████████ Climastrology (a/k/a Climate $cience) ████████

[von_Bismarck]

Okay. Now all you have to do is calculate climate sensitivity and inform us what all the wild exaggerations of "existential" "catastrophic" "dangerous" global warming/climate change are all about.


While you're at it, why did warming commence at the end of the Little Ice Age in c. 1700?

https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/image6.png
​

​

Cool story bro!

Can you explain for us when you became a paid shill for the industry, and on how many other sites you post propaganda comments? Do you get paid for reposting Wats content, too?

Thanks in advance!

 

[trysail]

Why Climate Predictions Are So Difficult

by Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair (emerita), School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union



(emphasis added)

"...

Global warming forecasts are still surprisingly inaccurate. Supercomputers and artificial intelligence should help.

By Johann Grolle​

It’s a simple number, but it will determine the fate of this planet. It’s easy to describe, but tricky to calculate. The researchers call them “climate sensitivity”.

It indicates how much the average temperature on Earth warms up when the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere doubles. Back in the 1970s, it was determined using primitive computer models. The researchers came to the conclusion that their value is likely somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees.

This result has not changed until today, about 40 years later. And that’s exactly the problem.

The computational power of computers has risen many millions of dollars, but the prediction of global warming is as imprecise as ever..."​

more at:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/30/why-climate-predictions-are-so-difficult/


​

​

 

[von_Bismarck]

Why Climate Predictions Are So Difficult

by Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair (emerita), School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union



(emphasis added)

"...

Global warming forecasts are still surprisingly inaccurate. Supercomputers and artificial intelligence should help.

By Johann Grolle​

It’s a simple number, but it will determine the fate of this planet. It’s easy to describe, but tricky to calculate. The researchers call them “climate sensitivity”.

It indicates how much the average temperature on Earth warms up when the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere doubles. Back in the 1970s, it was determined using primitive computer models. The researchers came to the conclusion that their value is likely somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees.

This result has not changed until today, about 40 years later. And that’s exactly the problem.

The computational power of computers has risen many millions of dollars, but the prediction of global warming is as imprecise as ever..."​

more at:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/30/why-climate-predictions-are-so-difficult/


​

​

Hey, dipshit. When you're paid by the propaganda word, as you are, do you find that your rates go up with inflation? Or is the struggling coal industry willing to shell out more for your services?

 

[SpeareChucker]

It's a chaotic system and one of the main attractors is not man,
is not man's activities, but rather the cycles of the sun.

 

[trysail]

...and just how long is that "record?"
...and what about perfectly normal, natural variability?
...and what is the margin of error?
...and what is equilibrium climate sensitivity?
...and to what is it attributable?
...and how much is due to "adjustments" made by NCDC?
...and how was the data for land stations compiled?
...and how was the data for sea surface temperatures compiled?





For your further amusement and consideration:

Do you think that Russian temperature records from, say 1915-1950, are reliable? Do you believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad or in Ukraine during the famine or all over Siberia?

Do you believe that Chinese temperature records from, say 1913-1980, are reliable? Do you believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or "The Great Leap Forward?"

Do you think that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975, are accurate?

Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1980, are accurate? Do you believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?

​

​

 

[phrodeau]

Hey Mister Riddles, come up with an answer.

 

[von_Bismarck]

It's a chaotic system and one of the main attractors is not man,
is not man's activities, but rather the cycles of the sun.

Fuck off.

 

[von_Bismarck]

...and just how long is that "record?"
...and what about perfectly normal, natural variability?
...and what is the margin of error?
...and what is equilibrium climate sensitivity?
...and to what is it attributable?
...and how much is due to "adjustments" made by NCDC?
...and how was the data for land stations compiled?
...and how was the data for sea surface temperatures compiled?





For your further amusement and consideration:

Do you think that Russian temperature records from, say 1915-1950, are reliable? Do you believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad or in Ukraine during the famine or all over Siberia?

