Australian Politics Forum - climate models are spot on

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

climate models are spot on
Apr 28^th, 2021 at 6:50pm

The point of climate modelling in the context of GHG emissions is to predict the impact on global temperature. Contrary to the crap that Lee has been furiously spewing, they have been remarkably accurate.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-fut
ure-warming-projections-right/

Why does this look so different from the crap that Lee has been posting? Two reasons:

1) Lee's crap tends to leave out a lot of the temperature data. A recent example left out temperature data after 2013.

2) Lee's crap leaves out the global temperature, for example only giving the sea surface temperature in certain parts of the ocean. This would be entirely relevant if the argument over GHG emissions was based only on the sea surface temperature in certain parts of the ocean, but in the context of GHG emissions it is a classic case of cherry picking in order to promote a lie.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17311
Gender: male

Re: climate models are spot on
Reply #1 - Apr 28^th, 2021 at 7:19pm

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 6:50pm:

The point of climate modelling in the context of GHG emissions is to predict the impact on global temperature.

So you don't believe the RSS satellite data? Oh dear.

Remember what I posted earlier today? Probably not because you didn't comment on it. Old Timer's? Alzheimer's?

I will post it again for you.

And as I said the only time the models have got close since 1998 is with Los Ninos.

BTW petal you know how you have "climate models are spot on"? Only ONE if any can be "spot on". An ensemble of climate models giving an average is not ONE model. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: climate models are spot on Reply #2 - Apr 28^th, 2021 at 7:23pm I have no idea what that is even a plot of. I doubt you do either. And why does it have a watermark from photobucket on it?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17311
Gender: male

Re: climate models are spot on
Reply #3 - Apr 28^th, 2021 at 7:31pm

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 7:23pm:

Posted on: Today at 5:23pm
I have no idea what that is even a plot of.

You should have stopped at you had no idea. I posted it yesterday with the link to remss and it's captions. I will provide that again - just to see if you can get your brain around it.

"
BTW - here is the RSS which is supposedly superior to UAH satellite data compared to climate models -

"To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below. Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008. In each plot, the thick black line are the results from the most recent version of the RSS satellite dataset. The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth's Climate over the 20th Century. For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output. After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band."

"Fig. 1. Global (70S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The black line is the time series for the RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.(All time series have been smoothed to remove variabilty on time scales shorter than 6 months.)"

http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globev4.png

The image wouldn't post so I used photobucket. You don't like it? Too bad.

So which should I believe? Satellite or models? Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: climate models are spot on Reply #4 - Apr 28^th, 2021 at 7:46pm You left out the link Lee. Are you trying to make this look as dodgy as possible?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17311 Gender:	Re: climate models are spot on Reply #5 - Apr 28^th, 2021 at 8:30pm freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 7:46pm: You left out the link Lee. Poor petal. So obtuse couldn't even work it for himself. Never mind petal. Here it is - http://www.remss.com/research/climate/#Atmospheric-Temperature Have you checked NASA yet?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: climate models are spot on
Reply #6 - Apr 28^th, 2021 at 9:21pm

Quote:

Poor petal. So obtuse couldn't even work it for himself. Never mind petal.

You are full of crap Lee. I'm not going to figure out its flavour for you.

I see now why you were so embarrassed to post the link - it is based on measured troposphere data, ie up to 18km high. It is comparing that to predictions of surface temperature.

Pretty stupid, eh?

Quote:

Have you checked NASA yet?

The plot I provided above is from NASA, slow one. I even included the link so you could figure this out for yourself

Here is another one from NASA. It shows about twice as much warming as your measured data. It is measured surface temperature, which matches the predicted surface temperature, spot on.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

You are full of crap Lee. Were you really incapable of figuring that one out for yourself, or do you just no care how full of crap you are?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: climate models are spot on Reply #7 - Apr 28^th, 2021 at 9:34pm How is Lee full of crap? Let me count the ways, Measured data ending in 2013, Measured data from the sea surface of some parts of the oceans, Measured data from the troposphere, up to 18km high, All compared against predicted global surface atmospheric temperatures.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 44629
Gender: male

Re: climate models are spot on
Reply #8 - Apr 28^th, 2021 at 9:55pm

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 6:50pm:

The point of climate modelling in the context of GHG emissions is to predict the impact on global temperature. Contrary to the crap that Lee has been furiously spewing, they have been remarkably accurate.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-fut
ure-warming-projections-right/

[url]https://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/2
299_Updated_CMIP3_Model_Comparisons_Hindcast_Forecast_20210122.JPG[/url]

Why does this look so different from the crap that Lee has been posting? Two reasons:

1) Lee's crap tends to leave out a lot of the temperature data. A recent example left out temperature data after 2013.

2) Lee's crap leaves out the global temperature, for example only giving the sea surface temperature in certain parts of the ocean. This would be entirely relevant if the argument over GHG emissions was based only on the sea surface temperature in certain parts of the ocean, but in the context of GHG emissions it is a classic case of cherry picking in order to promote a lie.

One degree in 50 years.

Cause?

(Careful - nobody knows, everyone is guessing. The more politically motivated the guess, the more likely it is BS).

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17311
Gender: male

Re: climate models are spot on
Reply #9 - Apr 28^th, 2021 at 10:22pm

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 9:21pm:

I see now why you were so embarrassed to post the link - it is based on measured troposphere data, ie up to 18km high.

Obviously you don't understand TLT. That is Lower Troposphere. Not 18Km up. Your ignorance is showing again.

"TLT is a more complex data set constructed by calculating a weighted difference between measurements made at different Earth incidence angles to extrapolate MSU channel 2 and AMSU channel 5 measurements lower in the atmosphere."

http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 9:21pm:

The plot I provided above is from NASA, slow one. I even included the link so you could figure this out for yourself

Still haven't looked at the data bubbles have you chuckles? Grin

So scared that even when you make mistakes you can't fess up. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17311
Gender: male

Re: climate models are spot on
Reply #10 - Apr 28^th, 2021 at 10:32pm

BTW - here is the underlying data -
Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C)
--------------------------------

Year No_Smoothing Lowess(5)
----------------------------
1880    -0.16    -0.08
1881    -0.08    -0.12
1882    -0.10    -0.16
1883    -0.16    -0.20
1884    -0.28    -0.23
1885    -0.33    -0.26
1886    -0.31    -0.27
1887    -0.36    -0.27
1888    -0.17    -0.26
1889    -0.10    -0.25
1890    -0.35    -0.25
1891    -0.22    -0.25
1892    -0.27    -0.26
1893    -0.31    -0.26
1894    -0.30    -0.24
1895    -0.23    -0.22
1896    -0.11    -0.20
1897    -0.11    -0.18
1898    -0.27    -0.16
1899    -0.17    -0.17
1900    -0.08    -0.20
1901    -0.15    -0.23
1902    -0.27    -0.25
1903    -0.37    -0.28
1904    -0.47    -0.31
1905    -0.26    -0.33
1906    -0.22    -0.36
1907    -0.38    -0.37
1908    -0.43    -0.39
1909    -0.48    -0.41
1910    -0.43    -0.41
1911    -0.44    -0.39
1912    -0.36    -0.35
1913    -0.34    -0.32
1914    -0.15    -0.31
1915    -0.14    -0.30
1916    -0.35    -0.29
1917    -0.46    -0.29
1918    -0.30    -0.30
1919    -0.28    -0.29
1920    -0.27    -0.28
1921    -0.19    -0.26
1922    -0.28    -0.25
1923    -0.26    -0.24
1924    -0.27    -0.23
1925    -0.22    -0.22
1926    -0.11    -0.22
1927    -0.22    -0.21
1928    -0.20    -0.20
1929    -0.36    -0.19
1930    -0.16    -0.19
1931    -0.10    -0.19
1932    -0.16    -0.18
1933    -0.29    -0.17
1934    -0.13    -0.16
1935    -0.20    -0.14
1936    -0.15    -0.11
1937    -0.03    -0.07
1938    -0.01    -0.02
1939    -0.02    0.03
1940    0.12    0.06
1941    0.18    0.09
1942    0.06    0.10
1943    0.09    0.10
1944    0.20    0.07
1945    0.09    0.04
1946    -0.07    0.00
1947    -0.03    -0.04
1948    -0.11    -0.07
1949    -0.11    -0.08
1950    -0.18    -0.08
1951    -0.07    -0.07
1952    0.01    -0.07
1953    0.08    -0.07
1954    -0.13    -0.07
1955    -0.14    -0.06
1956    -0.19    -0.05
1957    0.05    -0.04
1958    0.06    -0.01
1959    0.03    0.01
1960    -0.03    0.03
1961    0.06    0.01
1962    0.03    -0.01
1963    0.05    -0.03
1964    -0.20    -0.04
1965    -0.11    -0.05
1966    -0.06    -0.06
1967    -0.02    -0.05
1968    -0.08    -0.03
1969    0.05    -0.02
1970    0.03    -0.00
1971    -0.08    0.00
1972    0.01    0.00
1973    0.16    -0.00
1974    -0.07    0.00
1975    -0.01    0.02
1976    -0.10    0.04
1977    0.18    0.07
1978    0.07    0.12
1979    0.16    0.16
1980    0.26    0.20
1981    0.32    0.21
1982    0.14    0.21
1983    0.31    0.21
1984    0.16    0.21
1985    0.12    0.22
1986    0.18    0.24
1987    0.32    0.27
1988    0.39    0.31
1989    0.27    0.33
1990    0.45    0.33
1991    0.41    0.33
1992    0.22    0.33
1993    0.23    0.33
1994    0.32    0.34
1995    0.45    0.37
1996    0.33    0.40
1997    0.46    0.42
1998    0.61    0.44
1999    0.38    0.47
2000    0.39    0.50
2001    0.54    0.52
2002    0.63    0.55
2003    0.62    0.59
2004    0.54    0.61
2005    0.68    0.62
2006    0.64    0.63
2007    0.67    0.64
2008    0.55    0.64
2009    0.66    0.65
2010    0.72    0.65
2011    0.61    0.67
2012    0.65    0.70
2013    0.68    0.74
2014    0.75    0.79
2015    0.90    0.83
2016    1.02    0.88
2017    0.93    0.91
2018    0.85    0.95
2019    0.98    0.98
2020    1.02    1.01

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based...

Have a look at the no smoothing column; that's the one shown on your graph..

You are such a schmuck. Grin

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 28^th, 2021 at 10:40pm by lee »

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 58147 Here Gender:	Re: climate models are spot on Reply #11 - Apr 28^th, 2021 at 11:25pm Lee. If your view prevails and: If you are right what we end up with is a dirtier more polluted world and we save a few dollars. If you are wrong at least 4 Billion people probably die and it ends up costing 100,000 times what you saved.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17311
Gender: male

Re: climate models are spot on
Reply #12 - Apr 29^th, 2021 at 1:24pm

Dnarever wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 11:25pm:

If you are right what we end up with is a dirtier more polluted world and we save a few dollars.

New coal fired plant already have scrubbers. Gas fired ones don't have that pollution. Renewables need more copper ( mining and manufacture) than large stationary plant because they need the generators to be either on the top of masts (iron ore and steel manufacturing), and in there silicon manufacture. Also there are large concrete bases gor wind generators and concrete emits CO2.

Just a few for consideration.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 11:25pm:

If you are wrong at least 4 Billion people probably die and it ends up costing 100,000 times what you saved.

You haven't got back on where this 4 billion is going to come from. Not a newspaper report but a study. The WorldBank one uses RPC8.5 which is not really an option. I quoted a part of that the other day.

Also the source of the quote for costs. Is that the UN's want of $100 billion per year?

More -

"Happily — and that’s a word we climatologists rarely get to use — the world imagined in RCP8.5 is one that, in our view, becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year5. Emission pathways to get to RCP8.5 generally require an unprecedented fivefold increase in coal use by the end of the century, an amount larger than some estimates of recoverable coal reserves6. It is thought that global coal use peaked in 2013, and although increases are still possible, many energy forecasts expect it to flatline over the next few decades7."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3

So tell us this study with 4 billion dead and not using RPC8.5. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17311
Gender: male

Re: climate models are spot on
Reply #13 - Apr 29^th, 2021 at 1:45pm

More on TLT -

Figure 1. Weighting function for each RSS product. The vertical weighting function describes the relative contribution that microwave radiation emitted by a layer in the atmosphere makes to the total intensity measured above the atmosphere by the satellite.

As you can see TLT is the lowest band maximum peak about 2km and that is what the satellite from REMSS uses for climate.

Don't like it? Use UAH.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: climate models are spot on
Reply #14 - Apr 30^th, 2021 at 6:24pm

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 9:55pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 6:50pm:

The point of climate modelling in the context of GHG emissions is to predict the impact on global temperature. Contrary to the crap that Lee has been furiously spewing, they have been remarkably accurate.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-fut
ure-warming-projections-right/

[url]https://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/2
299_Updated_CMIP3_Model_Comparisons_Hindcast_Forecast_20210122.JPG[/url]

Why does this look so different from the crap that Lee has been posting? Two reasons:

1) Lee's crap tends to leave out a lot of the temperature data. A recent example left out temperature data after 2013.

2) Lee's crap leaves out the global temperature, for example only giving the sea surface temperature in certain parts of the ocean. This would be entirely relevant if the argument over GHG emissions was based only on the sea surface temperature in certain parts of the ocean, but in the context of GHG emissions it is a classic case of cherry picking in order to promote a lie.

One degree in 50 years.

Cause?

(Careful - nobody knows, everyone is guessing. The more politically motivated the guess, the more likely it is BS).

The cause is GHG emissions. That's why, contrary to the constant stream of crap coming out of Lee, the changes to the measured temperature data match so closely the changes that were predicted base on GHG emissions.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged