• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Models Are Running Red Hot

calamity said:
In simple words: CO2 doubling does not lead to a linear temperature increase. Multiple systems are affected as the earth warms. Water vapor increases cloud cover adds to greenhouse affect. And, then the methane comes, kicking us all in the ass all that much more as the oceans warm and release CH4 gas.

5 deg C is probably too low of an estimate. After all, Venus is over 450 deg C, and it's not all that much closer to the sun than the good old blue ball we call home. By all rights, Venus should be about 45 Deg C, not 450.
Click to expand...

Oh...

Actually, assuming the same atmosphere as earth, and the same albedo, Venus would have around a 64.5 C average, just based on insolation differences. Where do you get 45 C?
 
COTO said:
So... the conclusion here is that they can tweak one model feature in their super-robust models and double the delta in the single most important observable.

That sounds about right. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

When I was working in finance decades ago we did the same thing with our stock charts whenever a client asked us for a prediction lol.
 
PoS said:
When I was working in finance decades ago we did the same thing with our stock charts whenever a client asked us for a prediction lol.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, over at the Calamity household:

Real Estate Appraiser: Well my friends, all things considered, your house is worth a solid $3 million, maybe 3.1.
Mrs. Calamity: Wow!
Mr. Calamity: Wonderful!
Mrs. Calamity: We spent a lot to get the place into shape. Everything from new fixtures to a new toilet for the master bath.
Appraiser: Wait. A new toilet for the master bath? I didn't know that.
Mrs. Calamity: Oh yes.
Appraiser: This year?
Mrs. Calamity: Uh huh.
Appraiser: Standard size?
Mrs. Calamity: Yes.
Appraiser: Low water usage?
Mrs. Calamity: Yes.
Appraiser: I hadn't accounted for that. Just give me a second. ... ... OK. Well, I have great news for you. Your house is worth between $5 and $5.5 million.
Mr. Calamity: Um... what?
Mrs. Calamity: Oh wow! Oh wow!
Mr. Calamity: Uh, sorry. You said $5 million?
Appraiser: Yes, between 5 and 5.5.
Mr. Calamity: Didn't you say between 3 and 3.1 before?
Appraiser: I did, but I hadn't accounted for the brand new low-water toilet in the master bath.
Mr. Calamity: The... toilet... adds $2 million to the value of the house?
Mrs. Calamity: Oh it does! Oh, that sounds so reasonable!
Appraiser: That's what the model says. And you can count on the model.
Mr. Calamity: ...
Mrs. Calamity: Oh honey. The computer told him it was $3 million before. But now the computer is telling him $5 million. And, from a bird's eye view, I'm sure the computer is right.
Mr. Calamity: Sir, are you sure your model is... stable?
Appraiser: Absolutely. I'd bet a literal 90 trillion dollars on it.
Mr. Calamity: Uh... huh.
Mrs. Calamity: (beaming with delight)
 
[h=2]Nature Has Been Removing Excess CO2 4X Faster than IPCC Models[/h]February 5th, 2020Note: What I present below is scarcely believable to me. I have looked for an error in my analysis, but cannot find one. Nevertheless, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so let the following be an introduction to a potential issue with current carbon cycle models that might well be easily resolved by others with more experience and insight than I possess.
Summary
Sixty years of Mauna Loa CO2 data compared to yearly estimates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions shows that Mother Nature has been removing 2.3%/year of the “anthropogenic excess” of atmospheric CO2 above a baseline of 295 ppm. When similar calculations are done for the RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) projections of anthropogenic emissons and CO2 concentrations it is found that the carbon cycle models those projections are based upon remove excess CO2 at only 1/4th the observed rate. If these results are anywhere near accurate, the future RCP projections of CO2, as well as the resulting climate model projection of resulting warming, are probably biased high. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Nature Has Been Removing Excess CO2 4X Faster than IPCC Models[/h]February 5th, 2020Note: What I present below is scarcely believable to me. I have looked for an error in my analysis, but cannot find one. Nevertheless, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so let the following be an introduction to a potential issue with current carbon cycle models that might well be easily resolved by others with more experience and insight than I possess.
Summary
Sixty years of Mauna Loa CO2 data compared to yearly estimates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions shows that Mother Nature has been removing 2.3%/year of the “anthropogenic excess” of atmospheric CO2 above a baseline of 295 ppm. When similar calculations are done for the RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) projections of anthropogenic emissons and CO2 concentrations it is found that the carbon cycle models those projections are based upon remove excess CO2 at only 1/4th the observed rate. If these results are anywhere near accurate, the future RCP projections of CO2, as well as the resulting climate model projection of resulting warming, are probably biased high. . . .
Click to expand...

My response is here:

New Climate Models Even More Wrong
 
[h=2]Corrected RCP Scenario Removal Fractions[/h]February 6th, 2020Well, as I suspected (and warned everyone) in my blog post yesterday, a portion of my calculations were in error regarding how much CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere in the global carbon cycle models used for the RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) scenarios. A few comments there said it was hard to believe such a discrepancy existed, and I said so myself.
The error occurred by using the wrong baseline number for the “excess” CO2 (atmospheric CO2 content above 295 ppm) that I divided by in the RCP scenarios.
Here is the corrected Fig. 1 from yesterday’s post. We see that during the overlap between Mauna Loa CO2 observations (through 2019) and the RCP scenarios (starting in 2000), the RCP scenarios do approximately match the observations for the fraction of atmospheric CO2 above 295 ppm.
CO2-removal-rates-RCP-vs-NLO-vs-simple-model-corrected-550x550.jpg
Fig. 1. (corrected) Computed average yearly rate of removal of atmospheric CO2 above a baseline value of 295 ppm from (1) historical emissions estimates compared to Mauna Loa CO2 data (red), (2) the RCP scenarios used by the IPCC CMIP5 climate models Lower right), and (3) in a simple time-dependent CO2 budget model forced with historical emissions before, and EIA-based assumed emissions after, 2018 (blue). Note the time intervals change from 5 to 10 years in 2010. But now, the RCP scenarios have a reduced rate of removal in the coming decades during which that same factor-of-4 discrepancy with the Mauna Loa observation period gradually develops. More on that in a minute. . . .
 
WCH said:
It's happened in the not-so distant past and it wasn't because of humans.
Click to expand...

True. However, humans are contributing to the cycle being fast tracked. What should take hundreds/thousands of years is happening much more quickly. Less time to naturally adapt is not a good thing for many species.
 
holbritter said:
True. However, humans are contributing to the cycle being fast tracked. What should take hundreds/thousands of years is happening much more quickly. Less time to naturally adapt is not a good thing for many species.
Click to expand...

It is not as clear as you think!
Past warming and cooling events
Could have happen quickly,
but the proxies lack the resolution to see the rapid change.
Marcott had an average resolution of 120 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
longview said:
Perhaps it is worth breaking down how much warming past CO2 has caused.
I will use the GISS's information.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect



Now the 33°C number has been around for over a century, but lets assume it applies to the per-industerial CO2 level of 280 ppm.
20% of 33 °C is 6.6°C, Counting backwards by half's, we see that there has been at least 8 doubling s of CO2
since it was at 1 ppm, all of which are several thousand years old or older.
6.6°C/8=.825 °C per doubling. Now that is with all the equalization included, and using the GISS's published numbers.
Why after 8 doubling s that equalized out to .825 °C, do you expect the current doubling to equalize out to 5°C,
and in what world is that realistic?
Click to expand...

Sure, if you arbitrarily plug the wrong numbers into the equation you can come up with whatever bizarre “solution” you want. The reality is far more complicated. Climate change cannot be mathematically determined on a ****ing napkin and it is utterly astonishing that you continue to claim that it can.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
How dare you contradict their dogma with facts. Heretic...
Click to expand...

Facts? So you, too, believe climate is so simple that it can be predicted on a napkin? You should be a meteorologist, you’d upend the entire industry and be very rich.
 
longview said:
It is not as clear as you think!
Past warming and cooling events
Could have happen quickly,
but the proxies lack the resolution to see the rapid change.
Marcott had an average resolution of 120 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

“Maybe the data is totally wrong, you can never tell!” Is also not a useful point nor discussion. I stick to the data we have, not the data you wish we had.
 
Deuce said:
“Maybe the data is totally wrong, you can never tell!” Is also not a useful point nor discussion. I stick to the data we have, not the data you wish we had.
Click to expand...

The data we have lacks the resolution to say if recent warming were unusual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Deuce said:
Sure, if you arbitrarily plug the wrong numbers into the equation you can come up with whatever bizarre “solution” you want. The reality is far more complicated. Climate change cannot be mathematically determined on a ****ing napkin and it is utterly astonishing that you continue to claim that it can.
Click to expand...

So show us the right number?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom