Simple Model Predicts Temperature Pause

[flacaltenn]

I haven't really absorbed all this yet. But it sounds REAL interesting.
When you choose the CORRECT inputs to the model, it doesn't have to be complicated to get a
good match to EMPIRICAL observations.

Here Roy Spencer PhD at UAH puts this forecast up with half his brain tied behind his back...

With ENSO cycling..

Is it really that simple to get a model that shows pauses and details of the predicted surface temps??

Or is this just a figment of using EMPIRICAL data to get curve matches to EMPIRICAL observations.??

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm chewing on Dr Spencer's paper, I am not seeing a problem in math or in process. The fact that the sensitivity factor is now 1.2 deg C/doubling, which is way below even their "best guess' is fascinating. Water vapor has no positive effect. now that is gonna hurt!

 

[flacaltenn]

So -- using Ocean only dataset for temperature. And a simple energy balance model that includes ocean storage and ENSO -- the MATCHED curve is shown to use a very LOW climate sensitivity number to acheive the match.

So not only does this simple model seem to find it's way to match empirical ocean surface temps over time -- It also points to a LOWER long term climate sensitivity (ECS) -- at LEAST for ocean surfaces !! As low as POSSIBLY 1.3degC ... Why WOULDN'T ocean surfaces have some of the lowest "climate sensitivity" numbers? Since they ARE in some fashion acting as a heat absorber and storage ?

In the real world -- there is NOT a single constant for Climate Sensitivity. And it's ridiculous to publish 1000 papers that claim that single number describes the entire thermodynamics of the earth's surface. ESPECIALLY when time variations in the sensitivity are not even in the picture..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Take a look at his paper on ENSO and heat in our oceans.. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-2014-APJAS1.pdf

this gets into the complex nuts and bolts of the issue.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So -- using Ocean only dataset for temperature. And a simple energy balance model that includes ocean storage and ENSO -- the MATCHED curve is shown to use a very LOW climate sensitivity number to acheive the match.

So not only does this simple model seem to find it's way to match empirical ocean surface temps over time -- It also points to a LOWER long term climate sensitivity (ECS) -- at LEAST for ocean surfaces !! As low as POSSIBLY 1.3degC ... Why WOULDN'T ocean surfaces have some of the lowest "climate sensitivity" numbers? Since they ARE in some fashion acting as a heat absorber and storage ?

In the real world -- there is NOT a single constant for Climate Sensitivity. And it's ridiculous to publish 1000 papers that claim that single number describes the entire thermodynamics of the earth's surface. ESPECIALLY when time variations in the sensitivity are not even in the picture..

Using basic thermal properties and logic, Spencer puts alarmists and CO2 driven Global Warming into the unemployment line... Nice!

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm chewing on Dr Spencer's paper, I am not seeing a problem in math or in process. The fact that the sensitivity factor is now 1.2 deg C/doubling, which is way below even their "best guess' is fascinating. Water vapor has no positive effect. now that is gonna hurt!

Well now, we shall certainly see how well Dr. Spencer's figures stand up in the next five years.

 

[flacaltenn]

So -- using Ocean only dataset for temperature. And a simple energy balance model that includes ocean storage and ENSO -- the MATCHED curve is shown to use a very LOW climate sensitivity number to acheive the match.

So not only does this simple model seem to find it's way to match empirical ocean surface temps over time -- It also points to a LOWER long term climate sensitivity (ECS) -- at LEAST for ocean surfaces !! As low as POSSIBLY 1.3degC ... Why WOULDN'T ocean surfaces have some of the lowest "climate sensitivity" numbers? Since they ARE in some fashion acting as a heat absorber and storage ?

In the real world -- there is NOT a single constant for Climate Sensitivity. And it's ridiculous to publish 1000 papers that claim that single number describes the entire thermodynamics of the earth's surface. ESPECIALLY when time variations in the sensitivity are not even in the picture..

Using basic thermal properties and logic, Spencer puts alarmists and CO2 driven Global Warming into the unemployment line... Nice!

Yup.. In the biz -- we call them sanity checks. Take a complex model and see if any aspect of it violates known physics or essential design rules. Think ole Dr. Roy is a big fan of sanity checks..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm chewing on Dr Spencer's paper, I am not seeing a problem in math or in process. The fact that the sensitivity factor is now 1.2 deg C/doubling, which is way below even their "best guess' is fascinating. Water vapor has no positive effect. now that is gonna hurt!

