- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Gavin has really been screeching. Steve McIntyre puts him in his place.
[h=2]Gavin Schmidt and Reference Period “Trickery”[/h] Apr 19, 2016 – 1:21 PM
In the past few weeks, I’ve been re-examining the long-standing dispute over the discrepancy between models and observations in the tropical troposphere. My interest was prompted in part by Gavin Schmidt’s recent attack on a graphic used by John Christy in numerous presentations (see recent discussion here by Judy Curry).Schmidt made the sort of offensive allegations that he makes far too often:
@curryja use of Christy’s misleading graph instead is the sign of partisan not a scientist. YMMV. tweet;
@curryja Hey, if you think it’s fine to hide uncertainties, error bars & exaggerate differences to make political points, go right ahead. tweet.
As a result, Curry decided not to use Christy’s graphic in her recent presentation to a congressional committee. In today’s post, I’ll examine the validity (or lack) of Schmidt’s critique.
Schmidt’s primary dispute, as best as I can understand it, was about Christy’s centering of model and observation data to achieve a common origin in 1979, the start of the satellite period, a technique which (obviously) shows a greater discrepancy at the end of the period than if the data had been centered in the middle of the period. I’ll show support for Christy’s method from his long-time adversary, Carl Mears, whose own comparison of models and observations used a short early centering period (1979-83) “so the changes over time can be more easily seen”. Whereas both Christy and Mears provided rational arguments for their baseline decision, Schmidt’s argument was little more than shouting.
Continue reading →
8.6.2.2 Why Have the Model Estimates Changed Since the TAR?
The current generation of GCMs[5] covers a range of equilibrium climate
sensitivity from 2.1°C to 4.4°C (with a mean value of 3.2°C;
The modelers with say that for every doubling of CO2 the temperature
should go up about 3.2°. That means that after a 40% rise in CO2 the
temperature should have gone up around 1.3°. I didn't, the models are
wrong. Schmidt can center the trend on his backside and it can't change
that fact.
LOL. No.
Leave the science to the big boys. You obviously don't grasp acceleration or lag.
Every day the sun reaches its zenith at noon and the warmest part of
the day follows after a lag of an hour or two. Likewise, the warmest
days of summer lag the solstice by a few weeks. You guys want me
to believe that the warm-up caused by CO2 lags 40 years.
Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
Every day the sun reaches its zenith at noon and the warmest part of
the day follows after a lag of an hour or two. Likewise, the warmest
days of summer lag the solstice by a few weeks. You guys want me
to believe that the warm-up caused by CO2 lags 40 years.
No. No one really cares what you believe.
But scientists know there is a substantial lag.
Do you want to argue that the warmest part of the day is not about 4 hours after the sun reaches noon? Do you wish to try to explain why the lag for global warming is soooo much longer than that of the daily cycle?
It's so funny that the dogma of AGW teaches their followers that the warming from CO2 takes 100 year for 70% equalization, but refuses to accept similar lag times for solar and other natural forcing changes.
Do you want to argue that the warmest part of the day is not about 4 hours after the sun reaches noon? Do you wish to try to explain why the lag for global warming is soooo much longer than that of the daily cycle?
What's funny is that you think making this stuff up on your own is more reliable than what the experts tell you.
I can link it for you.
Sorry it has big words.
If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouses gases, would global warming stop? : Climate Q&A : Blogs
Of course, there's research from later that suggests maybe even greater lag effects are possible.
https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories
But, we all know Princeton scientists are part of the giant global conspiracy.
I can link it for you.
Sorry it has big words.
If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouses gases, would global warming stop? : Climate Q&A : Blogs
Of course, there's research from later that suggests maybe even greater lag effects are possible.
https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories
But, we all know Princeton scientists are part of the giant global conspiracy.
I'm not making it up.What's funny is that you think making this stuff up on your own is more reliable than what the experts tell you.
Figure 4 shows the temporal response of global
surface air temperature to doubled CO2 for the coupled
model, relative to the control run, and for the mixed layer
and full-ocean Q-flux models. After 100 years, specifically
the 81–120 year mean, the coupled model has achieved
about 70% of its estimated equilibrium response
The thing is I can, off the top of my head, point out many ways in which a lag of such proportions could be conceivable, but why I ask you you have to bounce it off to higher authority.
This constant appeal to such authority is the hall mark of the religious and not a scientist.
I'm not making it up.
So why don't other variables that use radiant energy get this same treatment?
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
Now if that doesn't work, go here:
Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 2005: Efficacy of climate forcings
and use it's link to the full paper.
You are already in denial of science.I'm not going into a denier rabbit hole on this nice afternoon.
Funny thing is that nobody is writing about it, That doesn't make what I say wrong.Why don't you write a letter to Nature? I'm sure they'd be fascinated by your analysis.
I didn't know you have a problem with the official explanation.Send them your findings of the temperature of jet fuel and the effect on the steel girders at the WTC as well as your Bigfoot paw print analysis, too.
I'm not going into a denier rabbit hole on this nice afternoon.
Why don't you write a letter to Nature? I'm sure they'd be fascinated by your analysis. Send them your findings of the temperature of jet fuel and the effect on the steel girders at the WTC as well as your Bigfoot paw print analysis, too.
Why don't you write a letter to Nature? I'm sure they'd be fascinated by your analysis.
By focusing on time sequences of basin-average and global-average upper
ocean temperature (i.e., from 40S to 60N) we find temperatures responding to changing
solar irradiance in three separate frequency bands with periods of >100 years, 18-25
years, and 9-13 years.
There are papers out there. just so few, they are hard to find behind the information overload of AGW papers.
Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance - White - 1997 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans - Wiley Online Library
I was pointing out that keyword searches for facts are often clouded by overwhelming information of another subject. It's very hard sometimes to find the facts, when too much information is uncovered with keywords used.In other words, the data you like is overwhelmed by much more data you don't like.
I didn't say it was. Why are you so full of strawmen defenses?But that's not cherry picking! It's evidence of a conspiracy.....errr. Librul groupthink!
No, actually looking to authority when you have no strong foundation in a science is EXACTLY what scientists do.
When I see someone with a heart arrhythmia, and it looks like AF to me, but an Electrophysiologist tells me it's multi focal atrial tachycardia, I'm going with the guy who has studied ECG strips for a living.
How often does he get it right?
Is he more often right than wrong?
Is his diagnosis that the patient has multi focal tachycardia or something else wrong with their heart or some other organ but that they must give him loads of money quickly because they will die if they don't!! No actual prediction of when they will die... ??
The expert is almost always right.
And if not, they are always closer than the amateur.
Always.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?