Welcome to PatsFans.com

Computer Models predicting CO2 Warming are wrong

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Sep 29, 2010.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,644
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13

    The entire hypothesis That CO2 will cause harmful warming rest on the idea that increases on a trace gas CO2 creates a positive feedback loop with Water Vapor that causes the greenhouse effect. In the absence of the proposed positive feedback effect there is no runaway warming, if the feedbacks are negative the climate system is stable (absent outside factors ie: Changes in Solar activity, Cosmic rays in the atmosphere, the Solar System position in the Galaxy and so on).


    To review the scientific method for a moment (as opposed to claims of consensus which is a political not a scientific term). You proposed a hypothesis, in this case Human CO2 production creates a positive feedback with water vapor which causes temperature increase. Then you create a mathematical model that describes the process. This model defines boundary conditions, assumption of basic parameters and variables, initial conditions, and inputs to the model. Then you run iterations of the model to see how the system should change over time.


    When you see the results of the model, you then compare the results of the model with measurements of the system IOW you compare what your model predicts with observations of how the Real World behaves. If you model's predictions match observation you have a good model that describes the system accurately. If observation doesn't match the model then the model is wrong, some assumption or parameter is wrong and you modify the model.


    SO what is the sensitivity of the Climate to CO2, a high sensitivity indicates a positive feedback, a low sensitivity indicates a negative feedback (IOW the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 will be marginal maybe .1C)



    So how do the predictions of the Climate models match observation?

    here are 2 links with a brief summary:

    Does CO? heat the troposphere ? | Watts Up With That?

    http://sciencespeak.com/SimpleHotspot.pdf


    So the climate model that is the basis for the Climate Disruption narrative doesn't match observation, there are errors. The predicted did not occur where it was supposed to occur if the models were correct.

    Here is a more complete paper (26 pages) on the Hot Spot predicted by the Hansen and his modeling buddies at CRU and what observation actually shows:

    http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf]Does CO? heat the troposphere ? | Watts Up With That?


    So now the question is where are the problems in the models used by the alarmist?

    These two papers deal with the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect the first deals with the assumptions made in the Hansen/CRU climate models and how the relate to boundary conditions.

    These are peer reviewed papers. The first is 40 pages:

    http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

    The abstract for the paper:


    The bolded area is the important the assumptions in the models overestimates the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 forcing. This paper does not deal with observations directly, they deal with mathematical issues in the models, how the green house is models and errors in the boundary conditions (ie the alarmistmodels assume the atmosphere has infinite thickness, which you can easily disprove by trying to breathe at the peak of Mt Everest).

    continued next 2 post.
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,644
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13

    Part 2 of Are alarmist climate models supported by observation?

    So in Part 1 we saw that the Alarmist Climate Models predicting high CO2 sensitivity don't match the measurements of the actual temps in the atmosphere, and a paper of mathematical problems in the alarmist models. Now we will look at physical mechanisms to show why the observed climate sensitivity is low and why the feedbacks observed are negative and not the positive one assumed by the alarmist.

    Another peer reviewed paper from Miskolczi, this paper examines the models in the context of observations of the actual behavior of the atmosphere.


    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

    The abstract for the paper:


    Spenser has just published his peer reviewed paper supporting his hypothesis that cloud formation and precipitation form a negative feed the first link is a summary and simple explanation of the mechanism.

    Five Reasons Why Water Vapor Feedback Might Not Be Positive Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

    Here is a link to the peer reviewed paper from Spenser on clouds and precipitation feedbacks:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf

    The abstract:


    So we can see that observation is showing a scenario that there is no forcing for CO2 relative to water vapor, so climate sensitivity is low and more CO2 will have a tiny effect on Global temps.


    So all the clatter about consensus about MMGW is noise, the emperor has no clothes or if you prefer Hansen's house of cards has fallen apart. Now the modelers would have to develop new models that show high climate sensitivity and matches the observations of atmospheric temps.


    BTW the Spenser contention isn't fully proven he will tell you that BUT it is a much better explanation of what we measure in the Real World the the computer models of Hansen and CRU.

    Observation and measurement always trumps models.

    I would note all the quotes are taken from academic papers and are not commercial sites.
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,644
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13

    The fact that they can't show the warming and that explanations that show negative feedback with CO2 not being an issue at all is a real problem for the alarmist community so Where is the missing heat?


    At first the attack was on the measurements by balloons , this was tough since the balloons were supposed to prove that the models were correct. When you add to that proxies used to prove temps over the past thousand were tree ring samples and seashells in ocean sediment, it is hard to maintain that these proxies would be more accurate than measurements made by the radiosondes.


    Earlier this year K Trenberth offered up an alternative explanation for where the missing heat was located. HE decided it was in the deep ocean, not sure if the plan is for J Hansen to build models showing heat being stored in the deep ocean to be released with devastating consequences in the future. BTW Trenberth is a lead author for the IPCC report IIRC and was a major figure in climategate.


    First an article from the National Science Foundation on Trenberth's new guess about the 'missing' (non existant?) heat.

    nsf.gov - Office of Legislative and Public Affairs (OLPA) News - "Missing" Heat May Affect Future Climate Change - US National Science Foundation (NSF)


    So like a true believer even though the model is wrong the heat must be somewhere other wise no crisis no need for carbon credits taxes, and no more grants.