Well now, we shall certainly see how well Dr. Spencer's figures stand up in the next five years.

Considering the energy budget has been negative for over 12 years, the change to cooling will be massive.. If you read the paper i linked to above you will find that the ocean energy budget has declined to -0.25W/m^2 per year. the stored energy is already depleted from the last warming cycle. The next five years are going to kick the alarmists in the groin real hard. The 30 years following that will bury them.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm chewing on Dr Spencer's paper, I am not seeing a problem in math or in process. The fact that the sensitivity factor is now 1.2 deg C/doubling, which is way below even their "best guess' is fascinating. Water vapor has no positive effect. now that is gonna hurt!

Well now, we shall certainly see how well Dr. Spencer's figures stand up in the next five years.

Hopefully these little exercises will become popular. Extend it to land and different climate zones. Improve the time variances on short and long term Climate Sensitity. Dr. Roy hasn't gotten rid of single number Climate sensitivity. But this is a good start.. MIGHT force govts to fund REAL climate science instead of "Man-Made" climate change.

 

[mamooth]

Spencer & Braswell again? The pickins are mighty slim in Denierstan.

One debunking:

Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate John Abraham Environment The Guardian

Ruh-roh. It's not from Skeptical Science. Flac will have to think up a new excuse to ignore it.

And speaking of sanity checks, any model that treats the whole world as an ocean is kind of lacking them. At best, Spencer showed that his imaginary planet which is nothing like earth had a low sensitivity.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Spencer & Braswell again? The pickins are mighty slim in Denierstan.

One debunking:

Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate John Abraham Environment The Guardian

Ruh-roh. It's not from Skeptical Science. Flac will have to think up a new excuse to ignore it.

And speaking of sanity checks, any model that treats the whole world as an ocean is kind of lacking them. At best, Spencer showed that his imaginary planet which is nothing like earth had a low sensitivity.

WOW, mantooth is totally off the mark as usual. 72% of the world is the oceans which have very small thermal change in their regions. Land on the other hand has massive swings as it has very little thermal capacity to store heat. IF the earth were truly warming the oceans is where you would find it... but there not...

 

[SSDD]

WOW, mantooth is totally off the mark as usual. 72% of the world is the oceans which have very small thermal change in their regions. Land on the other hand has massive swings as it has very little thermal capacity to store heat. IF the earth were truly warming the oceans is where you would find it... but there not...

She prefers a flat earth model in which the entire surface of the earth is land....The fact is that any model which relies on a greenhouse effect as described by climate science is going to vary drastically from observation....spencers model is closer to reality because it reduces the greenhouse effect....Do away with the greenhouse effect as described by climate science replace the effect with an atmospheric thermal effect and what do you know...you have a model that not only predicts the temperatures here on earth..but on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere....a feat models using the greenhouse effect as described by climate science can't even begin to replicate.

 

[imawhosure]

Geeze, this thread has been up for 18hrs and it hasn't been crucified yet by the greenies? Guess they are waiting for marching orders and platitudes from their fearless leaders.

I am going to guess by Monday afternoon this thread will be full of "flat earth" descriptions of the people commenting, along with a bunch of "deniers" thrown in for good measure, lol.

Carry on.

 

[mamooth]

She

Stop hitting on me, you raging queer.

prefers a flat earth model in which the entire surface of the earth is land...

No such models have been used for at least 20 years. SSDD is just lying again. Cult wusses will do that, when all the facts contradict their idiot claims. And that's why everyone now just assumes everything he says is a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

Anyways, telling that none of the Spencer groupies will look at the debunking. I;ve got more Spencer debunkings of Spencer's suckass joke models on hand, but there's little point in posting them if the cultists refuse to look at them. They've been forbidden by their cult masters to view such heresy.

 

[mamooth]

Geeze, this thread has been up for 18hrs and it hasn't been crucified yet by the greenies? Guess they are waiting for marching orders and platitudes from their fearless leaders.

You certainly didn't wait. Your marching orders went out, and you started bleating. Such a good little sheep you are.

I am going to guess by Monday afternoon this thread will be full of "flat earth" descriptions of the people commenting, along with a bunch of "deniers" thrown in for good measure, lol.

I'm going to guess you'll keep up these sniveling hit and run posts, being you lack the brains and courage for actual discussion. Don't worry, I'll be around so you can whine about how meeeeeeaaaaaan I am, and that will allow you to deflect from any actual discussion.

 

[SSDD]

She

Stop hitting on me, you raging queer.

Every thing you speak on...you get wrong hairball. Gay men, I am told, are looking for other men...not dried up old bitter women like you.

No such models have been used for at least 20 years. SSDD is just lying again. Cult wusses will do that, when all the facts contradict their idiot claims. And that's why everyone now just assumes everything he says is a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

And yet, the models continue to diverge further and further away from reality. Clearly they haven't got any better over the past 2 decades.

 

[flacaltenn]

Spencer & Braswell again? The pickins are mighty slim in Denierstan.

One debunking:

Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate John Abraham Environment The Guardian

Ruh-roh. It's not from Skeptical Science. Flac will have to think up a new excuse to ignore it.

And speaking of sanity checks, any model that treats the whole world as an ocean is kind of lacking them. At best, Spencer showed that his imaginary planet which is nothing like earth had a low sensitivity.

All that ocean stuff was CLEARLY stipulated furball.. You're making up shit that hasn't been claimed.

 

[flacaltenn]

Geeze, this thread has been up for 18hrs and it hasn't been crucified yet by the greenies? Guess they are waiting for marching orders and platitudes from their fearless leaders.

You certainly didn't wait. Your marching orders went out, and you started bleating. Such a good little sheep you are.

I am going to guess by Monday afternoon this thread will be full of "flat earth" descriptions of the people commenting, along with a bunch of "deniers" thrown in for good measure, lol.

I'm going to guess you'll keep up these sniveling hit and run posts, being you lack the brains and courage for actual discussion. Don't worry, I'll be around so you can whine about how meeeeeeaaaaaan I am, and that will allow you to deflect from any actual discussion.

But yet --- YOU had to go dredge up some "official church" spin on this interesting little exercise. Instead of countering it yourself.. Pretty slim pickins there too -- ain't it?

 

[flacaltenn]

Spencer & Braswell again? The pickins are mighty slim in Denierstan.

One debunking:

Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate John Abraham Environment The Guardian

Ruh-roh. It's not from Skeptical Science. Flac will have to think up a new excuse to ignore it.

And speaking of sanity checks, any model that treats the whole world as an ocean is kind of lacking them. At best, Spencer showed that his imaginary planet which is nothing like earth had a low sensitivity.

Sure -- since this "rebuttal" is your brain --- I'll say the same thing. When they start out criticizing the paper for claiming to be a WHOLE earth model, when the simple charts and graphs and explanations ALL CLEARLY state that the temperature data set is OCEAN ONLY -=-- It's not objective in the least OR this guy is a moron. Take your pick.. The rest of his "critique" has to do with the fact there is detailed "diffusion" modeling of heat transfer to lower Ocean layers. That's NOT the scope of the exercise.. Anymore than that wasn't the SCOPE of Trenberth's famous (mislabeled) Energy Balance excercise either. Didn't see anyone criticizing him because he left out the biggest element of heat storage and delays on the planet and forgot the heat that the Oceans eat directly..

But --- Trenberth got the answer that he NEEDED --- didn't he?? Should have done a "sanity check" on his results.

 

[mamooth]

I'll pick that you're flailing badly now, making these hilarious excuses for Spencer's failure. Which the whole world apparently ignores not because it sucks, but because of the great conspiracy. That's right, a model with no land, no currents, no upwelling or downwelling, bad boundary conditions and botched math really should have overturned everything. Hey, the land doesn't affect ocean currents, so it's okay to leave out the land. <snort>

I'm sure most deniers started out with good intentions. They had a gut feeling, though a bad one, due to their deficient understanding of science. On top of that, their right-wing politics said it was trendy to deny. And they got to pretend that they were brilliant and independent thinkers, all for doing nothing but parroting other deniers. Such a deal. So they hopped on the denier bandwagon, thinking it was a good bet.

It wasn't. Things turned south. The mountains of evidence kept piling up against them. The world kept warming strongly, and the denier predictions kept flopping. The conspiracy theories necessary to explain all the failures kept getting crazier and more elaborate, too bizarre to draw in any new converts. So it's becoming a group of bitter oldsters.

Any of them could admit their mistake. But they won't. Not one, anywhere (Muller doesn't qualify, as he was never a full-blown denier). The herd identity they've built over the years is too important to them. They are set in their ways. Admitting they were wrong would mean leaving the herd, and they're not willing to do that.