• 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!

The IPCC's hot model problem

Um, we're adults here; we're able to read the article for ourselves and evaluate it ourselves.

We don't need to be treated like third graders and told what it said or what it means.
Except it turns out you did have to be told that because you failed to grasp it on your own.
 
let's consider that first, there is only a 10 year lag between CO2 emission and maximum warming, CO2 emission to maximum warming.
Second that by 2011 when CO2 levels were at 392 ppm, that we were at 48% of the effects of doubling the CO2 level,
(1.80 W m-2 out of 3.71 W m-2). This would mean that 48% of the 2XCO2 warming should already be in the record.
If the 2XCO2 warming were actually 4.7C, then 2.28C of warming just from CO2 would need to be present by today.
IPCC AR6 reports that total warming above the preindustrial level is 1.07C, and not all of that is from Human causes.
Warning!!
This is just longview's opinion and it is not supported by any science or scientists that he can cite.
 
I would not say made up, but poor assumptions.
ECS is a measure of how the climate responds to an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level,
something that can never actually happen.
In addition the abrupt doubling throws off how the simulation responds.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
Notice how the time to maximum warming changes greatly based on the size of the pulse.
A doubling of the CO2 level would be roughly a 800 GtC pulse, or 31 years in this study.
The current Human emission is about 9.6 GtC.
View attachment 67389278
In addition there is a problem with the business as usual scenario, they are still using RPC/SSP 8.5,
which calls for a CO2 level of some 1370 ppm by year 2100,
A level which I do not think we could reach if we wanted to.
Flawed assumptions, lead to flawed results.
Warning!!
This is also just longview's opinion and it is not supported by any science or scientists that he can cite.
 
Warning!!
This is just longview's opinion and it is not supported by any science or scientists that he can cite.
Except you obviously don't read real papers. That is exactly what they do. They make suggestions of outcome based on scenarios like that.
 
Except you obviously don't read real papers.
That is a lie and you know it.
That is exactly what they do. They make suggestions of outcome based on scenarios like that.
What are you talking about? The CMIP6 models? The CMIP6 models are nothing like the made-up and unscientific BS that long pushes.
 
That is a lie and you know it.

What are you talking about? The CMIP6 models? The CMIP6 models are nothing like the made-up and unscientific BS that long pushes.
Wow. You are something else.
 
Another person's take....

"The problem is, with absolutely none of the models panning out over the years, it’s impossible for me to take them seriously. Especially since they’re claiming that this is the result of human activity.

If they can’t get their models right, I can’t help but figure they don’t really understand what they’re talking about.

What the Nature commentary is trying to do is, apparently, tell them to knock it off because they’re finally starting to realize you can only say the sky is falling so many times before people think you’re really just crying wolf.

Unfortunately, I think that without the scare train chugging down the line, climate science will end up being classified as just a step more valid the phrenology."


comments?
 
Warning!!
This is also just longview's opinion and it is not supported by any science or scientists that he can cite.
What portion, that SSP8.5 would require a CO2 level of 1370 by year 2100, that is not my opinion.
Perhaps the time lab between CO2 emission and maximum warming, also not my opinion, but supported by
two peer reviewed studies, who reached the same conclusion.
Perhaps you do not like me pointing out the fact that ECS is defined as an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level,
that is also not my opinion!
 
What portion, that SSP8.5 would require a CO2 level of 1370 by year 2100, that is not my opinion.
Perhaps the time lab between CO2 emission and maximum warming, also not my opinion, but supported by
two peer reviewed studies, who reached the same conclusion.
Perhaps you do not like me pointing out the fact that ECS is defined as an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level,
that is also not my opinion!
Why do you think people care about you pointing out ECS's definition?
 
Too many climate researchers are making unrealistically dire projections about the future consequences of man-made climate change based on computer models that run way too hot, argues a new commentary in Nature.

The commentary's authors point out that the too-hot models reported in the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) failed to reproduce historical climate trends, thus casting considerable doubt on their more catastrophic temperature increase projections. Consequently, the researchers note that the former practice of "simply taking an average" of all of the models together leads to higher projections of warming than is warranted.

When Gavin Schmidt is warning you about chicken little predictions, it's a problem.
All part of mass hysteria which feeds on itself.
 
Multiple lines of evidence establish that the planet is more than 1 °C warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution,
Guess what was “ before the industrial revolution “. It was called the LIA and thank god it’s now a little warmer. That was a tough go for mankind.
 
That is your unsupported opinion!
Actually, until you provide some science or scientists that back you up, my opinion is supported by the fact that you haven't.
What portion, that SSP8.5 would require a CO2 level of 1370 by year 2100, that is not my opinion.
Cite the science that says that the level of CO2 would need to be 1370 ppm by 2100. Isn't that according to one of your bogus calculations where you underestimate the warming from CO2?
Perhaps the time lab between CO2 emission and maximum warming, also not my opinion, but supported by

two peer reviewed studies, who reached the same conclusion.
Damn long... why do I have to explain this to you over and over again? Those two studies are models of a pulse of CO2 emission and its warming effects without any more emissions after the specified emission. And since humans have not stopped emitting CO2 then these studies do not actually apply to the Earth's climate now. That is why no climate scientists use these two studies as you do and why the latest IPCC report doesn't discuss these two studies except for the section about when man actually stops dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Perhaps you do not like me pointing out the fact that ECS is defined as an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level,

that is also not my opinion!
Yes, it is your opinion.
 
Why do you think people care about you pointing out ECS's definition?
Longview is lying about the definition of ECS. The IPCC gives the definition twice. And neither mentions abrupt. Long has just chosen to take a few studies of ECS that used a methodology that assume an abrupt doubling to justify his definition and use that as a strawman argument against ECS. It is just more of his typical denialist reasoning that he uses to discredit the science and misinform the public.
 
Actually, until you provide some science or scientists that back you up, my opinion is supported by the fact that you haven't.

Cite the science that says that the level of CO2 would need to be 1370 ppm by 2100. Isn't that according to one of your bogus calculations where you underestimate the warming from CO2?

Damn long... why do I have to explain this to you over and over again? Those two studies are models of a pulse of CO2 emission and its warming effects without any more emissions after the specified emission. And since humans have not stopped emitting CO2 then these studies do not actually apply to the Earth's climate now. That is why no climate scientists use these two studies as you do and why the latest IPCC report doesn't discuss these two studies except for the section about when man actually stops dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Yes, it is your opinion.
So you think RCP/SSP 8.5 at 1370 ppm is my opinion.
Skeptical Science Table 4 Agrees,
As does the IPCC AR5
For 2100, RCP scenarios falling within each pCO2 category are as follows: RCP4.5 for 500 to 650 μatm,
RCP6.0 for 651 to 850 μatm and RCP8.5 for 851 to 1370 μatm.
But then so does the math, 5.35 X ln(1370/280) = 8.49 W m-2, and RCP8.5 is an imbalance of 8.5 W m-2 in year 2100.

Buzz all the studies look at pulses, ECS is one abrupt pulse, TCR is annual pulses of 1%.
What made Ricke and Caldeira special, is that they took a single pulse only ~10 times larger than
the average human annual emission, and watched it until it reached maximum warming.
( in the same models used to reach high ECS levels)
Yes Humans continue to emit CO2 and continue to see annual increases, but each increase can be evaluated
by itself, and will reach it's own maximum warming in about a decade.
Ricke and Caldeira expressed it this way.
While the relevant time lags imposed by the climate system are substantially shorter than a human lifetime, they are substantially longer than the typical political election cycle, making these delays and their associated uncertainties important, both economically and politically. Nonetheless, our study indicates that people alive today are very likely to benefit from emissions avoided today.
The IPCC's limited use of the two studies, is an attempt to downplay their impact,
If each annual CO2 growth step, will reach maximum warming in about a decade, then
much of the IPCC's warmings about the the warming being inevitable, is simply noise.
Emissions from 2022, will reach their own maximum warming by 2032, or earlier!
 