Do you believe that Chinese temperature records from, say 1913-1980, are reliable? Do you believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or "The Great Leap Forward?"

Do you think that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975, are accurate?

Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1980, are accurate? Do you believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?

​

​

Have you considered taking a climate science class, and working towards the aptitude to answer your own questions?

You might be able to raise your rates as a bonus!

 

[trysail]

Believing In Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast and Climate Models

by Robert G. Brown, Ph.D.
Physics Department
Duke University

"I watched a variation of this talk several years ago, and it was brilliant and, AFAICT (and I can tell a lot!) utterly correct and fair. A Kolmogorov scale cell for atmospheric air is order of 10^{-9} cubic meters (one cubic millimeter). The scale of cells used in climate models is around 10^{13} cubic meters (100x100x1 kilometers). There are 24 orders of magnitude difference. The timescale used in the climate models is determined by the size of the cells, cheating. 10^5/340 \approx 300 seconds (five minutes) is the time required for sound to cross a cell, ignoring the fact that the cell is only one kilometer thick so that there is an intrinsic dynamical mismatch in vertical dynamics and transverse/horizontal dynamics. Hence climate models use stepsizes of roughly 5 minutes, the time needed for pressure variations to propagate across a cell so that they can pretend that a cell has a homogeneous pressure and temperature. The timescale required for a Kolmogorov scale cell is 10^{-3}/340 \approx 3 microseconds. The ratio between them is another factor of 10^{8}, making climate models a stunning 32 orders of magnitude short of where they would need to be in order to reliably integrate the spatiotemporal dynamics, and even if we could integrate at this granularity the solution would still be chaotic and hence infinitely sensitive to initial conditions.

As it is, the assumptions built into the cell dynamics are merely absurd — cells are much larger than well known energy dissipating structures such as thunderstorms and hence are essentially “blind” to thunderstorm dynamics, cloud dynamics, nucleation and growth of the defects that eventually become large scale weather patterns, and more. And then there is the second coupled Navier-Stokes system — the ocean — with its enormously complicated dynamics, chemistry, and boundary. And I — or he — could go on.

To attempt to solve the unsolvable, climate modellers have to replace all of this dynamics at less than their cell scale with smoothed approximations. Thunderstorms are always 1 cell in size (they cannot be any smaller) so that where a real weather pattern might have a front with scattered thunderstorms along a 300 x 100 kilometer band, the best a climate model could do would be to have thunderstorms in 1 out of three cells or some intermediate “rainy” state assigned to the cells that is supposed to correspond to the average “thunderstorminess” and correctly add up to the right vertical heat and moisture transfer and so on. Similarly scattered clouds on a scale from meters to kilometers become some sort of crude average modulation of cell albedo and radiative transfer. This is further modulated with ad hoc corrections for GHGs, aerosols, soot, and so on, all on a granularity of 100 km square patches where a single property has to be assigned to the entire cell and then dynamically varied, timestep to timestep, for the entire cell.

All of this is perfectly obvious when one compares the actual climate trajectories produced by climate models. From tiny perturbations of initial conditions, they generate whole families of future climates, some warming, some actually cooling. The variance is enormous, and utterly non-physical. The autocorrelation times within the models themselves aren’t close to the actual autocorrelation times of the climate (how could they be? They have the wrong relaxation dynamics on nearly all time and length scales!) The fluctuations in the climate are several times larger than the actual fluctuations in the real climate. They get the temperature of the troposphere egregiously wrong. They fail to predict floods or droughts anywhere near accurately. They cannot predict large scale self-organized phenomena like ENSO that dominate discrete Hurst-Kolmogorov steps in the actual climate state and hence are just plain wrong almost everywhere, almost all of the time, even as they produce something that sorta kinda if you squint a bit looks like a plausible climate trajectory. Two different climate models produce completely different results even if run from the same initial state. Our knowledge of initial state is nonexistent and (because the real climate is highly non-Markovian, especially when coarse grained) they cannot even pretend to capture the actual climate state over the decades to centuries needed to properly initialize the model, where heat swallowed by the ocean a century ago surfaces in the thermohaline circulation to affect climate in significant ways today. And finally, nobody even tries to assess the climate models, reject the ones that perform the worst, and keep the ones that actually produce results that resemble the client, so we aren’t even optimizing on our limited set of climate model attempts to try to evolve one that sort of works.

Then comes the greatest sin of all. Taking all of the non-independent climate models produced by the various agencies and research groups (with places like NASA “contributing” roughly 1/5th of the final weight with 7 closely related variations of the same damn model), with all of their many and varied warts, without the slightest attempt to accept or reject a single model, and flat average them into a multi-model “ensemble” mean that is supposed to magically be predictive because all of the flaws in all of the models will cancel one another out! Oh. My. God. "


source...

​

​

 

[bestone4ever]

Fuck off.

You spelled "die a horrific death" wrong.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Believing In Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast and Climate Models

by Robert G. Brown, Ph.D.
Physics Department
Duke University

"I watched a variation of this talk several years ago, and it was brilliant and, AFAICT (and I can tell a lot!) utterly correct and fair. A Kolmogorov scale cell for atmospheric air is order of 10^{-9} cubic meters (one cubic millimeter). The scale of cells used in climate models is around 10^{13} cubic meters (100x100x1 kilometers). There are 24 orders of magnitude difference. The timescale used in the climate models is determined by the size of the cells, cheating. 10^5/340 \approx 300 seconds (five minutes) is the time required for sound to cross a cell, ignoring the fact that the cell is only one kilometer thick so that there is an intrinsic dynamical mismatch in vertical dynamics and transverse/horizontal dynamics. Hence climate models use stepsizes of roughly 5 minutes, the time needed for pressure variations to propagate across a cell so that they can pretend that a cell has a homogeneous pressure and temperature. The timescale required for a Kolmogorov scale cell is 10^{-3}/340 \approx 3 microseconds. The ratio between them is another factor of 10^{8}, making climate models a stunning 32 orders of magnitude short of where they would need to be in order to reliably integrate the spatiotemporal dynamics, and even if we could integrate at this granularity the solution would still be chaotic and hence infinitely sensitive to initial conditions.

As it is, the assumptions built into the cell dynamics are merely absurd — cells are much larger than well known energy dissipating structures such as thunderstorms and hence are essentially “blind” to thunderstorm dynamics, cloud dynamics, nucleation and growth of the defects that eventually become large scale weather patterns, and more. And then there is the second coupled Navier-Stokes system — the ocean — with its enormously complicated dynamics, chemistry, and boundary. And I — or he — could go on.

To attempt to solve the unsolvable, climate modellers have to replace all of this dynamics at less than their cell scale with smoothed approximations. Thunderstorms are always 1 cell in size (they cannot be any smaller) so that where a real weather pattern might have a front with scattered thunderstorms along a 300 x 100 kilometer band, the best a climate model could do would be to have thunderstorms in 1 out of three cells or some intermediate “rainy” state assigned to the cells that is supposed to correspond to the average “thunderstorminess” and correctly add up to the right vertical heat and moisture transfer and so on. Similarly scattered clouds on a scale from meters to kilometers become some sort of crude average modulation of cell albedo and radiative transfer. This is further modulated with ad hoc corrections for GHGs, aerosols, soot, and so on, all on a granularity of 100 km square patches where a single property has to be assigned to the entire cell and then dynamically varied, timestep to timestep, for the entire cell.

