Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

Meanwhile I already asked these questions of the faith, did I miss all 15 answers?

1. Are the stepwise time intervals in global climate modes still between 1 and 2 hours in terms of evolution evolution, due to lack of computing power and resulting cost? This would be wholly inadequate (see 6 and 13).

2. What's the atmospheric cell size these days, is it much less than 100km yet? Is it down to the scale of a thunderhead? The scale on which cloud nucleation operates? In the most complex models of the atmosphere and ocean used to study climate (referred to as atmosphere-ocean general circulation models, or AOGCMs), such quantities have been represented by a three-dimensional (longitude-latitude-height) grid with typical horizontal resolutions of several hundred kilometres.

3. Is the ocean cell size still even bigger?

4. Do the climate models still treat the planet's hemispheres as identical for symmetry purposes i.e. as an easy short-cut, when they have such contrasting land-ocean make up?

5. Any progress with rigid paramaterisation, given that models aren't programmed with the pure undiluted laws of physics but about 100 tuned (!) parameterisations go in - and in particular what about the good old vertical profile problem?

6. Sun et al (2012) showed that climate models can't even get surface solar radiation right, with an error more than 20x the claimed forcing from doubling carbon dioxide. What are the modellers doing about that these days?

7. Drawing partly from Sun et al as above, have errors in precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations been addressed?

8. Is anything happening on underestimating the magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport?

9. Where have advances in the treatment of poleward transport of energy by the ocean circulations got to?

10. How about overestimates of LW exchange in the tropics and underestimates over high latitudes?

11. The initial value problem, that'll be tricky...

12. How many of the dozens of natural forcings are now modelledh including the Svensmark CRF-LLC-albedo mechanism and the Bucha auroral oval forcing (both peer-reviewed published science) and how many have a high LOSU (level of scientific understanding)?

13. Has computing power suddenly increased my many orders of magnitude recently as required for any realistic climate projection that won't take longer than multiples of the age of the universe?

14. Then there's this rather fundamental problem as expressed in the IPCC Third Assessment Report:

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

15. More follows in these refs for anyone interested:
'Climate Prediction as an Initial Value Problem' (Pielke, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society; "Models that simulate and forecast global climate don’t produce the right wobbles, a new study concludes. Despite immense complexity and sophistication, these computer models fail to capture the fluctuations of atmospheric temperatures over months and years." Nature July 2002).

The rigid paramaterisation problem is examined in Mölders and Kramm (Atmos Res, 2009) where the abstract has this “Simulated near-surface air temperatures as well as dew-point temperatures differ about 4 deg C on average depending on the physical packages used. All simulations have difficulties in capturing the full strength of the surface temperature inversion and in simulating strong variations of dew-point temperature profiles” the same type of inaccurate parameterisations gets used in multi-decadal global climate models as used in IPCC reports.

[turbobloke]

Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fai...

This suggests what at least one of the satellite datasets is, but Dr S will confirm or otherwise when contacted. Let us know how you get on.

Now then, what about those 15 questions on the most blatant climate model failings?

[dickymint]

turbobloke said:

Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fai...

This suggests what at least one of the satellite datasets is, but Dr S will confirm or otherwise when contacted. Let us know how you get on.

Now then, what about those 15 questions on the most blatant climate model failings?

Faced with that, Durbs will normally go silent for a few days............we'll see

Edited by dickymint on Sunday 5th November 15:54

[Gandahar]

Turbobloke and his one man hobby to prove AGW wrong on a mens motoring online forum is strong again I see.

[Gandahar]

turbobloke said:

Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer

Sorry, but Dr Roy Spencer is not a non biased source nowadays for comments on AGW.


What papers has he done recently?

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 5th November 15:59

[dickymint]

Gandahar said:

turbobloke said:

Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer

Sorry, but Dr Roy Spencer is not a non biased source nowadays for comments on AGW.

So who is? Are you implying He used to be and if so when did it end?

Edited by dickymint on Sunday 5th November 16:00

[zygalski]

Gandahar said:

turbobloke said:

Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer

Sorry, but Dr Roy Spencer is not a non biased source nowadays for comments on AGW.

Part of the 3%?

[Gandahar]

dickymint said:

Gandahar said:

turbobloke said:

Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer

Sorry, but Dr Roy Spencer is not a non biased source nowadays for comments on AGW.

So who is?

Not him.

[gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fai...

This suggests what at least one of the satellite datasets is, but Dr S will confirm or otherwise when contacted. Let us know how you get on.

Now then, what about those 15 questions on the most blatant climate model failings?

Thanks for that, interesting.

However, there’s a rebuttal of his graphs here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

He’s also a creationist no? Believes the earth is 6,000 years old etc.

Apart from Climate Change he doesn’t believe in Evolution either: http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

Not sure how much faith I have in him to be honest.

[Gandahar]

Like I said, lets list his papers in the last 5 years in this rapidly developing field,

[Gandahar]

Turbobloke, can I ask what your scientific background is ?

Just wondering......

[zygalski]

gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fai...

This suggests what at least one of the satellite datasets is, but Dr S will confirm or otherwise when contacted. Let us know how you get on.

Now then, what about those 15 questions on the most blatant climate model failings?

Thanks for that, interesting.

However, there’s a rebuttal of his graphs here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

He’s also a creationist no? Believes the earth is 6,000 years old etc.

Apart from Climate Change he doesn’t believe in Evolution either: http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

Not sure how much faith I have in him to be honest.

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
'I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world.

The possibility then presented itself that, despite all I had previously thought, Genesis, the first book of the Bible, might actually be true! '

[robinessex]

Gandahar said:

Turbobloke, can I ask what your scientific background is ?

Just wondering......

And yours? Your don't need a scientific background to see the the claimed AGW is bks

[zygalski]

robinessex said:

And yours? Your don't need a scientific background to see the the claimed AGW is bks

Try telling that to the Trump administration.
They accept AGW as fact.

[dickymint]

gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fai...

This suggests what at least one of the satellite datasets is, but Dr S will confirm or otherwise when contacted. Let us know how you get on.

Now then, what about those 15 questions on the most blatant climate model failings?

Thanks for that, interesting.

However, there’s a rebuttal of his graphs here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

He’s also a creationist no? Believes the earth is 6,000 years old etc.

Apart from Climate Change he doesn’t believe in Evolution either: http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

Not sure how much faith I have in him to be honest.

Apparently He's " a senior scientist at the Marshall Space Flight Centre, USA, and is a leading scientist with NASA"

That alone would make the likes of Durbs et al bow down and worship him!

[zygalski]

dickymint said:

Apparently He's " a senior scientist at the Marshall Space Flight Centre, USA, and is a leading scientist with NASA"

That alone would make the likes of Durbs et al bow down and worship him!

Every cart has the odd rotten apple.
So long as 97% of them are ok, you should still get a decent batch of cider.

[Gandahar]

zygalski said:

gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fai...

This suggests what at least one of the satellite datasets is, but Dr S will confirm or otherwise when contacted. Let us know how you get on.

Now then, what about those 15 questions on the most blatant climate model failings?

Thanks for that, interesting.

However, there’s a rebuttal of his graphs here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

He’s also a creationist no? Believes the earth is 6,000 years old etc.

Apart from Climate Change he doesn’t believe in Evolution either: http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

Not sure how much faith I have in him to be honest.

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
'I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world.

The possibility then presented itself that, despite all I had previously thought, Genesis, the first book of the Bible, might actually be true! '

I'm thinking we might be better following Frank Spencer than Roy Spencer to get the real truth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTl-IBy_Nc

[dickymint]

Gandahar said:

Turbobloke, can I ask what your scientific background is ?

Just wondering......

Been answered many times as you know.

[zygalski]

Gandahar said:

zygalski said:

gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fai...

This suggests what at least one of the satellite datasets is, but Dr S will confirm or otherwise when contacted. Let us know how you get on.

Now then, what about those 15 questions on the most blatant climate model failings?

Thanks for that, interesting.

However, there’s a rebuttal of his graphs here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

He’s also a creationist no? Believes the earth is 6,000 years old etc.

Apart from Climate Change he doesn’t believe in Evolution either: http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

Not sure how much faith I have in him to be honest.

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
'I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world.

The possibility then presented itself that, despite all I had previously thought, Genesis, the first book of the Bible, might actually be true! '

I'm thinking we might be better following Frank Spencer than Roy Spencer to get the real truth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTl-IBy_Nc

I wonder if Dr Spencer rested on the 7th day of his AGW statistical analysis?

[gadgetmac]

dickymint said:

turbobloke said:

Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fai...

This suggests what at least one of the satellite datasets is, but Dr S will confirm or otherwise when contacted. Let us know how you get on.

Now then, what about those 15 questions on the most blatant climate model failings?

Faced with that, Durbs will normally go silent for a few days............we'll see

Faced with what? From what I can see the source isn’t entirely credible which was durbs point no?

Regardless of what’s transpired on this thread before I can find no argument with his (durbs) assertion of the likely credibilty of the source of that graph.