How accurate are CO2 Models?

[westwall]

Not very unsurprisingly. A new paper published in the Climate of the Past Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union shows that there is up to a 32 degree variance in the effect of CO2. Yep, that's real precise!

CP - Abstract - Model-dependence of the CO2 threshold for melting the hard Snowball Earth

Here is a blog that runs through the numbers....


Three climate models compared for global temperature claimed to result from 0.2 bar CO2 atmospheric level:

1. Hu et al finds 268K = -5.15C = 22.73F
2. Pierrehumbert et al finds 255K = -18.15C = -.67F
3. Le Hir et al finds (for 50% less CO2 or 0.1 bar) 270K+3K (temp increase claimed for doubled CO2 per IPCC) = 273K = -.15C = 31.73F



THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climate Models Differ on CO2 Warming Effect by over 32°F

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers fucked up, they should have stuck with Global Cooling

 

[Old Rocks]

Real data from real scientists

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties AGW Observer

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative

 

[westwall]

Real data from real scientists

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties AGW Observer

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative

Real old work from scientists using questionable to outright fraudulent methodology. Your point?

 

[IanC]

Real data from real scientists

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties AGW Observer

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative

do you just put links down without thinking? or do you think that your side will think you have championed 'the truth' as long as you just say something, anything? westy posted a paper that pointed out climate models with wildly differing effects for CO2 and you turn around with a website that lists papers showing the absorption spectra of CO2. no one is saying that CO2 doesnt absorb IR. what does that have to do with climate models that get totally different results?

 

[westwall]

Real data from real scientists

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties AGW Observer

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative

do you just put links down without thinking? or do you think that your side will think you have championed 'the truth' as long as you just say something, anything? westy posted a paper that pointed out climate models with wildly differing effects for CO2 and you turn around with a website that lists papers showing the absorption spectra of CO2. no one is saying that CO2 doesnt absorb IR. what does that have to do with climate models that get totally different results?

Nothing. Olfruad is just posting as much crap as possible to try and baffle us with bullcrap.
It doesn't work anymore, though he still loves to neg rep me!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not very unsurprisingly. A new paper published in the Climate of the Past Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union shows that there is up to a 32 degree variance in the effect of CO2. Yep, that's real precise!

CP - Abstract - Model-dependence of the CO2 threshold for melting the hard Snowball Earth

Here is a blog that runs through the numbers....


Three climate models compared for global temperature claimed to result from 0.2 bar CO2 atmospheric level:

1. Hu et al finds 268K = -5.15C = 22.73F
2. Pierrehumbert et al finds 255K = -18.15C = -.67F
3. Le Hir et al finds (for 50% less CO2 or 0.1 bar) 270K+3K (temp increase claimed for doubled CO2 per IPCC) = 273K = -.15C = 31.73F



THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climate Models Differ on CO2 Warming Effect by over 32°F

Now, this one looks really, really accurate...

NightStalker - 12 Shot Semi-Auto, Airsource Powered Blowback Pellet Rifle
Retail: $145.56
Our Price: $99.99
You Save: $45.57 (31%)
Quantity:

Email to a Friend
SKU: PY-734
Availability: Usually ships the next business day

Caliber: 0.177" Velocity: 580 FPS Manufactured by Crosman Limited 1 year warranty

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DescriptionSpecificationsAccessoriesAmmo
One of the coolest tactical rifles made today! The Crosman NightStalker is a whole new ballgame, because it's the first semiautomatic pellet rifle with blowback action. Not just another pretty face, the sci-fi design of the ergonomic synthetic stock is a reflection of the technology and thought that went into making this rifle.



Crosman's unique Mohawk sighting system includes a rear aperture sight with two hole sizes, and you can quickly switch from one to the other by flipping the sight. No tools required! Plus, the front sight is also adjustable! You'll acquire targets much quicker. If you like scopes, red dots or lasers, you can easily mount one on the 11mm dovetails. Powered by an AirSource CO2 cartridge, the rifle will give you up to 350 shots.

 

[Bern80]

Not very unsurprisingly. A new paper published in the Climate of the Past Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union shows that there is up to a 32 degree variance in the effect of CO2. Yep, that's real precise!

CP - Abstract - Model-dependence of the CO2 threshold for melting the hard Snowball Earth

Here is a blog that runs through the numbers....


Three climate models compared for global temperature claimed to result from 0.2 bar CO2 atmospheric level:

1. Hu et al finds 268K = -5.15C = 22.73F
2. Pierrehumbert et al finds 255K = -18.15C = -.67F
3. Le Hir et al finds (for 50% less CO2 or 0.1 bar) 270K+3K (temp increase claimed for doubled CO2 per IPCC) = 273K = -.15C = 31.73F



THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climate Models Differ on CO2 Warming Effect by over 32°F

My question in answer to your question of 'How accurate are CO2 models?', would be......How accurate are CO2 models of what exactly? As Rocks inadvertantly pointed out by not reading yet another of his links, I think we need to agree on what the experiment is before we agree on how accurate they are.

 

[IanC]

[ QUOTE=PoliticalChic;3194117]

Not very unsurprisingly. A new paper published in the Climate of the Past Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union shows that there is up to a 32 degree variance in the effect of CO2. Yep, that's real precise!

CP - Abstract - Model-dependence of the CO2 threshold for melting the hard Snowball Earth

Here is a blog that runs through the numbers....


Three climate models compared for global temperature claimed to result from 0.2 bar CO2 atmospheric level:

1. Hu et al finds 268K = -5.15C = 22.73F
2. Pierrehumbert et al finds 255K = -18.15C = -.67F
3. Le Hir et al finds (for 50% less CO2 or 0.1 bar) 270K+3K (temp increase claimed for doubled CO2 per IPCC) = 273K = -.15C = 31.73F



THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climate Models Differ on CO2 Warming Effect by over 32°F

Now, this one looks really, really accurate...

NightStalker - 12 Shot Semi-Auto, Airsource Powered Blowback Pellet Rifle
Retail: $145.56
Our Price: $99.99
You Save: $45.57 (31%)
Quantity:

Email to a Friend
SKU: PY-734
Availability: Usually ships the next business day

Caliber: 0.177" Velocity: 580 FPS Manufactured by Crosman Limited 1 year warranty

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DescriptionSpecificationsAccessoriesAmmo
One of the coolest tactical rifles made today! The Crosman NightStalker is a whole new ballgame, because it's the first semiautomatic pellet rifle with blowback action. Not just another pretty face, the sci-fi design of the ergonomic synthetic stock is a reflection of the technology and thought that went into making this rifle.



Crosman's unique Mohawk sighting system includes a rear aperture sight with two hole sizes, and you can quickly switch from one to the other by flipping the sight. No tools required! Plus, the front sight is also adjustable! You'll acquire targets much quicker. If you like scopes, red dots or lasers, you can easily mount one on the 11mm dovetails. Powered by an AirSource CO2 cartridge, the rifle will give you up to 350 shots.[/QUOTE]

your version of sarcasm PC? everyone here gets pointed to science paper from blogs, that doesnt change what is in the paper.

I found the quoted abstract interesting because it talked about how different models produced dramatically diferent Hadley Cells. If the models cant even get basic circulation to match how can they predict the effect of a factor that is just a few percent of the total, decades into the future?

 

[westwall]

Not very unsurprisingly. A new paper published in the Climate of the Past Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union shows that there is up to a 32 degree variance in the effect of CO2. Yep, that's real precise!

CP - Abstract - Model-dependence of the CO2 threshold for melting the hard Snowball Earth

Here is a blog that runs through the numbers....


Three climate models compared for global temperature claimed to result from 0.2 bar CO2 atmospheric level:

1. Hu et al finds 268K = -5.15C = 22.73F
2. Pierrehumbert et al finds 255K = -18.15C = -.67F
3. Le Hir et al finds (for 50% less CO2 or 0.1 bar) 270K+3K (temp increase claimed for doubled CO2 per IPCC) = 273K = -.15C = 31.73F



THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climate Models Differ on CO2 Warming Effect by over 32°F

My question in answer to your question of 'How accurate are CO2 models?', would be......How accurate are CO2 models of what exactly? As Rocks inadvertantly pointed out by not reading yet another of his links, I think we need to agree on what the experiment is before we agree on how accurate they are.

These particular models are trying to determine what the temperature increase will be for a given level of CO2. The fact that there is a 32 degree spread tells me they have no idea what they are trying to measure, much less predict.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real data from real scientists

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties AGW Observer

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative

Real old work from scientists using questionable to outright fraudulent methodology. Your point?

Outright lies from an asshole.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real data from real scientists

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties AGW Observer

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative

Real old work from scientists using questionable to outright fraudulent methodology. Your point?

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties AGW Observer

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008) “A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].” [Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004) “Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.”

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.”

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002) “Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.”

 

[Old Rocks]

Not very unsurprisingly. A new paper published in the Climate of the Past Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union shows that there is up to a 32 degree variance in the effect of CO2. Yep, that's real precise!

CP - Abstract - Model-dependence of the CO2 threshold for melting the hard Snowball Earth

Here is a blog that runs through the numbers....


Three climate models compared for global temperature claimed to result from 0.2 bar CO2 atmospheric level:

1. Hu et al finds 268K = -5.15C = 22.73F
2. Pierrehumbert et al finds 255K = -18.15C = -.67F
3. Le Hir et al finds (for 50% less CO2 or 0.1 bar) 270K+3K (temp increase claimed for doubled CO2 per IPCC) = 273K = -.15C = 31.73F



THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climate Models Differ on CO2 Warming Effect by over 32°F

Now, this one looks really, really accurate...

