I think they are going to find that solar variability - whatever the cause, orbital, sunspot, etc - affects wind patterns which affect ocean currents which affects heat transport to the Arctic. And that more than anything is driving the trigger point for glacial periods and it does appear to be temperature sensitive (i.e. salinity and density). Which is ~2C warmer than today. There's really no other explanation other than the reduction of heat to the arctic that can explain D-O events. And that means the ocean circulation patterns which can be affected by wind. Which is affected by solar radiation.An interesting article by Andy May was posted today about modeling the current warming with and without CO2's impact. Its outcome was as predicted, CO2's impact was lost in the noise.
View attachment 859973
The article is a good read, and it is well sourced. I hope my alarmist friends will do the math and look at this for themselves.
Modeling HadCRUT5 with CO2 and without CO2 • Watts Up With That?
By Andy May I hate statistics, as many of you know. Some people think statistics and/or statistical models that meet standard statistical criteria are facts. The IPCC can be like that. They statistically model global surface temperatures with models of volcanic and anthropogenic forcing and...wattsupwiththat.com
For those who love modeling... A Comparison CO2 vs No CO2
- Thread starter Billy_Bob
- Start date
Relative to the atmosphere the vast majority of heat is stored in the ocean. Changes to how that heat is distributed can have profound effects in a short period of time. Especially since our planet's landmass distribution is uniquely configured for colder temperatures as both polar regions have some degree of thermal isolation from the warmer marine currents. The northern pole especially is senitive to changes in heat distrbution from the Atlantic because it is close to its threshold for extensive continental glacialtion and the surrounding lands are conducive for extensive continental glaciation with the resulting change in albedo amplifying the effect.
Drop mic.
Drop mic.
Predicted by whom?
View attachment 859973
The article is a good read, and it is well sourced. I hope my alarmist friends will do the math and look at this for themselves.
Modeling HadCRUT5 with CO2 and without CO2 • Watts Up With That?
By Andy May I hate statistics, as many of you know. Some people think statistics and/or statistical models that meet standard statistical criteria are facts. The IPCC can be like that. They statistically model global surface temperatures with models of volcanic and anthropogenic forcing and...
"...GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century. Some of the predictions from GCMs are accompanied by standard errors, as in statistical analysis. But since the GCMs are deterministic models one cannot interpret these standard errors in the same way as in statistics. GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately,models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability. The problem is that some of the variables representing sources of climate variability other than greenhouse gases are not properly controlled for during the calibrations. The resulting calibration of the climate sensitivity may therefore be biased. Further critical evaluations are given by several authors, such as Essex (2022)..."
"...As mentioned in the previous section climate can also change owing to internal processes within the climate system even without any variations in external forcings (chaos). In the GCMs the source of chaos is the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations. If the initial conditions are not known exactly for a dynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes relations the forecast trajectory will diverge from the actual one, and it is not necessarily the case that small perturbations have small effects. In fact, slightly different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs..."
"...In order to assess the uncertainty due to internal variability, researchers use so-called ICE (Initial Condition Ensembles) simulations. This means that outputs of GCMs are simulated starting from slightly different initial conditions. As the climate system is chaotic, slightly different initial conditions lead to different trajectories..."
"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."
"...Next, we have updated the statistical time series analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on observed temperature series recorded during the last 200 years and further back in time. Despite long trends and cycles in these temperature series, we have found that the hypothesis of stationarity was not rejected, apart from a few cases. These results are therefore consistent with the results obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2..."
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf
Billy, can you explain why the CMIP6 models used in AR6 show these differences for different emissions scenarios when the model you presented shows virtually none?
Libby von H
Platinum Member
- Nov 10, 2023
- 2,828
- 1,373
- 893
Remember, variable are endless and you ASSUME that explanatory variables are all in your model
Significant variables are NOT endless.
Did you not once claim to have some coding experience and based on that felt you had a deeper understanding of GCMs than other folks here? Might I ask what coding experience you actually have?
The Sage of Main Street
Gold Member
Inquisition Science
The postmodern physicists' explanations for unexpected phenomena are rationally impossible. Everything they've discovered proves there is an outside dimension interfacing with our limited three that makes the phenomena logical. Just like a religious fanatic, you refuse to listen to anything forbidden by your academic imams. Their weird-science explanations are no more rational than the "The Wisdom of God Is Beyond Human Understanding" or "I believe because it is absurd."
Last edited:
The Sage of Main Street
Gold Member
The Unabomber Cult Identifies as Comic-Book Superheroes
- Banned
- #50
Environmental Wacko climate modeling:
Produce proxy data derived from fraudulent "research". Put that fake data in piss poor computer programs to fool idiots like Crick. Celebrate the scam being taken seriously by the idiots.
All the proxy studies you've ever seen posted here: Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Marcott and Shakun have accessible raw data and software. It's not fraudulent. And the idea that you would have the intellectual or educational wherewhithal to judge any of it was or was not fraudulent is absolutely laughable.
- Banned
- #52
You are an idiot.
Let me tell what is wrong with this scam. It is not just allowing us to ridicule you stupid Moon Bats.
Because there are idiots like you that believe the scam then that has resulted in disastrous public policies. Like unnecessary emission standards, artificial high prices for energy, debt and taxes to pay for idiotic subsidies to the Scam industries. Banning of efficient equipment. All unnecessary burdens on our already weak and debt burden economy. An example would be how fucking stupid is it to for the government to subsidize billions and billions to build EV charging stations when we are $33 trillion in debt and the car companies are saying the EV market is declining?
Then we have the fact that all this scamming has completely rendered the Climate Science sector to be untrustworthy. They have lost all credibility and we can't believe a word they say. Not just the Principle Scientists that have admitted lying but also government agencies like NASA, NOAA and the UN Climate Commission that have been caught producing fraudulent data and being influenced by politics. We can no longer have a real scientific discussion on the facts because of the dishonesty of the scammers.
This silly ass AGW scam is really damaging and you stupid Environmental Wackos don't give a shit. You are obsessed with fake science. It is a religion to you idiots.
Five paragraphs of absolutely nothing but COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONS. In contemporary parlance, a "RANT". Very impressive VERY impressive.
The Sage of Main Street
Gold Member
EV Ecobuggies
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
I'm calling it right now: Payton Jackson will be the first female U.S. President.- Started by Drop Dead Fred
- Replies: 1
-
California has just blocked deportations by Ice ???
- Started by Quasar44
- Replies: 9
-
Why don't young good looking people go to progressive rallies?- Started by JakeWIlls92
- Replies: 5
-
House republicans on Judiciary Committee vote to allow trump to deport American Citizens.- Started by Crepitus
- Replies: 17