All of this is perfectly obvious when one compares the actual climate trajectories produced by climate models. From tiny perturbations of initial conditions, they generate whole families of future climates, some warming, some actually cooling. The variance is enormous, and utterly non-physical. The autocorrelation times within the models themselves aren’t close to the actual autocorrelation times of the climate (how could they be? They have the wrong relaxation dynamics on nearly all time and length scales!) The fluctuations in the climate are several times larger than the actual fluctuations in the real climate. They get the temperature of the troposphere egregiously wrong. They fail to predict floods or droughts anywhere near accurately. They cannot predict large scale self-organized phenomena like ENSO that dominate discrete Hurst-Kolmogorov steps in the actual climate state and hence are just plain wrong almost everywhere, almost all of the time, even as they produce something that sorta kinda if you squint a bit looks like a plausible climate trajectory. Two different climate models produce completely different results even if run from the same initial state. Our knowledge of initial state is nonexistent and (because the real climate is highly non-Markovian, especially when coarse grained) they cannot even pretend to capture the actual climate state over the decades to centuries needed to properly initialize the model, where heat swallowed by the ocean a century ago surfaces in the thermohaline circulation to affect climate in significant ways today. And finally, nobody even tries to assess the climate models, reject the ones that perform the worst, and keep the ones that actually produce results that resemble the client, so we aren’t even optimizing on our limited set of climate model attempts to try to evolve one that sort of works.

Then comes the greatest sin of all. Taking all of the non-independent climate models produced by the various agencies and research groups (with places like NASA “contributing” roughly 1/5th of the final weight with 7 closely related variations of the same damn model), with all of their many and varied warts, without the slightest attempt to accept or reject a single model, and flat average them into a multi-model “ensemble” mean that is supposed to magically be predictive because all of the flaws in all of the models will cancel one another out! Oh. My. God. "


source...

​

​

In case anyone was wondering about the paid shill gig that fossil fuel hack trysail operates under.

https://wakeup-world.com/2012/10/03...ions-of-a-paid-disinformation-internet-shill/

 

[trysail]

Frickin' priceless.

Climastrology (and the WaPo echo-chamber propagandists) at their finest: proving that the known is known!

I swear to Christ, you couldn't make this shit up if you tried.

On That Climate-Change-Now-Detectable-From-Any-Single-Day-Of-Weather Paper

by William Briggs, Ph.D.

"...The peer-reviewed paper is “Climate change now detectable from any single day of weather at global scale” by Sippel and Knutti an[d] others in Nature: Climate Change.

Look at that title closely. As our homie The Real Spark would say: Hold up. Wait a minute. Somein’ ain’t right! The claim in the title on its face seems preposterous, and is preposterous. This paper has nothing to do with finding “climate change” in a single day’s observation. It is instead a wee p-value generator.

Gist: they have shown that climate models run using “external forcing” (i.e. man’s activities) produce output different than climate models run using “natural variability”, and that this output is different even unto individual days. That, and nothing more.

Since it was always obvious climate models based on different inputs would and should produce different outputs, what was already known has been confirmed to be known. In this way, the paper is harmless, except that is has the usual crowd hyperventilating..."
​

more...



​

​

​

 

[von_Bismarck]

Frickin' priceless.

Climastrology (and the WaPo echo-chamber propagandists) at their finest: proving that the known is known!

I swear to Christ, you couldn't make this shit up if you tried.

On That Climate-Change-Now-Detectable-From-Any-Single-Day-Of-Weather Paper

by William Briggs, Ph.D.

"...The peer-reviewed paper is “Climate change now detectable from any single day of weather at global scale” by Sippel and Knutti an[d] others in Nature: Climate Change.

Look at that title closely. As our homie The Real Spark would say: Hold up. Wait a minute. Somein’ ain’t right! The claim in the title on its face seems preposterous, and is preposterous. This paper has nothing to do with finding “climate change” in a single day’s observation. It is instead a wee p-value generator.

Gist: they have shown that climate models run using “external forcing” (i.e. man’s activities) produce output different than climate models run using “natural variability”, and that this output is different even unto individual days. That, and nothing more.

Since it was always obvious climate models based on different inputs would and should produce different outputs, what was already known has been confirmed to be known. In this way, the paper is harmless, except that is has the usual crowd hyperventilating..."
​

more...



​

​

​

Oh, look, trysail posted from another propaganda site! I wonder how much this comment fetched him. Ten cents? A quarter?

 

[sygn]

Oh, look, trysail posted from another propaganda site! I wonder how much this comment fetched him. Ten cents? A quarter?

nice to see you sunny face!
trolling again, eh?

 

[von_Bismarck]

nice to see you sunny face!
trolling again, eh?

Just raising awareness about trysail's paid shill job, spreading anti-science propaganda. You know, evil is as evil does.

 

[Rightguide]

Oh, look, trysail posted from another propaganda site! I wonder how much this comment fetched him. Ten cents? A quarter?

So did you intend on refuting it or just drift in to mourn the loss of both butt cheeks to his withering arguments?

 

[von_Bismarck]

...his withering arguments?

Let me know when he posts one.

 

[phrodeau]

So did you intend on refuting it or just drift in to mourn the loss of both butt cheeks to his withering arguments?

There is no refuting argument needed. The paper supports a basic truth, and the commentator seems to agree. His objection seems to be that supporting basic truths is unnecessary. I think that he won’t get far as a scientist with that attitude.

It is nice to see you taking an interest in a topic that has nothing to do with butts.

 

[trysail]

by Ken Haapala


(emphasis added)

“...The measured temperature trend of the atmosphere, as measured by satellite using all data from the launch of the program in December 1978 until the present, is a rise of 1.3ºC per century. What is NOT known is how much of that warming is due to natural causes..."

source...



​

​

 

[trysail]

by Ken Haapala



(emphasis added)

"...Walter Russell Mead writing in the Wall Street Journal summarized the Davos meeting best:

“There is something inescapably ridiculous about a gathering this self-important; certainly Marie Antoinette and her friends dressing up as shepherdesses to celebrate the simple life has nothing on the more than 100 billionaires descending, often by private jet, on an exclusive Swiss ski resort for four days of ostentatious hand-wringing about the problems of the poor and the dangers of climate change.”
​

As discussed in the January 11 and 18 TWTWs the data compiled by “Our World in Data” and others indicate that our era is the best experienced by humanity in recorded history. Over the past 30 years extreme poverty in Asia has diminished dramatically. Largely thanks to the reduction of government control and traditional customs over the economies and the use of fossil fuels. Life expectancy, child mortality, hunger, access to clean water, sanitation, and energy use are greatly improving the human condition. Some areas need to be addressed, particularly in sub-Sahara Africa, but overall the dire conditions of subsistence living are being significantly reduced.

Despite the evidence of vast improvement, the UN and other international groups are declaring a climate crisis, or climate emergency. with little or no physical evidence to substantiate their claims. Despite flimsy evidence, the World Economic Forum (WEF) created a report claiming the failure to act on the largely imaginary climate crisis is a greater threat to humanity in likelihood and impact than weapons of mass destruction..."


source...

​

​

 

[RocketLauncher]

Disinformation shill says what? Nice to see Lit made your revolving web site list. So what'd you make off your last pist? A quarter. Do you get paid more if you add a graph? Like, 50 cents a pist?

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Bjorn_Lomborg_Sea_Level_Rise-1024x707.png

 

[RocketLauncher]

Autumn Peltier and Greta Thunberg. They get it. Could teach shills a thing or two.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/autumn-peltier-thunberg-davos-1.5435091

 

[Rightguide]

Autumn Peltier and Greta Thunberg. They get it. Could teach shills a thing or two.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/autumn-peltier-thunberg-davos-1.5435091

I predict Greta, by age 18, will be a leading luminary of the International Communist Party.

 

[phrodeau]

I predict Greta, by age 18, will be a leading luminary of the International Communist Party.

You had better wait until then before you talk about her butt.

 

[von_Bismarck]

by Ken Haapala


(emphasis added)

“...The measured temperature trend of the atmosphere, as measured by satellite using all data from the launch of the program in December 1978 until the present, is a rise of 1.3ºC per century. What is NOT known is how much of that warming is due to natural causes..."

source...



​

​

Your propaganda site is triggering my firewall alert, fucker.