in winter and in summer for tropical temperatures, with means both around 0.25°C (Extended Data Fig. 4c)."

I don't know what they are exactly trying to say, but what I'd like to see is what their model projects out to 2100. Does it fall in line with the spaghetti graphs we've all seen? Does it project even higher temperatures? Or does it fall in line with the historical trend of about 0.8°C over the last 162 years.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
I read through your link, and there's this quote:
"This seasonal contrast is evident also in HIST. For 1970 - 2040, a period when the ensemble-mean global temperature shows a steady increase in HIST, the probability density function for the 11-year trend is similar in winter and in summer for tropical temperatures, with means both around 0.25°C (Extended Data Fig. 4c)."
I don't know what they are exactly trying to say, but what I'd like to see is what their model projects out to 2100. Does it fall in line with the spaghetti graphs we've all seen? Does it project even higher temperatures? Or does it fall in line with the historical trend of about 0.8°C over the last 162 years.
2.9-3.4 degrees per doubling of CO2 is the sensitivity of the model, but the model has no way of constraining itself to future ocean temperatures in that zone, since they are determined by stochastic events.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
2.9-3.4 degrees per doubling of CO2 is the sensitivity of the model, but the model has no way of constraining itself to future ocean temperatures in that zone, since they are determined by stochastic events.
Thanks for the answer, 2.9 - 3.4 degrees per doubling of CO2 - Hmmmm I wonder how they came up with that. Certainly wasn't from the empirical record.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 13, 2013
 
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the answer, 2.9 - 3.4 degrees per doubling of CO2 - Hmmmm I wonder how they came up with that. Certainly wasn't from the empirical record.
Actually it is from the empirical record. The empirical record that matches the models output. Which is how models are validated. The model can them be examined for forcing vs temperature change resulting giving you the 'climate sensitivity' but it is IMPLICIT in the empirical data.

The values are all around 2.5C to 3C.. but long term effects can be much greater as positive feedback's kick in over millennia.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••