    2 Replies to Trenberth's speculation:

    Examining Trenberth’s ‘The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later’ statement | Watts Up With That?




    Spencer on Earth’s missing energy | Watts Up With That?



    [​IMG]



    If they can't conjure up the heat and build a new model that move away from troposphere heating (IOW come up with a new thesis) it's game over for MMGW and the trillions of dollars being eyed worldwide by greedy politicans.
  4. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    hey 13, stop messing up the left's warrant on humanity to adhere to protocols for control!
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,644
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13

    I see a lot of jobs being exported to China over the MMGW myth, for example we all have to use the CFL bulbs instead of incandescent bulbs, GE's CEO is an Obama supporter, GE closed their incandescent bulb factories in the US and guess where they will make the more expensive (and profitable) bulbs? Why China of course. The worse part is that the light from the CFL bulbs isn't good at all and they have to disposed of as hazardous waste because they contain Mercury which is extremely hazardous to you health, so if a lightbulb breaks your house is a toxic site....
  6. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I was talking about this with a friend the other day -- I anticipate we'll see issues in the next 2-4 years about mercury poisioning and I wonder how the story will be spun. Can't wait for the cheap LED bulbs... we need to make those here!
  7. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,337
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +122 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    GE and other manufacturers will probably be sued for complying with the requirement to eliminate incandescent bulbs, similar to what happened with the MTBE fiasco.

    MTBE Litigation Information Site
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,644
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13


    Being made in mainland china, I will keep using incandescent bulbs and switch to led bulbs won't put mercury in the house.


    Since the Settled science crowd won't come out to play, let's look at other effects of the hoax.

    800,000 jobs will be destroyed by EPA:

    Hot Air Exclusive: EPW report shows new EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs


    The Chinese will happily take the jobs.
  9. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,337
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +122 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    ...and we know how environmentally responsible they are. Great.

    :bricks:
  10. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    FYI....Hottest day ever in LA yesterday...EVER.

    I know we rail that there is a difference between climate and weather...but every year we break a new record in global temperatures...

    Saw my boy Seth MacFarlan lay it out quite nicely, using the Dick Cheney right wing methedology about the threat of terrorism, vs global warming.

    We started a pre-emptive war, killed thousands, occupied nations all on the philosophy that:

    "If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response." -Dick Cheney

    According to all SCIENTISTS, there is a 95% chance that this is happening, why arent you right wingers as gung-ho about the threat as you were told to be abot Iraq?
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2010
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,644
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13



    That is if the proposed model is correct, however the model is incorrect as shown in the first 3 posts of this thread.

    For example within the correct boundaries of mass and velocity there is a 100% chance Newton's laws are correct.
  12. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    95% of scientists agree that global warming is happening...the 5% reside in the universe that website was created in.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

    according to conseravtive pre-empive Bush Cheney absolutism-philosophy, we should be doing everything we can to stop this global threat. Any other response to this is complete bull$#!t.

    and you know it.
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2010
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,644
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13


    Whether weather is warming or not isn't a debate it is a matter of measurement and time frame in the last 300 years the earth has warmed, over the last 8,000 years it has cooled, over the last 50,000 years it has warmed drastically, 110,000 during the last interglacial period is was warmer than it is currently.

    So I don't know of anyone who doesn't think it is slightly over the past 30 years.


    The issue is whether the warming we see now is a result of human activity. The models that said it was a result of human activity predicted warming in certain parts of the atmosphere. This signature for this warming doesn't exist. Therefore the warming that has been observed isn't a result of human activity and we can do nothing about it.

    As a side topic, the Sun's magnetic field is weakening as is the Earth's, they Earth may be due for a shift in it's magnetic pole and the Sun may be entering a prolonged inactive period which will lower temps by a few degrees which will cause real problems.


    BTW the link you cite for the 95% believing in MMGW was made prior to the findings that the climate models being used by the climate scientist were flat wrong. Given their vested interest in their belief I doubt many care.
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2010
  14. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    More over, I'm all for a healthy environment and support practices that limit pollution. However, there are several irrational practices that have been proposed by the fringe that do nothing but cause economic realignment, not environmental benefit.
  15. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    there is no point debating this with you...

    I just hope you don't have any beachfront property. Stay up playah.
  16. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,337
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +122 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey


    If Gore and others really believe this stuff why haven't they changed their lifestyle? They leave a pretty big carbon footprint themselves.
  17. DropKickFlutie

    DropKickFlutie Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Only 6% of U.S. Scientists are Republican
    Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

    It appears that those who pursue evidence-based knowledge based on reason and the scientific method, overwhelmingly avoid the Republican Party...

    There are other polls which show that the majority of Republicans don't believe in evolution, and other basic things like dinosaurs or the age of the Earth...
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,644
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +128 / 7 / -13


    So what does that have to do with the failure of the climate computer models?

    BTW in my experience most scientist are either non political or libertarian, are they counting all scientist or University Profs?
  19. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,111
    Likes Received:
    300
    Ratings:
    +604 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey


    That's pretty much where I'm coming from also. some real bad programs are being born of all of this. Like electric cars which may increase pollution rather than decrease it. I keep going back to the 70's and the gas lines. it was the perfect storm to get angry and move forward with cleaner energy practices ... it only lasted a few years.

    The current administration is using it for economic realignment ... very sad.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>