• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Did Climate Predictions of 10-40 Years Ago Pan Out? Spectacularly Wrong.

longview said:
On the most basic parameter the forcing from added CO2,
the models most recently use 3.71 Wm-2 for doubling CO2.
One of the few attempts to measure a change in energy over a change in CO2 levels came out with
a level that would relate to 2.52 Wm-2, much lower.
If the measured number is correct, then all the models would run hot.
Click to expand...

The 3.71 Wm-2 for doubling CO2 is a top of atmosphere measurement. The 2.52 Wm-2 is a surface measurement. The two are not directly comparable. It even says this in the study longview got the second number from.

This has been pointed out too longview several times now.

As far as I am concerned, longview is intentionally lying about this to push his denialist agenda.
 
Stuartbirdman said:
In a new paper in the journal Nature Climate Change, he and colleagues use simplified models that isolate the fundamental dynamics of the tropical Pacific atmosphere-ocean system. These, they say, comport with the cold tongue's actual behavior—and show that it is consistent with rising greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

The last part of the abstract says:

We use the same dynamics to show that the erroneous warming in state-of-the-art models is a consequence of the cold bias of their equatorial cold tongues. The failure of state-of-the-art models to capture the correct response introduces critical error into their projections of climate change in the many regions sensitive to tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures.
​

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0505-x.pdf
 
Buzz said:
The 3.71 Wm-2 for doubling CO2 is a top of atmosphere measurement. The 2.52 Wm-2 is a surface measurement. The two are not directly comparable. It even says this in the study longview got the second number from.

This has been pointed out too longview several times now.

As far as I am concerned, longview is intentionally lying about this to push his denialist agenda.
Click to expand...

I don't think Longview is intentionally lying
 
Lord of Planar said:
The last part of the abstract says:

We use the same dynamics to show that the erroneous warming in state-of-the-art models is a consequence of the cold bias of their equatorial cold tongues. The failure of state-of-the-art models to capture the correct response introduces critical error into their projections of climate change in the many regions sensitive to tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures.
​

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0505-x.pdf
Click to expand...

Why does this matter? Just as changes in SST during El Niño and La Niña events effect climate globally, regional climate change will be impacted by whether the equatorial Pacific cold tongue warms or cools. Regional climate change is influenced by many things with, in terms of hydroclimate, the general warming of the atmosphere tending to make dry subtropical regions drier and wet tropical and mid-latitude regions wetter. However, on top of those changes there will be regional changes driven by changes in cold tongue SSTs. If, contrary to the state-of-the-art models, the cold tongue does not warm in response to rising GHGs, we will expect southwest North America, southeastern South America and East Africa to evolve drier than projected by those models and the Sahel and northern South America to evolve wetter than projected. As such, climate impact assessments in these and other regions of the world sensitive to equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures should not assume that the projections of state-of-the-art models are correct and should instead consider the consequences for regional climate of continued cool temperatures in the cold tongue. The work highlights the urgent need to improve how well state-of-the-art models simulate the tropical Pacific so that the next generation of models can more reliably simulate how it responds to rising GHGs and how that impacts climate change worldwide.

NCC paper
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
The last part of the abstract says:

We use the same dynamics to show that the erroneous warming in state-of-the-art models is a consequence of the cold bias of their equatorial cold tongues. The failure of state-of-the-art models to capture the correct response introduces critical error into their projections of climate change in the many regions sensitive to tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures.
​

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0505-x.pdf
Click to expand...

Will anthropogenic climate change cause the West to get drier or wetter?
Global average precipitation increases with global warming induced by rising greenhouse gases. This occurs because increased infrared radiation from the atmosphere to the surface has to be balanced by increased surface heat loss, which occurs primarily by increased evaporation. For the global average increased evaporation must be balanced by increased precipitation. However, regionally, precipitation can be reduced as a consequence of greenhouse climate change. This occurs because rising atmospheric humidity causes the atmospheric hydrological cycle to intensify, increasing water vapor transports and making wet areas wetter and dry areas drier. This mechanism has been discussed by Held and Soden (J. Climate 2006). Further a poleward expansion of the Hadley Cell and a poleward shift of the mid-latitude storm tracks expands the subtropical dry zones poleward. These processes cause the subtropics in general to dry and expand poleward as a consequence of global warming. Southwestern North America is one region projected to dry, beginning now (see An imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America).

Drought Research at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in Palisades, New York

Persistent drought in North America:
a climate modeling and paleoclimate perspective
Richard Seager
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
 
Last edited:
Stuartbirdman said:
I don't think Longview is intentionally lying
Click to expand...

O.K... so tell me what you think. Is he just ignorant or mistaken or what? Or is it a legitimate argument to directly compare the top of atmosphere measurements with surface measurements?

Keep in mind that I have been debating longview for almost 5 years and have shown him to be wrong about numerous things many many times. You haven't even been here a month yet.
 
Stuartbirdman said:
Will anthropogenic climate change cause the West to get drier or wetter?
Click to expand...

The paper addresses that, but I forget how that played out. Their modelling had some regions getting wetter and some drier. I forget which was which.
 
Stuartbirdman said:
As with previous surveys, most questions were designed on a seven point rating scale. A set
of statements was presented to which the respondent was asked to indicate his or her level of
agreement or disagreement, for example, 1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree. The value
of 4 can be considered as an expression of ambivalence or impartiality or, depending on the
nature of the question posed, for example, in a question posed as a subjective rating such as
"How much do you think climate scientists are aware of the information that policy makers
incorporate into their decision making process?", a value of 4 is no longer a measure of
ambivalence, but rather a metric. Questions were pretested and revised accordingly.
Click to expand...
He still did not attach percentages to his findings, that was implied by the article author.
Anyway the bottom line is that when people talk about the "consensus" it means different things to different people,
they paint it's meaning with their own bias.
To many, if someone agrees for example, Bray question2,
"How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes?",
They imply that the person is in complete agreement with the full catastrophic predictions of the IPCC and AGW.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's widely accepted forcing value is 3.71 Wm-2, and if correct would account for more than
half of the observed warming, but that would only mean that doubling the CO2 levels would cause 1.1C of total warming.
Simply believing that CO2 has and will cause some minor warming, does not mean you agree that the warming would be catastrophic.
 
Stuartbirdman said:
Quote Originally Posted by Stuartbirdman View Post
Does my link contradict your pdf?

No,
Click to expand...
How about we qualify the "No" a bit?
The article author discussed 4 out of 119 questions in the survey.
do you think those 4 questions captured the texture of the full 119 questions,
or simply the points the author wished to discuss?
 
Buzz said:
The 3.71 Wm-2 for doubling CO2 is a top of atmosphere measurement. The 2.52 Wm-2 is a surface measurement. The two are not directly comparable. It even says this in the study longview got the second number from.

This has been pointed out too longview several times now.

As far as I am concerned, longview is intentionally lying about this to push his denialist agenda.
Click to expand...
Actually the 3.71 Wm-2 is for the top of the troposphere.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1997_Hansen_ha01900k.pdf
Hansen1997TOA.jpg
Notice that Hansen shows the 2XCO2 top of atmosphere as 2.62 Wm-2 forcing!
The larger number 4.75 Wm-2 has since come down to 3.71 Wm-2.
What is important is that the forced energy imbalance must be accounted for everywhere,
or it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.
The measured value of Feldman at the surface (2.52 Wm-2) is much closer in line with
Hansen's 1997 calculated top of atmosphere number of 2.62 Wm-2.
 
Buzz said:
O.K... so tell me what you think. Is he just ignorant or mistaken or what? Or is it a legitimate argument to directly compare the top of atmosphere measurements with surface measurements?

Keep in mind that I have been debating longview for almost 5 years and have shown him to be wrong about numerous things many many times. You haven't even been here a month yet.
Click to expand...

How do you know Longview is a guy?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier | Nature Communications

There has been more discussion on here about this.
Click to expand...

The magnitude and the variations in the rate of volcanic heat supplied to the Pine Island Glacier, either by internal magma migration8, or by an increase in volcanism as a consequence of ice sheet thinning61, may impact the future dynamics of the Pine Island Glacier, during the contemporary period of climate-driven glacial retreat
 
Stuartbirdman said:
Peter Schwartz, a distinguished fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, is the author of “In Defense of Selfishness: Why the Code of Self-Sacrifice Is Unjust and Destructive” (St. Martin’s Press).
Click to expand...

It’s telling that deniers are reduced to having to use really ****ty spokesmen.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The paper addresses that, but I forget how that played out. Their modelling had some regions getting wetter and some drier. I forget which was which.
Click to expand...

If, contrary to the state-of-the-art models, the cold tongue does not warm in response to rising GHGs, we will expect southwest North America, southeastern South America and East Africa to evolve drier than projected by those models and the Sahel and northern South America to evolve wetter than projected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom