This Is the Moment When the Rise of the Oceans Began to Slow

[Crick]

If a general climate model were attempting to predict the weather fifty years into the future with the same granularity you get out of the daily weather forecast, I wouldn't expect much. But it isn't.

And I haven't seen a 24 weather forecast off 2 degrees in years, much less 8 degrees. And precipitation is always expressed as a probability. If you judge it properly (as a probability for a region), rather than on your personal experience, you will find they are far more accurate than you seem to believe.

 

[Weatherman2020]

And a past President pocketed another $400K.

There’s not a climate chicken little alive who acts like there’s a crisis.

View attachment 249519

Twitter

What scientists are saying global warming isn’t real? You republicans need to bring them forward. So far the one guy you put out there was debunked on day one. He’s a fraud lobbyist.

We’ll chalk that up to private flights, ocean front mansions and juicy hamburgers.

This is what we need to do. Have you retards explain what you believe. Expose your stupidity.

Well, we don’t say the earth is going to die in 12 years because of manmade pollution then jump on a private jet to one of your three homes while chomping on a hamburger.

 

[sealybobo]

And a past President pocketed another $400K.

There’s not a climate chicken little alive who acts like there’s a crisis.

View attachment 249519

Twitter

What scientists are saying global warming isn’t real? You republicans need to bring them forward. So far the one guy you put out there was debunked on day one. He’s a fraud lobbyist.

We’ll chalk that up to private flights, ocean front mansions and juicy hamburgers.

This is what we need to do. Have you retards explain what you believe. Expose your stupidity.

Well, we don’t say the earth is going to die in 12 years because of manmade pollution then jump on a private jet to one of your three homes while chomping on a hamburger.

What does that have to do with anything?

So no scientists can fly on airplanes or eat meat?

 

[Weatherman2020]

And a past President pocketed another $400K.

There’s not a climate chicken little alive who acts like there’s a crisis.

View attachment 249519

Twitter

What scientists are saying global warming isn’t real? You republicans need to bring them forward. So far the one guy you put out there was debunked on day one. He’s a fraud lobbyist.

We’ll chalk that up to private flights, ocean front mansions and juicy hamburgers.

This is what we need to do. Have you retards explain what you believe. Expose your stupidity.

Well, we don’t say the earth is going to die in 12 years because of manmade pollution then jump on a private jet to one of your three homes while chomping on a hamburger.

What does that have to do with anything?

So no scientists can fly on airplanes or eat meat?

What does the fact everyone saying man will bring life on earth to an end in 12 years is flying around on private jets, buying mansions on the beach, promoting beef consumption, driving SUV's, wearing $10,000 dresses having to do with it?

The fact you ask that simply shows you either lack the IQ to function or you are a dumbass denier.

 

[sealybobo]

What scientists are saying global warming isn’t real? You republicans need to bring them forward. So far the one guy you put out there was debunked on day one. He’s a fraud lobbyist.

We’ll chalk that up to private flights, ocean front mansions and juicy hamburgers.

This is what we need to do. Have you retards explain what you believe. Expose your stupidity.

Well, we don’t say the earth is going to die in 12 years because of manmade pollution then jump on a private jet to one of your three homes while chomping on a hamburger.

What does that have to do with anything?

So no scientists can fly on airplanes or eat meat?

What does the fact everyone saying man will bring life on earth to an end in 12 years is flying around on private jets, buying mansions on the beach, promoting beef consumption, driving SUV's, wearing $10,000 dresses having to do with it?

The fact you ask that simply shows you either lack the IQ to function or you are a dumbass denier.

I’m a believer in global warming and I fly, drive a truck, boat, have an expensive pair of glasses.

I can’t fix what is wrong alone. We all have to change. I’m willing. Why aren’t you?

 

[Weatherman2020]

We’ll chalk that up to private flights, ocean front mansions and juicy hamburgers.

This is what we need to do. Have you retards explain what you believe. Expose your stupidity.

Well, we don’t say the earth is going to die in 12 years because of manmade pollution then jump on a private jet to one of your three homes while chomping on a hamburger.

What does that have to do with anything?

So no scientists can fly on airplanes or eat meat?

What does the fact everyone saying man will bring life on earth to an end in 12 years is flying around on private jets, buying mansions on the beach, promoting beef consumption, driving SUV's, wearing $10,000 dresses having to do with it?

The fact you ask that simply shows you either lack the IQ to function or you are a dumbass denier.

I’m a believer in global warming and I fly, drive a truck, boat, have an expensive pair of glasses.

I can’t fix what is wrong alone. We all have to change. I’m willing. Why aren’t you?

Since you chicken littles refuse to do anything you tell others to do, FU.

 

[Crick]

I drive high-mileage cars and bike where I can. I do not eat beef and we have all veggie meals several days a week. I do my best to conserve electricity and, most importantly, I (and my wife and my children) would NOT vote for someone who did not believe AGW was real and a threat that needs a response.

So, does that convince you that AGW is real and that you should vote for people who will act on it?

 

[westwall]

If a general climate model were attempting to predict the weather fifty years into the future with the same granularity you get out of the daily weather forecast, I wouldn't expect much. But it isn't.

And I haven't seen a 24 weather forecast off 2 degrees in years, much less 8 degrees. And precipitation is always expressed as a probability. If you judge it properly (as a probability for a region), rather than on your personal experience, you will find they are far more accurate than you seem to believe.

The climate models that you are so happy with ALWAYS show warming no matter what numbers you plug into them. Do you even understand what that means?

 

[Crick]

It means you're either lying or are unaware that line was refuted several years back.

 

[westwall]

It means you're either lying or are unaware that line was refuted several years back.

Oh? Prove your statement.

 

[Crick]

Prove yours. It's the extraordinary claim. If you don't remember what happened with MBH and principal component analysis, you might want to look that up first.

 

[westwall]

Prove yours. It's the extraordinary claim. If you don't remember what happened with MBH and principal component analysis, you might want to look that up first.

Easy peasey. They use an inflated value, thus ALL of the results are inherently flawed.

"The Common Atmosphere Model 5.0 from National Center for Atmospheric Research decreed a latent heat of water vaporization to be a constant independent of temperature. They chose a value that is 2.5% too high for tropical seas (where most of surface water evaporation on our planet happens). NCAR CAM 5 is considered “science”.

Is a 2.5% error ridiculous? Would it be nice to have a 97.5% reliable climate forecast? Yes, but .. it would only be a one hour forecast. CAM 5 is an iterative model. It takes a state of the atmosphere and in a computational step it estimates the next state of the atmosphere – usually about one hour later. Should this estimated state contain a 2.5% error, the following step starting from it would add another 2.5% error of its own. The errors tend to accumulate. After 40 steps you may get a 100% error – your result is influenced by accumulated errors as much as by the underlying physical system. After 80 steps the accumulated errors totally dominate.


Open thread weekend

 

[Crick]

Did you not see the line that says "As CESM is a community model..."

 

[SSDD]

Prove yours. It's the extraordinary claim. If you don't remember what happened with MBH and principal component analysis, you might want to look that up first.

You acknowledged that what he said was backed by evidence...then you stated that the evidence he based his statement upon was refuted several years back. That statement suggests that you know precisely what his statement was based on, and that you knew of evidence that rendered his evidence moot. The onus lies upon your shoulders to provide the evidence that you claim renders the evidence which he based his statement upon irrelevant.

Or was the claim that the evidence he based his claim on was refuted just more fake facts pulled out of your ass.

You really just don't have any idea of when to stop digging do you? How is the weather way down in that hole?

 

[Crick]

The Users Guide to CAM 5.3 includes these instructions

Example 5.1. Modify a radiatively active gas

Suppose that we wish to modify the distribution of water vapor that is seen by the radiation calculations. More specifically, consider modifying just the stratospheric part of the water vapor distribution while leaving the troposheric distribution unchanged. To modify a radiatively active gas two things must be done.

• Change the name (and possibly the type) of the constituent which is providing the mass mixing ratios to the radiation code. This is a simple modification to the rad_climate value.
  
  
• Make the necessary modifications to CAM to provide the new constituent mixing ratios. A likely scenario for this example would be to create a new module which is responsible for adding the modified water vapor field to the physics buffer. This module could leverage the existing tropopause module to determine the vertical levels where changes need to be made. It could also leverage existing modules for reading and interpolating prescribed constituents, for example the prescribed_ozone module. Details of how to make this type of source code modification won't be covered here.
  

Now suppose the source code modifications have been made and the new water vapor constituent is in the physics buffer with the name Q_fixstrat. The best way to modify the rad_climate variable is to start from a value that was generated by build-namelist for the configuration of interest but with the default water vapor, and then to modify that version of rad_climate and add the modified version to the build-namelist command in our run script. Note that the entire value of rad_climate must be specified. There is no way to just modify one individual string in the array of string values. If we are running with a default cam5 configuration then the customized namelist would be generated by the following command.

$camcfg/build-namelist ... \
-namelist "&cam ...
rad_climate =
'N:Q_fixstrat:H2O', 'N:O2:O2', 'N:CO2:CO2', 'Nzone:O3',
'N:N2O:N2O', 'N:CH4:CH4', 'N:CFC11:CFC11', 'N:CFC12:CFC12',
'M:mam3_mode1:/CSMDATA/atm/cam/physprops/mam3_mode1_rrtmg_c110318.nc',
'M:mam3_mode2:/CSMDATA/atm/cam/physprops/mam3_mode2_rrtmg_c110318.nc',
'M:mam3_mode3:/CSMDATA/atm/cam/physprops/mam3_mode3_rrtmg_c110318.nc' /"

The only difference between this version of rad_climate and the default is that the string for water vapor:

'A:Q:H2O'

has been replaced by

'N:Q_fixstrat:H2O'

In addition to specifying the new name for the constituent (Q_fixstrat), it was necessary to replace the A by an N since the new constituent is not advected, even though it is derived in part for the constituent Q which is advected.

 

[skookerasbil]

Again......can somebody show me any evidence anybody cares about sea level rise?

Links please!

 

[Crick]

Why would we bother? Try asking real questions. Or you could just lay off of Mr Socrates and just state your fucking opinion.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why would we bother? Try asking real questions. Or you could just lay off of Mr Socrates and just state your fucking opinion.

You climate crusader types always fold like a cheap wallet when you have to respond to real questions. Almost invariably, when I request links, its crickets.

Some folks in the public get hysterical over sea rise of 3mm........but the #'s are very few. A huge majority could hardly give a shit........its the only "real" that matters.

 

[Crick]

Rhetorical questions are questions you do not intend anyone to answer.

Your comments about the public's opinions regarding AGW are demonstrably incorrect.

 

[jc456]

From: By the Numbers | Understanding Sea Level – NASA Sea Level Change Portal

View attachment 249727
View attachment 249728
View attachment 249729

View attachment 249730

You want to know what is interesting here crikey old boy old pal...you have posted up estimates, but then neglect to post up the actual observed results. Almost ALL of those "studies" are old enough that we can check what the actual results were.

How about you posting up the raw data for us to peruse.

That's the problem with only posting up studies based on models, when they are old enough, like these are, we can see just how far off those "estimates" were.

So, link up to the data.

How about you put up links to some authoritative source that identifies these data as the output of models?

ah the old crick spin-a-rama. I won't post any observed until you post up observed information that doesn't exist because it doesn't exist. spin baby spin. you give models a bad name.