So you think RCP/SSP 8.5 at 1370 ppm is my opinion.
Skeptical Science Table 4 Agrees,
Skeptical Science is using CO2 equivalent. That is not the same.
When you cite something in an IPCC report and give a link to a large section of the report you may as well be hiding it. Please provide more specific info on where your quoted part is located if you want to actually argue the point.
Buzz all the studies look at pulses, ECS is one abrupt pulse, TCR is annual pulses of 1%.
BS!! You are lying about ECS studies again. Not all of them are about abrupt increases and, as far as I remember, none refer to a pulse.
What made Ricke and Caldeira special, is that they took a single pulse only ~10 times larger than
the average human annual emission, and watched it until it reached maximum warming.
( in the same models used to reach high ECS levels)
Yes Humans continue to emit CO2 and continue to see annual increases, but each increase can be evaluated
by itself, and will reach it's own maximum warming in about a decade.
Ricke and Caldeira expressed it this way.

The IPCC's limited use of the two studies, is an attempt to downplay their impact,
If each annual CO2 growth step, will reach maximum warming in about a decade, then
much of the IPCC's warmings about the the warming being inevitable, is simply noise.
Emissions from 2022, will reach their own maximum warming by 2032, or earlier!
And this is just more of your opinion that you can't back up with any other science. Especially the part about the IPCC downplaying anything.
 
Skeptical Science is using CO2 equivalent. That is not the same.

When you cite something in an IPCC report and give a link to a large section of the report you may as well be hiding it. Please provide more specific info on where your quoted part is located if you want to actually argue the point.

BS!! You are lying about ECS studies again. Not all of them are about abrupt increases and, as far as I remember, none refer to a pulse.

And this is just more of your opinion that you can't back up with any other science. Especially the part about the IPCC downplaying anything.
CO2-eq is the AGGI currently at about 504 ppm, would still require a MASSIVE increase in emissions to reach 1370 ppm
by year 2100.

I quoted the section from the IPCC report,
"For 2100, RCP scenarios falling within each pCO2 category are as follows: RCP4.5 for 500 to 650 μatm,
RCP6.0 for 651 to 850 μatm and RCP8.5 for 851 to 1370 μatm."
surly you know how to use search, but that quote came from figure 2.6 in the full Synthesis Report.

If you think I am lying about ECS being from an abrupt increase in the CO2 level, then show
an example of one that is not. keep in mind that unless a time period for the increase is stated, then the emission is abrupt.

Is it my opinion that Ricke and Caldeira experimented with a 100GtC pulse, NO!
Is it my opinion that their study showed that 100 GtC pluse reached Maximum warming in 10.1 years, No!
Perhaps the quote from the paper was also my opinion,
"Nonetheless, our study indicates that people alive today are very likely to benefit from emissions avoided today.",
no, that was in the paper!

It is my opinion that the IPCC had to mention the Ricke and Caldeira paper, but they also had to downplay it,
because it shows that there is almost no long term warming "in the pipeline",
that we will see all the warming from emissions up to today, in about a decade.
 
Of course there is no serious arguments. Any scientists that tries to argue against the agenda, is dealt with harshly.

Who "deals" with them? This system of dealing with dissenting opinions must be global in extent. Thousands and thousands of researchers across the globe are working on this and have been for decades, so I'm curious how the dissenters are dealt with.

Sounds like it would be complex to set up a global cabal to oversee science. I am unaware of any similar cabal in the sciences. Who is running this one and what kind of leverage do they have globally?
 
And you know what they say about "estimates."

Estimates are, by definition, wrong.

(otherwise they'd be "accurates") ;)

As I understand it, in science, all things are "estimates". Is that not why they have statistics?
 
Well, to be fair - modeling is a valid endeavor and has produced a lot of benefit to many.

Arguably models are integral to all of science.

That said, models rely on a varying number of inputs and variables to manage those inputs - variables which can be manipulated by the programmer, typically to bring the model's output more in line with the observed, but sometimes to bring the model's output more in line with what they want others to observe.

The latter is the situation here.

How about when the models accurately describe "hindcast" data as a test of the models? There are climate models which describe, rather accurately, the warming we've already seen and studies are showing that models are getting the future warming correct more and more.

It's the illicit use of science to propagate a narrative, rather than it's valid use, which is to identify the narrative. Ironically, it was the latter use of science that exposed the former. And we need more of these brave individuals in our labs.

When you say "illicit" do you mean fraudulently? I have not seen any systematic fraud found in climate science. There's always one or two bad actors in any group of humans, but in order for this concept of a grand fraud to be accurate it would have to be global in extent and involved thousands of independent researchers somehow working in concert across decades and all over the earth simultaneously.
 
Who "deals" with them? This system of dealing with dissenting opinions must be global in extent. Thousands and thousands of researchers across the globe are working on this and have been for decades, so I'm curious how the dissenters are dealt with.

Sounds like it would be complex to set up a global cabal to oversee science. I am unaware of any similar cabal in the sciences. Who is running this one and what kind of leverage do they have globally?
More like a parade of the willing! Funding and grants in the Earth sciences has never been so good.
Dissenters like Richard Lindzen, and Judith Curry, are downplayed as being bought off by the oil companies.
Their grants dry up, and they cannot continue their research. Both Lindzen and Curry retired from Tenured positions,
at MIT and Georgia Tech.
Consider that the cabal you describe, is much like everyone agreeing to take tax deductions to minimize their income taxes,
(There is no agreement, it is just people acting in their own interest.)
 
Arguably models are integral to all of science.



How about when the models accurately describe "hindcast" data as a test of the models? There are climate models which describe, rather accurately, the warming we've already seen and studies are showing that models are getting the future warming correct more and more.



When you say "illicit" do you mean fraudulently? I have not seen any systematic fraud found in climate science. There's always one or two bad actors in any group of humans, but in order for this concept of a grand fraud to be accurate it would have to be global in extent and involved thousands of independent researchers somehow working in concert across decades and all over the earth simultaneously.
Part of the issue with the latest models is that do not hindcast well.
We also need to consider that models that look at ECS, are not looking at a realistic simulation,
as the actual CO2 level will not abruptly double, and now additional research shows that annual increases like Humans
emit, reach maximum warming in about 10 years.
There is a narrative in AGW that seems to be rigidly supported,
Judith Curry was labeled a climate heretic for her position on AGW.
Researchers who find results outside of the narrative, need to carefully state their findings to continue to receive grants.
Recent results from the CERES satellites show that outgoing infrared energy has been increasing since 2000, while CO2 has also
been increasing, and waved it off as well we expected a hotter planet to radiate more.
The reality is that the prediction was that CO2 would continue to block more energy than the warming radiated,
if that has switched, then CO2 is not doing what is expected.
 
More like a parade of the willing! Funding and grants in the Earth sciences has never been so good.

But no one gives grants based on a pre-approved finding before the research is done.

Dissenters like Richard Lindzen, and Judith Curry, are downplayed as being bought off by the oil companies.

Oil companies fund a great deal of research in the earth sciences. Exxon was, prior to the middle 1980's, a leader in actual peer reviewed climate change studies (they thought climate change was real). They were angling to become an energy provider outside of just petroleum. Only after they got a new CEO and oil prices started to drop causing a contraction of the business, did they drop that approach and focus solely on petroleum.

Their grants dry up, and they cannot continue their research. Both Lindzen and Curry retired from Tenured positions,
at MIT and Georgia Tech.

People do retire, especially when they are old.

Consider that the cabal you describe, is much like everyone agreeing to take tax deductions to minimize their income taxes,
(There is no agreement, it is just people acting in their own interest.)

That does not explain the global nature of the control you are suggesting exists. It would have to be global in extent and affect a bunch of independent researchers across time and space.

If the only critique of AGW science is some imaginary global conspiracy theory it would seem that AGW must be pretty strong science.
 
Back
Top Bottom