Thunderstorms

[IanC]

As Essex and McKitrick (E & M) explain:

“at this moment, and at every moment, there are thousands of active thunderstorms in the hot, moist places of the planet. There are tens of millions of them in any year. It should be clear that this great and constant roar of atmospheric air conditioning is an important part of the global energy budget and should figure significantly into any model of the global climate. However the mighty creature overhead, along with all of its cousins, is too small to show up in even the biggest and grandest global climate models. They are in the jargon of the field, sub grid scale -computerese for” they fall between the cracks.”

The IPCC concede; “The spatial resolution of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used in the IPCC assessment is generally not high enough to resolve tropical cyclones, and especially to simulate their intensity.”

There’s virtually no data from the vast oceans that dominate the tropics so the IPCC applied parameterization to create data. They use model output as ‘real’ data input for another model. The IPCC comment reveals the speculative nature of the process: “The differences between parameterizations are an important reason why climate model results differ.”

http://drtimball.com/2012/errors-an...te-mechanism-invalidate-ipcc-computer-models/

an important point. the oceans seldom get above 29C. there are negative feedbacks which dump excess heat, one of which is the thunderstorm. not in the climate computer models though.

 

[daveman]

The data doesn't fit the model?

Time to change the model!

/real scientist


The data doesn't fit the model?

Time to change the data!

/AGW climatologist

 

[Old Rocks]

The scientists are presenting the evidence that they find. They do so through peer reviewed journals. Just publish something that can easily be proven false, and see how long you last academically.

Here you can review abstracts and even whole articles being published at present in peer reviewed journals than have bearing on the issue of AGW. A few will actually review a few of the articles, the majority here will go back to parroting talking points.

 

[SSDD]

The data doesn't fit the model?

Time to change the model!

/real scientist


The data doesn't fit the model?

Time to change the data!

/AGW climatologist

When observation doesn't mesh with the model's predictions it is time for them to scrap their crap hypothesis and start over from scratch....maybe dropping the magic properties ascribed to that trace gas this time which is what has been fouling up their models all along.

 

[SSDD]

The scientists are presenting the evidence that they find. They do so through peer reviewed journals. Just publish something that can easily be proven false, and see how long you last academically.

No they aren't. They are presenting the output of models which doesn't match observations out in the real world. They present this bilge as if it were real data and you guys regurgitate it as if it were real data. It isn't. It is crap spewed from models which are operating on programming that includes fantasy physics.

 

[daveman]

The data doesn't fit the model?

Time to change the model!

/real scientist


The data doesn't fit the model?

Time to change the data!

/AGW climatologist

When observation doesn't mesh with the model's predictions it is time for them to scrap their crap hypothesis and start over from scratch....maybe dropping the magic properties ascribed to that trace gas this time which is what has been fouling up their models all along.

They can't do that. They're too heavily emotionally and financially invested in AGW to admit it's bullshit.

 

[westwall]

The data doesn't fit the model?

Time to change the model!

/real scientist


The data doesn't fit the model?

Time to change the data!

/AGW climatologist

When observation doesn't mesh with the model's predictions it is time for them to scrap their crap hypothesis and start over from scratch....maybe dropping the magic properties ascribed to that trace gas this time which is what has been fouling up their models all along.

They can't do that. They're too heavily emotionally and financially invested in AGW to admit it's bullshit.

Ohhh, it's purely financial daveman. L. Ron Hubbard said it best when he said "if you
really want to become rich...found a religion". The cult of AGW bears every aspect of a religion, the deity-Gaia, high priests, the deity punishing man for his evil (storms etc.), inquisitions for the evil, etc. etc. etc.

And underlying it all are the politicians and schemers trying to become mega rich by legislating a new energy system that is many times more expensive to produce and distribute.

 

[daveman]

When observation doesn't mesh with the model's predictions it is time for them to scrap their crap hypothesis and start over from scratch....maybe dropping the magic properties ascribed to that trace gas this time which is what has been fouling up their models all along.

They can't do that. They're too heavily emotionally and financially invested in AGW to admit it's bullshit.

Ohhh, it's purely financial daveman. L. Ron Hubbard said it best when he said "if you
really want to become rich...found a religion". The cult of AGW bears every aspect of a religion, the deity-Gaia, high priests, the deity punishing man for his evil (storms etc.), inquisitions for the evil, etc. etc. etc.

And underlying it all are the politicians and schemers trying to become mega rich by legislating a new energy system that is many times more expensive to produce and distribute.

...and Al Gore-type "get out of carbon jail free" scams.

 

[flacaltenn]

As Essex and McKitrick (E & M) explain:

“at this moment, and at every moment, there are thousands of active thunderstorms in the hot, moist places of the planet. There are tens of millions of them in any year. It should be clear that this great and constant roar of atmospheric air conditioning is an important part of the global energy budget and should figure significantly into any model of the global climate. However the mighty creature overhead, along with all of its cousins, is too small to show up in even the biggest and grandest global climate models. They are in the jargon of the field, sub grid scale -computerese for” they fall between the cracks.”

The IPCC concede; “The spatial resolution of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used in the IPCC assessment is generally not high enough to resolve tropical cyclones, and especially to simulate their intensity.”

There’s virtually no data from the vast oceans that dominate the tropics so the IPCC applied parameterization to create data. They use model output as ‘real’ data input for another model. The IPCC comment reveals the speculative nature of the process: “The differences between parameterizations are an important reason why climate model results differ.”

Errors And Omissions In Major Tropical Climate Mechanism Invalidate IPCC Computer Models

an important point. the oceans seldom get above 29C. there are negative feedbacks which dump excess heat, one of which is the thunderstorm. not in the climate computer models though.

I've always wanted to know what a thunderstorm thinks about 1 degF more or less in surface temp.. Got a model for that??

 

[bripat9643]

The scientists are presenting the evidence that they find. They do so through peer reviewed journals. Just publish something that can easily be proven false, and see how long you last academically.

Michael Mann still has a job, doesn't he? Phil Jones still has a job, doesn't he?

Case closed.

 

[IanC]

As Essex and McKitrick (E & M) explain:

“at this moment, and at every moment, there are thousands of active thunderstorms in the hot, moist places of the planet. There are tens of millions of them in any year. It should be clear that this great and constant roar of atmospheric air conditioning is an important part of the global energy budget and should figure significantly into any model of the global climate. However the mighty creature overhead, along with all of its cousins, is too small to show up in even the biggest and grandest global climate models. They are in the jargon of the field, sub grid scale -computerese for” they fall between the cracks.”

The IPCC concede; “The spatial resolution of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used in the IPCC assessment is generally not high enough to resolve tropical cyclones, and especially to simulate their intensity.”

There’s virtually no data from the vast oceans that dominate the tropics so the IPCC applied parameterization to create data. They use model output as ‘real’ data input for another model. The IPCC comment reveals the speculative nature of the process: “The differences between parameterizations are an important reason why climate model results differ.”

Errors And Omissions In Major Tropical Climate Mechanism Invalidate IPCC Computer Models

an important point. the oceans seldom get above 29C. there are negative feedbacks which dump excess heat, one of which is the thunderstorm. not in the climate computer models though.

I've always wanted to know what a thunderstorm thinks about 1 degF more or less in surface temp.. Got a model for that??

one degree? there may be a tipping point for cumulus clouds turning into thunderheads but I doubt that it only involves a small rise in temp.

here are a few articles at WUWT
THERMOSTAT HYPOTHESIS | Search Results | Watts Up With That?

 

[IanC]

The scientists are presenting the evidence that they find. They do so through peer reviewed journals. Just publish something that can easily be proven false, and see how long you last academically.

Michael Mann still has a job, doesn't he? Phil Jones still has a job, doesn't he?

Case closed.

Mann may still have a job but his dendro buddies are turning on him. even Briffa and Hughes of MBH98 and MBH99 fame.

- Bishop Hill blog - Lonely old Mann 

 

[mamooth]

Noticed how whiny the denialists have gotten lately? Their fortunes have been crashing hard. More or less everyone is laughing at them now.

In this thread, they're complaining about the very accurate models because ... because ... okay, there doesn't seem to be a reason. I think they're just sputtering because the AGW scientists have been so accurate. You can't argue with success, but denialists will try, as their masters have ordered them to try.

 

[westwall]

Noticed how whiny the denialists have gotten lately? Their fortunes have been crashing hard. More or less everyone is laughing at them now.

In this thread, they're complaining about the very accurate models because ... because ... okay, there doesn't seem to be a reason. I think they're just sputtering because the AGW scientists have been so accurate. You can't argue with success, but denialists will try, as their masters have ordered them to try.

That level of delusion can only be generated through chemical means.

 

[mamooth]

The models are very accurate, regardless of whether they simulate individual thunderstorms. Good is good, no matter how much handwaving and evading you do.

This is just a sad exercise in goalpost moving by the denialist cult. When the models do get more detailed to that point, the denialists will shift to "ah, but do the models track every cloud?", then to "ah, but do the the models track every wind gust?", then to "ah, but do the models track every raindrop?", and so on.

 

[westwall]

The models are very accurate, regardless of whether they simulate individual thunderstorms. Good is good, no matter how much handwaving and evading you do.

This is just a sad exercise in goalpost moving by the denialist cult. When the models do get more detailed to that point, the denialists will shift to "ah, but do the models track every cloud?", then to "ah, but do the the models track every wind gust?", then to "ah, but do the models track every raindrop?", and so on.

If they're so accurate why can't they predict the weather accurately three days ahead? They get a 80% success rate for 24 hours falling to less than 25% after 48 hours. You are so full of horse poo it's funny. Or perhaps you think a 20% hit rate is good?

Here's some news for you....the rest of the world doesn't.

 

[mamooth]

So Westwall doesn't even understand the difference between "climate" and "weather".

'Nuff said.

 

[SSDD]

So Westwall doesn't even understand the difference between "climate" and "weather".

'Nuff said.

If you don't understand weather (local) well enough to predict any better than we are able to at this point, it is pure foolishness to believe that we can even begin to predict climate (global) and the climate simulations prove that fact every day.

 

[RollingThunder]

As Essex and McKitrick (E & M) explain:

“at this moment, and at every moment, there are thousands of active thunderstorms in the hot, moist places of the planet. There are tens of millions of them in any year. It should be clear that this great and constant roar of atmospheric air conditioning is an important part of the global energy budget and should figure significantly into any model of the global climate. However the mighty creature overhead, along with all of its cousins, is too small to show up in even the biggest and grandest global climate models. They are in the jargon of the field, sub grid scale -computerese for” they fall between the cracks.”

The IPCC concede; “The spatial resolution of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used in the IPCC assessment is generally not high enough to resolve tropical cyclones, and especially to simulate their intensity.”

There’s virtually no data from the vast oceans that dominate the tropics so the IPCC applied parameterization to create data. They use model output as ‘real’ data input for another model. The IPCC comment reveals the speculative nature of the process: “The differences between parameterizations are an important reason why climate model results differ.”

Errors And Omissions In Major Tropical Climate Mechanism Invalidate IPCC Computer Models

an important point. the oceans seldom get above 29C. there are negative feedbacks which dump excess heat, one of which is the thunderstorm. not in the climate computer models though.

The usual flaming idiocy from the denier fruitcakes, suitable only for fooling the gullible and uneducated or for fertilizing your roses.

The Earth's energy budget begins and ends with two things. How much energy the Earth is receiving from the sun and how much energy is being radiated away into space. The Earth is currently absorbing more energy than it is losing so the temperatures are rising, the ice is melting and the climate patterns are changing. Moving energy from one place to another within the Earth's atmosphere or oceans does not affect the basic fact of global warming whatsoever.

 

[SSDD]

.... The Earth is currently absorbing more energy than it is losing so the temperatures are rising,

Except the temperatures aren't rising and haven't for the past 17 years.. Observation is where it's at man...not model output.

Even the consensus now acknowledges that it has been a very long time since there has been any warming....unless you count hansen's temperature "adjustments" to the historical record in an attempt to make the present look warmer.