Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
scifi
here are the fits using HADCRUT4...
seem to be doing fine through out the century
what's difference between the equilibrium and transient climate response?
you seemed not to have addressed that...
care to give it a shot?
You also cannot read, once again, in my post on this latest calculation I talk about the models... maybe you should re-read what I said...
The models can be better, of course, but here is the plot with the models and the model 95% confidence interval plotted
the anomaly is calculated with the average for the entire period from 1900 to 2011...
apparently the period of the "baseline" matters... why has your plot chosen that time period?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
I looked at Spencer's site to see if the temperature record was updated. It wasn't by I found this in a blogpost.
The validity of the satellite record of global temperature is sometimes questioned; especially since it shows only about 50% of the warming trend as do surface thermometers over the 36+ year period of satellite record.
and I thought that that doesn't sound right. So I checked at the wood for trees site for global temperatures.
#Time series (hadcrut4) from 1850 to 2014.58
#Selected data from 1979
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0153439 per year
#Time series (uah) from 1978.92 to 2014.75
#Selected data from 1979
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0133821 per year
#Time series (rss) from 1979 to 2014.75
#Selected data from 1979
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0122578 per year
No 50% there. So I looked at land only and found a larger difference.
#Time series (hadcrut3 [actually crutem4) from 1851 to 2014.75
#Selected data from 1979
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0255386 per year
#Time series (uah-land) from 1978.92 to 2013.5
#Selected data from 1979
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0189791 per year
#Time series (rss) from 1979 to 2014.75
#Selected data from 1979
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0168897 per year
Still no 50% but 66% in the rss data is at least closer than before.
So why does Spencer write something that is clearly incorrect and can be checked easily by most people? Does he expect that his readers are never going to check the validity of something that they want to believe is true?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Impressive series of post sci-fi. In a few posts you show that you didn't read or understood anything at all about Ed's analysis but that didn't stop you from making many comments about how wrong the analysis were.
You say that you are a scientist but the level of your posts is really not above the ones from people without any relevant education at all. I found that strange.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
It does not matter what equations Ed has used to wiggle his model. Tuning is a pointless exercise because you can make anything fit.
You really can't do that. What you can do depends on the model used and the number of parameters included. If you had actually read Ed's posts you might understand that the model used is a pretty restrictive one.
Fitting a linear trend (2 parameters) to a complicated signals often doesn't represent the signal well even though it has been tuned. Fitting a 10 order polynomial (11 parameters) to the same signal might give a good fit but it is probably not a good model.
You seem to not understand the difference.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
Nice on, Wilbeer!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 2, 2014 - 07:15am PT
|
Impressive! sci-fi is back from his El Cap route, and ready to show the world just how smart a "Stanford researcher" can be.
But, Stanford must not be the institution it once was, because they now appear to employ fools.
I worked through the paper Chylek et al. (2014), ...
 Ed
If Ed's "model" was indeed supported by observations, it would not appear on a discussion forum for climbers but rather in Science Magazine.
sci-fi
Looks like sci-fi picked a perfect handle for himself.
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
Ed, it really is a simple question that I'm asking, so let me try for the third time.
Please let us know how the calculated climate sensitivity of your model compares with the new estimate of 1.8C from Skeie et al. (2014).
Just give us a number.
No need to explain how good you think the fit is or anything else.
IPCC says 3.2C. If that is the number you are using then you are certainly tuning the model to absurd values for all other variables.
If on the other hand you are using a lower ECS, then you are of course not following the party line, but the you could also call off the alarmism right now.
That number is the core of the whole climate debate.
3.2C = we doomed
1.8C = let's begin solving the real problems such as hunger and poverty
WHAT ECS WOULD YOU DERIVE FROM YOUR MODEL ED?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 2, 2014 - 07:28am PT
|
WHAT ECS WOULD YOU DERIVE FROM YOUR MODEL ED?
sci-fi, you demand answers, but offer none in response to the questions raised in response to your own posts.
How about this sci-fi. Show us you're worth your salt as a scientist and show us the ECS from the model Ed used.
A Stanford researcher should be able to do that, no?
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^
new avatar Sketch?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 2, 2014 - 07:48am PT
|
Yes TGT, record lows in some areas, record highs in others.
Doesn't that ring a bell, such as the one the climate scientists keep ringing about a rapidly changing climate caused by AWG?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
If that is the number you are using then you are certainly tuning the model to absurd values for all other variables.
If on the other hand you are using a lower ECS, then you are of course not following the party line, but the you could also call off the alarmism right now.
Please, read Ed's post... He is not using an ECS value or really tuning a model.
It is much more likely that you are sketch, the chief or rick than you are or have been any kind of scientist.
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
I fully agree with the above statement, which also happens to characterise Ed's efforts:
"It is just an exercise in reverse curve-fitting."
However, I'm still very interested in hearing what Ed's ECS-equivalent is, because that would immediately tell us if the model is reasonable or not.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
However, I'm still very interested in hearing what Ed's ECS-equivalent is, because that would immediately tell us if the model is reasonable or not.
So the model/analyzes (that you still don't seem to understand at all) is reasonable according to you if it gives a result that you like and unreasonable if you don't like the result?
Doesn't sound very scientific to me.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 2, 2014 - 09:12am PT
|
Meanwhile, back in reality:
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the report demands "ambitious, decisive and immediate action."
"Those who choose to ignore or dispute the science so clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for our kids and grandkids," Kerry said in a statement.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
scifi
please provide a definition of climate sensitivity, and if you are so hung up on the equilibrium sensitivity, a definition of that...
the data tells us what is "reasonable," not our opinions...
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
No this sounds about right to me. There are lots of models of reality. Consider a model car... some are more accurate / reasonable than others. We use that gut check to see if it's in the wheelhouse of our universe or whatever.
Scientists and carpetbaggers alike, use this technique.
We all do it.
It kind of depends what we mean with "like the result". If it is the rick sumner way were all data that shows warming are suspect and everything that don't show warming are correct according to him or a valid analyzes of the model.
My interpretation of what sci-fi wrote were that he only looked at the result and concluded that the model were bad if it agreed with ipcc and good if it gave a lower warming.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
I have to agree with Mr. Malnuts, but with a twist; I think sci-fi is one of you idiots posing as one of us idiots. Anyway, his unstudied approach is an embarassment every bit as bad as Malnuts embrace of markism is to the supposedly scientific discussion of the alarmist side here.
Advancing onwards, Ed's analysis of the effects of a single ocean oscillation (among many) using known fudged data series and erroneous assumptions is another sidestep in avoidance of the twin 800 lb gorilla's in the climate world, namely the variations in earth's orbital and axial cycles (Milankovitch cycles ) and under studied variations in solar energy spectrum output. Both of these changing processes have a much more pronounced effect for global climate change than the "rather feeble" effects of the trace gas CO2.
Let's take our current point in the Milankovitch cycle here today. We are near the mid point in axial tilt and orbital eccentricity, and at a point in precession when earth's NH winter almost exactly matches the closest point of earths orbit to the sun. The effect of this alignment is that the NH winter recieves substanially more solar radiation and is several days shorter than the SH winter by virtue of the shorter orbital path (and probably slightly increased orbital speed) of the earths closest approach to the sun . Conversely, the NH summer recieves less insolation than the SH summer but is several dats longer due to its approx three million mile distance difference from the sun . This peculiarity of alignment, predominately explains the recent modest global warming being concentrated in the NH, imo.
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
Ed, you really don't want to let us know, do you?
According to your model, what happens to the temperature when the CO2-concentration is doubled?
(ΔTx2) = ?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!