Models Fail so badly NOAA now looking at reality......

[CrusaderFrank]

Once you add in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep ocean" it all adds up, well, more or less

 

[jc456]

Once you add in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep ocean" it all adds up, well, more or less

it had to melt the ice to get there though.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Once you add in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep ocean" it all adds up, well, more or less

it had to melt the ice to get there though.

CO2, most amazing molecule evah!!! It warms, it cools, it make hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and look at that shine!

 

[jc456]

Once you add in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep ocean" it all adds up, well, more or less

it had to melt the ice to get there though.

CO2, most amazing molecule evah!!! It warms, it cools, it make hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and look at that shine!

it even fks with 401K's now!!!! holy fk!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

First of all, they are not modeling a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere. The whole point of the troposphere is that greenhouse gases prevent radiation of heat, because they turn radiant heat into vibratory heat that has to conduct instead of radiate.

This is where all of current modeling goes wrong. They want to believe that it is radiative but in reality it is simply vibratory and trapped in water vapor that is ascending and cooling in the atmosphere. By the time it is again radiative (after phase change back into a water droplet) its wavelength is much longer than 16um and CO2 can not do anything to it. It is lost to space.

 

[SSDD]

You cant make this stuff up. Now NOAA is admitting their climate modeling programs run 5+ degrees C hotter than reality. And they DON'T KNOW WHY...

The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.

Climate Modellers Waiting for Observations to Catch Up with Their Predictions

The why is easy...they are modeling a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere that simply does not exist.

Wrong.
First of all, they are not modeling a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere. The whole point of the troposphere is that greenhouse gases prevent radiation of heat, because they turn radiant heat into vibratory heat that has to conduct instead of radiate.
Second is that the reason models predict more heat than we are feeling is because of all the ice melt. Phase change absorbs huge amounts of heat. It is still there, but you don't see it reflected in temperature readings when there is a phase change.

Maybe you should look at what climate science claims...they do in fact claim, and model a radiative greenhouse effect...of course there is no such thing which is why the models fail so miserably...if they modeled an atmospheric thermal effect driven by conduction, convection, and auto compression the models would be far more accurate...of course, that would take CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses off the demon list and all the money and political power that comes with "crisis" would dry up...can't have that so they continue to promote a radiative greenhouse effect even though no such thing exists...

 

[Rigby5]

They don't know why? I'm no computer expert but I know one thing, faulty information leads to faulty conclusions.

If you include the massive heat energy consumed by ice melting phase change, then the temperatures we are recording are exactly as predicted.

are you saying ice never melted before?

NEVER to this degree.
There was no North Pole navigation route for the last 10,000 years at least, until 2007.
{...On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker. According to Nalan Koc of the Norwegian Polar Institute, this was the first time the Passage has been clear ...}

And this is true of glacial ice and mountain snow caps.

And what is so bad about the vast unprecedented ice regression is that ice used to reflect solar heat, so now heating should accelerate even more.

 

[fncceo]

Models have always been expected to not be accurate.

Then what, precisely, would be the point of modeling?

What about the concept of modeling do you fail to grasp?

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, they are not modeling a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere. The whole point of the troposphere is that greenhouse gases prevent radiation of heat, because they turn radiant heat into vibratory heat that has to conduct instead of radiate.

This is where all of current modeling goes wrong. They want to believe that it is radiative but in reality it is simply vibratory and trapped in water vapor that is ascending and cooling in the atmosphere. By the time it is again radiative (after phase change back into a water droplet) its wavelength is much longer than 16um and CO2 can not do anything to it. It is lost to space.

I don't buy that in the least.
Water vapor can not get anywhere near the upper troposphere in any quantity because it is like -50 degrees, and much too cold.
Almost all the water vapor has already condensed out.
In fact, the air is too thin for vibratory or conductive heat.
Only radiative heat reaches the upper troposphere, and CO2 at the altitude effectively prevents it from leaving as much as it used to.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS-D-13-0278.1

 

[Rigby5]

You cant make this stuff up. Now NOAA is admitting their climate modeling programs run 5+ degrees C hotter than reality. And they DON'T KNOW WHY...

The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.

Climate Modellers Waiting for Observations to Catch Up with Their Predictions

The why is easy...they are modeling a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere that simply does not exist.

Wrong.
First of all, they are not modeling a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere. The whole point of the troposphere is that greenhouse gases prevent radiation of heat, because they turn radiant heat into vibratory heat that has to conduct instead of radiate.
Second is that the reason models predict more heat than we are feeling is because of all the ice melt. Phase change absorbs huge amounts of heat. It is still there, but you don't see it reflected in temperature readings when there is a phase change.

Maybe you should look at what climate science claims...they do in fact claim, and model a radiative greenhouse effect...of course there is no such thing which is why the models fail so miserably...if they modeled an atmospheric thermal effect driven by conduction, convection, and auto compression the models would be far more accurate...of course, that would take CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses off the demon list and all the money and political power that comes with "crisis" would dry up...can't have that so they continue to promote a radiative greenhouse effect even though no such thing exists...

That makes no sense.
The atmosphere gets much colder the higher you get, so there can be hardly any conduction or convection going on.
The heat attempting to leave the earth HAS to be radiative.
No other form of heat can possibly leave the earth since the earth is surrounded by a vacuum that can not conduct or convent anything.

What you are trying to claim is that greenhouse gases do not exist, and clearly they to. Gases like CO2 do prevent some radiant heat loss, and at the upper troposphere, CO2 is the single most influential gas, since there is hardely any water vapor up that high.

 

[mamooth]

Then what, precisely, would be the point of modeling?

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" said somebody.

Aircraft are designed using models. The models aren't perfect, but they are very good, so the aircraft fly well.

Climate models aren't perfect, but they are very good, so useful results are obtained from them.

 

[Rigby5]

Models have always been expected to not be accurate.

Then what, precisely, would be the point of modeling?

What about the concept of modeling do you fail to grasp?

Modeling is the ONLY was to predict what has not happened yet.
And the purpose of that is not to tell us that is already is 3 degrees warmer and ice has receded by about half. We already know that.
What we want from computer modeling of the climate is to be able to predict when water vapor and methane will start global warming to accelerate.
We know from historical climate change patterns, that these accelerators exist, and we need to know when and how much they will increase the speed of global warming to the point it can not be stopped and when it could become a threat of extinction.
Modeling is for assessing the degree of risk of species extinction we face, when when that is likely to happen.
We may have already passed the tipping point, but the more conservative guesses is that we have about 30 years or so before things become irreparable.

 

[fncceo]

Then what, precisely, would be the point of modeling?

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" said somebody.

Aircraft are designed using models. The models aren't perfect, but they are very good, so the aircraft fly well.

Climate models aren't perfect, but they are very good, so useful results are obtained from them.

No one puts passengers into a plane until a full-sized version has been thoroughly flight tested.

You're making end-of-the-world prognostication and deliberately defrauding taxpayers of Trillions of dollars using models that you know full well aren't accurate? I would agree ... in perpetrating massive fraud, the models have been very useful indeed.

 

[Rigby5]

Modeling is an iterative process.
You try a hypothesis, and when it fails, you look for a correction.
When that works better, you keep that correction, and move on to the next smaller tweak.
When modeling is inaccurate, that does not mean you are totally wrong.
But with climate, we have actual data so do not rely on modeling to tell us we have a problem.
Modeling is only to project an extrapolation into the future, beyond the global warming we already know about for sure.

 

[fncceo]

Modeling is an iterative process.
You try a hypothesis, and when it fails, you look for a correction.
When that works better, you keep that correction, and move on to the next smaller tweak.
When modeling is inaccurate, that does not mean you are totally wrong.
But with climate, we have actual data so do not rely on modeling to tell us we have a problem.
Modeling is only to project an extrapolation into the future, beyond the global warming we already know about for sure.

If you make a model and the prediction that model makes don't match reality then either...

a) you don't understand the process you're attempting to model

b) deliberately failing to include factors that affect the output of model

c) both of the above.

 

[Rigby5]

Then what, precisely, would be the point of modeling?

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" said somebody.

Aircraft are designed using models. The models aren't perfect, but they are very good, so the aircraft fly well.

Climate models aren't perfect, but they are very good, so useful results are obtained from them.

No one puts passengers into a plane until a full-sized version has been thoroughly flight tested.

You're making end-of-the-world prognostication and deliberately defrauding taxpayers of Trillions of dollars using models that you know full well aren't accurate? I would agree ... in perpetrating massive fraud, the models have been very useful indeed.

You have not been reading.
You use models for testing, not for predicting if a real airplane will fly or not.
You use a real airplane for final testing.
And no one is using modeling to determine that global warming exists.
We use real life data for that.
The polar and glacial ice is almost half of what it normally should be.
We don't use models to tell us there is dangerous global warming.
Modeling is only used to extrapolate beyond the actual data we know for sure.
At some point, as warming continues, water vapor and methane will increase in the atmosphere as well. We need modeling to predict what additional water vapor and methane will do. The models indicate massive acceleration of global warming. We that is not what emissions laws are based on.
I think they should be and we should be a lot more worried, but no one is trusting or using models for any legislation, yet.

 

[fncceo]

We use real life data for that.

And when the real life data doesn't match the confirmation bias ... alter the data.

You know what happens when you do that with an airplane full of passengers?

 

[Rigby5]

Modeling is an iterative process.
You try a hypothesis, and when it fails, you look for a correction.
When that works better, you keep that correction, and move on to the next smaller tweak.
When modeling is inaccurate, that does not mean you are totally wrong.
But with climate, we have actual data so do not rely on modeling to tell us we have a problem.
Modeling is only to project an extrapolation into the future, beyond the global warming we already know about for sure.

If you make a model and the prediction that model makes don't match reality then either...

a) you don't understand the process you're attempting to model

b) deliberately failing to include factors that affect the output of model

c) both of the above.

No process is 100% understood completely.
There are always small processes that are not considered at first with modeling because you have to first get the model working reasonably with the gross factors. It is deliberate but it is not possible to waste time on all the details before the main model process has been established.

For example, the reality is CO2 is missing. We know how much additional CO2 is added from fossil fuel consumption. But apparently volcanism that we normally associate with additional CO2 release, is also absorbing huge amounts of CO2 from the silicates turning into carbonates. So the models are being tweaked to account for that.

 

[SSDD]

I don't buy that in the least.
Water vapor can not get anywhere near the upper troposphere in any quantity because it is like -50 degrees, and much too cold.

Guess you never saw one of these: It is called a cumulonimbus. Their tops are usually in the neighborhood of 32,000 feet and often airliners must go miles out of the way to avoid such clouds that are in their flight path... The troposphere, oddly enough tops out at about 32,000 feet. Now if those clouds, and the cirrus clouds you often see are not water vapor, exactly what are they?

 

[fncceo]

but no one is trusting or using models for any legislation, yet.

List of climate change initiatives - Wikipedia

European Climate Change Programme - Wikipedia

"There has been a 20-fold increase in the number of global climate change laws since 1997, according to the most comprehensive database of relevant policy and legislation."

Mapped: Climate change laws around the world | Carbon Brief