NightStalker - 12 Shot Semi-Auto, Airsource Powered Blowback Pellet Rifle
Retail: $145.56
Our Price: $99.99
You Save: $45.57 (31%)
Quantity:

Email to a Friend
SKU: PY-734
Availability: Usually ships the next business day

Caliber: 0.177" Velocity: 580 FPS Manufactured by Crosman Limited 1 year warranty

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DescriptionSpecificationsAccessoriesAmmo
One of the coolest tactical rifles made today! The Crosman NightStalker is a whole new ballgame, because it's the first semiautomatic pellet rifle with blowback action. Not just another pretty face, the sci-fi design of the ergonomic synthetic stock is a reflection of the technology and thought that went into making this rifle.



Crosman's unique Mohawk sighting system includes a rear aperture sight with two hole sizes, and you can quickly switch from one to the other by flipping the sight. No tools required! Plus, the front sight is also adjustable! You'll acquire targets much quicker. If you like scopes, red dots or lasers, you can easily mount one on the 11mm dovetails. Powered by an AirSource CO2 cartridge, the rifle will give you up to 350 shots.

Which Congressperson is your particular target?

 

[Old Rocks]

Real data from real scientists

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties AGW Observer

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative

do you just put links down without thinking? or do you think that your side will think you have championed 'the truth' as long as you just say something, anything? westy posted a paper that pointed out climate models with wildly differing effects for CO2 and you turn around with a website that lists papers showing the absorption spectra of CO2. no one is saying that CO2 doesnt absorb IR. what does that have to do with climate models that get totally different results?

Nothing. Olfruad is just posting as much crap as possible to try and baffle us with bullcrap.
It doesn't work anymore, though he still loves to neg rep me!

You are welcome to return the favor. Just because I went to the ARGO site and showed what those people really said.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Not sure.. Can't tell with this Outdoor Hockey rink that reaches my whole state.

 

[IanC]

[ QUOTE=westwall;3194051]

Real data from real scientists

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties AGW Observer

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative

do you just put links down without thinking? or do you think that your side will think you have championed 'the truth' as long as you just say something, anything? westy posted a paper that pointed out climate models with wildly differing effects for CO2 and you turn around with a website that lists papers showing the absorption spectra of CO2. no one is saying that CO2 doesnt absorb IR. what does that have to do with climate models that get totally different results?

Nothing. Olfruad is just posting as much crap as possible to try and baffle us with bullcrap.
It doesn't work anymore, though he still loves to neg rep me![/QUOTE]


I dont think Old Rocks understands thefundemental difference between the effect of CO2 on temperature, and the effect of CO2 on temperture within climate models. You can do the calculations of only CO2 by adding up the numbers at all the altitudes because CO2 is a well mixed gas. You cannot separate CO2 out of the climate models because it is only one factor out of many that interact non-linearly and are dependant on assumptions and various chosen imputs. the error bars for all these assumptions and inputs multiply quickly and leave chaotic results, as shown by westy's link to different climate models that produce wildly divergent results with the same amount of CO2. think about it, how can we trust models that need constant tinkering with variables yearly to produce just a reasonable estimate of temperature? how are they predicting the numerous corrections that will be necessary next year or ten years out? models are useful for getting clues about things we dont know but they are not reality, nor should they be treated as such.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, just because the American Institute of Physics states that CO2 is the primary driver of the present warming, should have absolutely no influence on your thinking. After all, an undegreeded ex-TV weatherman posting a blog on the internet knows so much more than all those pointy headed Phd Physicists.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[IanC]

Of course, just because the American Institute of Physics states that CO2 is the primary driver of the present warming, should have absolutely no influence on your thinking. After all, an undegreeded ex-TV weatherman posting a blog on the internet knows so much more than all those pointy headed Phd Physicists.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

actually I can sort of agree the AIP statement. the physics of CO2 IR absorption and reemmission would lead a thinking person to believe that roughly half of the 1C increase for doubling has already happened. depending on how you look at global temps and all of their idiosyncracies, it is reasonable to conclude there has been about a degree of warming. so CO2 could be responsible for a large share of the warming. but I certainly dont need to invoke the crazy crystal ball gazing of climate models to come to that conclusion, and it doesnt actually prove that CO2 did anything. there could easily be stasis mechanisms that remove the effects of CO2, leaving most or all of the increase to other natural causes.

 

[BenNatuf]

The models are crap.

their assumptions of stable CO2 prior to industrialization are crap.
the variable assigned solar forcings is crap
the variable assigned CO2 sensitivity is crap
they models clouds like crap
their modelling of expected SST's is crap
there has never been one prediction of future climate confirmed from any model, in fact, they've all been wrong. They simply make too many assumptions and discount too many variables.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mostly your posting is crap, Ben. All yap-yap, and nothing at all to back up the yap-yap.