Global Warming but not really

This is just something i'm interested in.



ah the video is these two dudes talking -- Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.


TMan

a reply to: TGunner

I'd be interested to see what Phage has to say about this. I leaned you can't trust anyone in this game. Everyone lies. Except according to this, the Russians?

Does this guy know anything?

The only thing for sure in the climate change agenda is anyone who wants to throw money at the “problem” is a lying POS.

a reply to: TGunner

I was under the impression that it is galactic warming of planets with an atmosphere.

originally posted by: TGunner
This is just something i'm interested in.

ah the video is these two dudes talking -- Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.

Very little detail you provided on exactly what they are talking about.

For those who can't watch the video, Dr Michaels says more or less what's in the title of this ATS thread from June 2019:

Climate Change: Only the Russian model, designated INM-CM4, gets things right!

Essentially Michaels says of the 32 climate models, 31 of them have made wrong predictions and the Russian model is the only one that seems to make accurate predictions, which have been for less warming than predicted by the other models. He also discusses some specifics he thinks might be wrong with the 31 models dealing with different temperatures at different altitudes.

Another problem he alludes to is some people apparently think the warming in the early part of the 20th century might have been related to human made increase in CO2 levels, but he thinks that CO2 increase during that time was far too small to have much effect on climate. Obviously, the much larger human added CO2 in the latter part of the 20th century caused some climate warming , so humans are probably responsible for perhaps half of the 0.9 degree temperature increase in the last century. He's not sure what caused the other half of the 0.9 degree increase in the early 20th century, but he thinks it wasn't the result of human activity.

Why the other 31 models are wrong...he's a little wishy-washy. He says it's because of parameterization, which he "translates" as sort of "fudging", but then the host replies so the models are 'Fudged", and he hesitates and says they are parameterized, so he doesn't really stick to the "fudged" translation of parameterization, but he obviously has some concerns about the 31 models that are getting the predictions wrong and says it's probably because some of the parameters in the models aren't right.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Essentially Michaels says of the 32 climate models, 31 of them have made wrong predictions and the Russian model is the only one that seems to make accurate predictions, which have been for less warming than predicted by the other models.

There are more than 32 models (far more when various emission scenarios are considered) and they are, in general, holding their own. And 2019 is shaping up to be another warm one.

www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk...


I don't think Michaels can be relied upon as an accurate source of information.
skepticalscience.com...
thinkprogress.org...

originally posted by: Phage
I don't think Michaels can be relied upon as an accurate source of information.
skepticalscience.com...

I agree about Michaels, since he has obvious bias from his oil and coal industry funding, but I think the skepticalscience link is biased in the opposite direction so I don't rely on all the claims at that site either.

I tried to figure out what Michaels is talking about, and apparently he was not the source of the study which found many models were overestimating the warming, he was just making references to the studies done by others as far as I can tell.

In trying to make sense of the apparently conflicting information, it looks like the studies saying most climate models are wrong may be focusing on certain limited aspects of the predictions made by the models, which Michaels actually does mention some specifics about that in the interview video.

John Christy is apparently one of the sources saying most models are over-predicting temperatures. This article provides some details:

cei.org...

In 2018, Christy and economist Ross McKitrick set out to test the accuracy of climate models. They examined model projections in the atmosphere between 30,000 and 40,000 feet, in the tropics from 20°N to 20°S. The atmosphere warms fastest in that portion of the atmosphere in almost all models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...

In 102 model runs, the average warming in the “hot spot” portion of the tropical atmosphere is 0.44°C per decade, or 2°C during 1979-2017. “However, the real-world warming is much lower; around one third of the model average,” Christy reports.

This graph shows a data set perhaps similar to the type of data Michaels referred to showing too much warming in the models, though I suspect though it is probably not exactly the same data.

Christy sums up the test results:

You can also easily see the difference in warming rates: the models are warming too fast. The exception is the Russian model, which has much lower sensitivity to carbon dioxide, and therefore gives projections for the end of the century that are far from alarming. The rest of them are already falsified, and their predictions for 2100 can’t be trusted.

So there's the data set saying the Russian model is more accurate, when the models focus on the “hot spot” portion of the tropical atmosphere, which is not an apples to apples comparison with other reviews of the models which may overlook this type of error, which may possibly be countered by some other error in the models in the opposite direction that makes the overall model more compatible with overall observations. at least that's my effort so far to try to make sense of the apparently contradictory claims, which it turns out may not be that contradictory unless someone has debunked the data in the graph above.

a reply to: TGunner

here's a text article, citing the real, accepted, approval theory that File 13's all the propaganda on warming & climate change fluff put out by propagandists on the left, the Earth-is-Doomed crowd, AOC et al, with their sham




halturnerradioshow.com... tilt-not-man-made-causes


TITLE: NASA: "Climate Change" and Global Warming caused by Changes in Earth's Solar Orbit and Axial Tilt - NOT MAN-MADE CAUSES
---> 08 August 2019

Everything you have been told about "Climate Change" and man-made "Global Warning" has been a deliberate LIE, perpetrated by people who stood to make Billions by duping the public, and NASA has known about this since 1958 - but let the LIE propagate nonetheless.

The reason why i resettled further South of my boyhood homes in Michigan and Pennsylvania was because for a decade i learned in school & in publications that the Earth was due to Cool & enter a mini Ice Age in my lifetime...but after the late 1960s all the weather forecasts were reversed from every source imaginable...

a reply to: St Udio
Here's my interpretation of that article in an analogy:

If your car is rolling down a hill and you're using the brakes to keep it from going too fast, you can make it go faster if you stop pressing the brake pedal, but not by pressing the gas pedal.

Yes that sounds stupid and that's how I see the article. Yes releasing the brake pedal works, nobody doubts that, but that doesn't falsify in any way that you can still push on the gas pedal and that works to speed up the car too.

Likewise the Milankovich cycles work to explain a lot of climate variation , so that's like the car speeding up down the hill when you stop pressing the brake. Nobody doubts either one.

But the Milankovich cycles don't explain everything, so there are some changes in climate not explained by those cycles, some of which had nothing to do with man, like periods of intense volcanic activity, so that's like pressing the gas pedal in the analogy, there are other things besides the brake pedal which affect the cars speed and other things can affect climate besides Milankovich cycles.

Even the climate change skeptic in the OP video doesn't doubt man has increased CO2 and that it is affecting the climate. He has been called a "lukewarmist", saying man is warming the planet with CO2, but not as much as some alarmists predict.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

There is no contradiction. Christy is simply cherry picking. Note what his chart shows. Temperatures in the tropics at altitudes from 30,000 to 40,000 feet rather than global temperatures at the surface. He is using that to claim that the models are fundamentally unreliable.

It is correct though that mid tropospheric temperatures seem to be rising at rate lower than predicted by most models. Which is a good reason to try to understand why that is. A 2017 study concludes that it is probably a combination of internal variability and assumptions used about future forcing influences (aerosol level, CO2 emissions, etc.) employed by the models. centaur.reading.ac.uk...

While short term internal variability (El Nino, PDO, etc.) and forcing influences are problematic in modeling, the newest model set (CMIP6) will update its future forcing datasets. But some things are just not very predictable; volcanic activity, human aerosol production, even the rate of CO2 emissions. The problem is, these factors are crucial to the models. So it is a matter of refining assumptions. www.wcrp-climate.org...

And, speaking of updating models. Christy was referring to the Russian INM-CM4 model. There is now INM-CM5, which as yet has not produced any projections as far as I can tell, but the surface "hindcast" does match surface data (where people live) fairly well. The heavy black line is surface data (HadCRUT4), the heavy red line the mean of the various model runs.



Version 5 seems to be an improvement over 4.

Numerical experiments with the previous model version (INMCM4) for CMIP5 showed unrealistic gradual warming in 1950–2014. The difference between the two model results could be explained by more accurate modeling of the stratospheric volcanic and tropospheric anthropogenic aerosol radiation effect (stabilization in 1950–1970) due to the new aerosol block in INM-CM5 and more accurate prescription of the TSI scenario (stabilization in 2000–2014) in the CMIP6 protocol.

www.earth-syst-dynam.net...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

darn..... You fit the category of being an Absolutist… the 'Milankovich cycles' are only the beginning framework

add in as many other factors your model requires... you know, like the dozens of recently discovered heat vents under water which pump tonnes of methane into the atmosphere annually (pockets of heat in lower atmosphere)

OR Else... back-end the 'Milankovich cycles' factors into the climate models being erroneously used by biased academics for the sole purpose of trying to sound 'on-top-of-It'

that car that's rolling, is it actually slumping into a Gravity Well ?

a reply to: St Udio

like the dozens of recently discovered heat vents under water which pump tonnes of methane into the atmosphere annually (pockets of heat in lower atmosphere)

Are these vents a new phenomenon, or have they been occurring for a long, long time? Do you think that methane just sits there if it reaches the lower atmosphere? Wind doesn't move it around? It doesn't mix with other gasses? "Tonnes" isn't really much when you're talking about the atmosphere though. I'd be worried more about the methane released by gas and oil companies, millions of tons in the US, and something we could maybe do something about.

back-end the 'Milankovich cycles' factors into the climate models being

The Milancovitch cycles are in the models, actually, but in periods as short as a few centuries they don't have much influence. The Milankovitch cycle say that things should be cooling down right now, just a tiny bit but it should be cooling, not warming.
biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu...

the idea of warming should instead be the idea of the atmosphere undergoing strange & volatile, unnatural changes...

about the only thing the same is weather patterns generally going west-to-east



here's my added info/contributions to the ideas being ping-ponged back & forth:

(snip from 'comments section' of the Milankovich Model theory article)

Matthew DeGumbia · 20 hours ago

Couple this work with that of Dr. Valentina Zarkova on the Solar Dynamo: electroverse.net... with that of the work on planetary gravitational effects on sunspots: phys.org... and one has a pretty good picure of what's going on. Add to that the fact the the solar minimum will lead to a cooling of the Earth, already seen in the Thermosphere being at record low and the decreased magnetic coupling of the Sun and Earth due to reduced solar output and a decline in the Earth's magnetic field leading to incresed cosmic ray penetration and increased cloudiness and cooling: www.thegwpf.com... and the increased earthquake activity and volcanoes spewing eruptions into the stratosphere leads one to a very dismal view of the future of planet Earth for the next period of time. Interesting times ahead.

Also his link/article: shepherdsheart.life...

“In a Grand Solar Minimum, cosmic ray added cloud layers trigger larger flash floods, hailstorms and due to jet stream disturbances with mixing of atmospheric layers, local long duration precipitation events (atmospheric compression events) resulting in the ‘once in a 200 year flood’ you are seeing planet wide in 2019”. David DuByne
However, somewhat counter intuitively, during Grand Solar Minima, cooler phases are historically prone to drought as jet streams move to new locations with singular heat waves and wild fires due to the ‘Equatorial Vortex’ pulling hot air from equatorial bands to northern latitudes. The slow oscillating and rhythmic weather patterns and usurped by fragmented and violent patterns throwing our planetary atmosphere and weather into chaos.

It is primarily the climate instabilities and erratic weather, rather than the actual drop in temperature that initially disrupts agriculture and civilization. During the Little Ice Age,...

a reply to: St Udio

the idea of warming should instead be the idea of the atmosphere undergoing strange & volatile, unnatural changes...

It is. The burning of coal and oil which has been buried for millions of years and the resultant increase in CO2 concentrations is quite unnatural.

already seen in the Thermosphere being at record low and the decreased magnetic coupling of the Sun and Earth due to reduced solar output and a decline in the Earth's magnetic field leading to incresed cosmic ray penetration and increased cloudiness and cooling

Cooling? What cooling would that be? Solar activity has been declining for 50 years or so.

In a Grand Solar Minimum, cosmic ray added cloud layers trigger larger flash floods, hailstorms and due to jet stream disturbances with mixing of atmospheric layers, local long duration precipitation events (atmospheric compression events) resulting in the ‘once in a 200 year flood’ you are seeing planet wide in 2019”.

Who is this DuByne guy?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

He's one, i'm finding a few who have some solid information to offer.

a reply to: St Udio

I saw that thanks. I went on a search and I agree with you. They used to talk about it years ago and then changed their tune, and fabricated stuff. This guy here I'm finding has a good source of information, and is well respected in his field.

in this talk a renowned scientist, Piers Corbyn, shares with us his scientific discoveries and no bending corners truth about the fake climate change agenda, the part 5G has to play in it, the coming mini ice age and failurs of crops and shortage of food supply..
facinating and to the point.

Piers's website - weatheraction.com...
Channel site - www.ahava528.com...

originally posted by: Metallicus
The only thing for sure in the climate change agenda is anyone who wants to throw money at the “problem” is a lying POS.

Or that having less children is a solution to climate change is complete wrong as well.