AAAS experts say: CO2 GCMs wrong
raylopez99
in a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, experts there (principally Karen Bice, researcher at the Woods
Hole Oceanograpic Inst) criticised the GCMs existing today for not
being able to predict paleo-climate based on historical CO2 levels that
existed then.
In layman's terms: today's computer models cannot even get the past
right, so how can we expect them to predict the future?
The models were consistently biased towards underestimating
temperatures in paleo-climate, based on proxy data of ocean
temperatures provided, such as from oxygen-isotope ratios of fossilised
foraminifera. In fact, the temperature of seas during the Cretaceous
period were 38C (!), nearly 100F, as opposed to the 28C found today.
Likewise the PETM (Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) was much hotter
in fact than predicted by the models.
Put that into your green pipe and smoke it you eco-nuts.
RL
d...@dan.com
"The climate models underestimate temperatures and the amount of warming
that would accompany an increase in CO2 of more than 1,000 ppm above today's
level." Bice said.
... (some text snipped for brevity, not to change the meaning as loopy does)
Alternatively, the models used to predict future climate may be missing a
critical factor that amplifies heating, Bice said. During past warm periods,
oceans and wetlands may have released much more methane gas to the
atmosphere. Methane traps heat 10 times more effectively than carbon
dioxide.
However, extraordinarily high concentrations of methane in the model still
fail to produce the tropical Atlantic and Arctic Ocean temperatures inferred
for 91 million years ago. This supports the idea that the model's response
to increased greenhouse gas concentrations underestimates the actual climate
system's response.
************************************************************************
So what it's saying is that the models underestimate the warming from GHGs.
This is not good news.
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141205254.5...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
>As reported in the February 25, 2006 issue of The Economist magazine,
>in a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
>Science, experts there (principally Karen Bice, researcher at the Woods
>Hole Oceanograpic Inst) criticised the GCMs existing today for not
>being able to predict paleo-climate based on historical CO2 levels that
>existed then.
I'm not sure why the economist magazine should be relied upon for
anything of this sort. But there it is, I suppose.
I have already brought up here, a week ago perhaps, the idea that a
focus on using knowledge of tens of millions of years ago climate
might seriously help box in the range of valid values for CO2
sensitivity. (I don't claim any new insight, as I'm sure I'm probably
about the 100,000th person to suggest the idea. It's just that I'm
coming around to it.) I think there is a lot of focus on straight
line approximations, but where near-term comparisons may not be all
that useful in discerning one model from another. Current models
appear to be all over the place in the efficiency of heat/ocean, CO2
sensitivity, precipitation, etc., while all apparently producing
similar temperature profiles. This makes me not really like the
current situation much.
However, there isn't all that much good information when you go back
that far. As others pointed out here, the very geography was quite
different, oceans smaller or larger, in different places, etc. Proxies
are tedious and hard to come by, have wider ranges of possible
interpretations, are focused on narrow regions of imprecise latitude,
and so on. So while it would be nice to have more information from
many tens of millions of years ago, the fact seems to be that it's
going to be a slow process of gradual refinements.
Meanwhile, there are some interesting activities going on to help
bound the probability distributions where expert knowledge of them is
weak or could use improvement. Forest, Stone, and Sokolov have just
put out one paper a few months ago refining on earlier work by the
same team plus Allen and Webster, circa 2001. Also, there is
Andronova and Schlesinger's (those two seem to have been working
together a ... long time) in 2001 or so. Gregory et al., in 2002, and
Knutti et al., in 2003, also. These are all interesting to me.
>In layman's terms: today's computer models cannot even get the past
>right, so how can we expect them to predict the future?
Well, I think the point is really that they do a pretty darned good
job in the short term. So they can be used effectively in getting a
general idea about the various forcings and their relative priorities
as they exist now. One doesn't need them to predict the situation 50
or a 100 million years ago with little to go on, where discrepancies
can multiply out of hand.
>The models were consistently biased towards underestimating
>temperatures in paleo-climate, based on proxy data of ocean
>temperatures provided, such as from oxygen-isotope ratios of fossilised
>foraminifera. In fact, the temperature of seas during the Cretaceous
>period were 38C (!), nearly 100F, as opposed to the 28C found today.
>Likewise the PETM (Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) was much hotter
>in fact than predicted by the models.
Yes, that's about what I'd read from another paper that was mentioned
by H.E. Taylor here. But it is just one example and there are many,
many ranges of possible interpretations, depending on assumptions you
make. The proxies were taken from locations with unknown latitudes at
the time and need more data collection to help quantify the bounds
better, I believe.
>Put that into your green pipe and smoke it you eco-nuts.
But if all this is true, it only means that the current models'
sensitivity outputs for CO2 are probably too low and that would mean
they should be revised so their CO2 sensitivities work out higher. But
then, that would probably mean things are graver than they might
otherwise look. I'm not particularly going to enjoy seeing 40C+ SSTs
occurring sooner still as a normal situation.
Jon
H2-PV NOW
"Disinterested Observers" can be dug up to say anything you want them
to say. For instance, Google.com is a search engine, a robot, which is
about as disinterested as you will ever find. Here's what Google.com
has to say about Ray Lopez...
http://snipurl.com/mpl2
Results about 49,700 for Ray Lopez Arrested for Child Molesting.
http://snipurl.com/mpl6
Results about 10,400 for Ray Lopez Admits Guilt in Court for Child
Molesting.
http://snipurl.com/mplc
Results about 37,100 for Ray Lopez agent for Al Qaeda in 9/11 Attacks.
http://snipurl.com/mpld
Results about 169 for Ray Lopez Weds Whitehouse Homo Hooker Jeff
Gannon.
http://snipurl.com/mplf
Results about 69 for Jeff Gannon Turns Out Ray Lopez as Homo
Streetwalker.
http://snipurl.com/mplg
Results about 501 for Oil Industry Buys Tawdry Ray Lopez as Executive
Sex Toy.
http://snipurl.com/mpli
Results about 277 for Exxon Execs Drills Ray Lopez's Back Slope.
http://snipurl.com/mpll
Ray Lopez oilfield nickname: I feel a gusher coming.
The Story of Jeff Gannon, White House Credentialed Press Corps:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html
Notice YOU MUST BE OVER 21 and REPUBLICAN to view this dirty picture of
a Whitehouse "Excort" in the nude.
XXX over 21! http://americablog.blogspot.com/bdnud.jpg
UNDERNEWS: ALL JEFF GANNON ALL THE TIME
One White House reporter expressed revulsion over the fact that it was
[Ari] ... AND GEORGE ARCHIBALD WASHINGTON TIMES, 1989: A
homosexual prostitution ring ...
http://prorev.com/2005/02/all-jeff-gannon-all-time.htm
The Washington Note: Comment on The White House's "Don't Ask, Don ...
Does anything happen in this White House without Rove's approval? ...
Let's see, a male prostitute gained access to the WH under an assumed
name. ...
www.thewashingtonnote.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=319
The Washington Note Archives
If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House
... hope that a tawdry tale involving homosexual prostitution will
shock the
nation into ...
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000319.html
http://tinyurl.com/dwh6a
Results about 47,900 for Whitehouse homosexual prostitutes "Washington
Times".
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>As reported in the February 25, 2006 issue of The Economist magazine,
Hardly a scientific journal.
>in a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
>Science, experts there (principally Karen Bice, researcher at the Woods
>Hole Oceanograpic Inst) criticised the GCMs existing today for not
>being able to predict paleo-climate based on historical CO2 levels that
>existed then.
But here's the kicker:
"Bice concludes that climate models predict too little warming as carbon
dioxide skyrockets"
So that totally shoots down your argument.
raylopez99
missive. Simpleton dan, as usual, jumped the gun, as did Lloyd Parker.
H2-PV-whatever attacked the messenger, not the message (note to idiot
H2-PV-whatever--Ray Lopez is also an infamous Spanish speaking serial
killer).
The point being that the GCMs are 'tuned' to the present, and as such
are not really climate models that obey universal laws, like Newton's
laws or Maxwell's equations (which, as an aside, amazingly work both in
the Newtonian universe and Einsteinian universe). Instead, the GCMs
are like the curve-fitting package that comes with the program "MATLAB"
which 'fits' a series of points onto an n-th order polynomial. As
such, the 'predictive' aspect of such curve fitting is suspect
(changing the order of the polynomial can make it 'predict' up or down
in the future); likewise, it is akin to reading past stock price data
to predict the future (climate, like stock prices, is a non-linear
function) as anybody who has 'read' a stock chart of the past and
attempted to invest for the future has ruefully found out.
Sorry if I lost you in that last paragraph Lloyd and dan--it was meant
for thinking adults, not for you kids.
RL
Steve Schulin
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
There you go with that language of exaggeration again. Why should one
share your apparent assumption that Bice et al's CO2-temperature curve
is accurate. If there have been a hundred attempts prior to theirs, what
makes #101 so credible? I look forward to reading the paper. In the
meantime, the article cited by Ray about the AAAS panel seems reasonable
enough when it posits the possible eventuality: "if the
palaeo-temperature estimates turn out to be wrong", and concludes that
"On balance, it is probably too early to tell."
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
The Economist (London), 378(8466):90, Feb 25, 2006
Science and Technology: A blast from the past; Climate change
ST LOUIS, MISSOURI - This year's meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science included sessions on climatology, dinosaurs,
longevity and alien life
SCOTT WING, a palaeo-climatologist at the Smithsonian Institution in
Washington, is passionate about the alligators and palm trees he sees
dotting the badlands of Wyoming. That vision will surely please many
residents of the state, who are even now enduring the bitter cold of
winter. It will also strike them as odd, for their frigid mountains are
hardly a hospitable home for such denizens of the tropics.
The 'gators and palms that Dr Wing invokes do not, however, live in
today's icy Wyoming--and contemplating them does not bring him joy. In
fact, they inhabited the area some 55m years ago, during what is known
as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).
Dr Wing was one of a panel of experts on emissions of ancient greenhouse
gases that gathered at the American Association for the Advancement of
Science's annual meeting in St Louis last week to share the latest
findings on the PETM and other historical warm periods. The reason he is
not happy has to do with the most striking thing to emerge from that
session: evidence from palaeo-climatology which suggests that today's
computer models of climate change could be flawed in ways that
dramatically understate the magnitude of future changes.
During the PETM, the Earth's atmosphere heated up, turning Wyoming--and
perhaps even the Arctic--rather balmy. Researchers have known for
several years that this warm period led to dramatic migrations of
animals toward the poles. This, for example, was what probably permitted
the ancestors of horses to come into North America for the first time
via a land bridge from Asia. Dr Wing presented fossil evidence from
Wyoming proving that several plants, too, had made this migration.
Other panellists also presented fossil data, drawn from various sites
around the world, confirming details of other past episodes of warming.
The main body of this evidence is changes in the chemical properties of
the fossilised remains of ancient organisms. Foraminifera are a
ubiquitous group of single-celled sea creatures that leave chalky
skeletons behind when they die. Shifts in the relative proportions of
the light and heavy isotopes of oxygen in these skeletons reflect the
temperature at the time that those skeletons formed.
For example, Karen Bice, a researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, and her team studied samples of foraminifera obtained by
drilling off the coast of Suriname. She confirmed the warming of
tropical waters during the Cretaceous period some 84m-100m years ago. At
that time temperatures rose to 38 degrees C, compared with 26 degrees C
to 28 degrees C today. Meanwhile, another isotopic ratio, that between
the light and heavy forms of carbon in organic matter derived from
marine algae, reflects the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
when the algae were alive. Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas,
which traps heat in the lower atmosphere and thus keeps the climate
warm, carbon-dioxide levels (as measured by carbon-isotope ratios)
should be correlated with the palaeo-temperature (as measured by
oxygen-isotope ratios). They are.
The drama came when several researchers, including Dr Bice, tried to
draw a link between such palaeo-results and the computer models that
have been developed to study the modern climate. The snag is that
today's climate models, when fed conditions resembling ancient periods,
do not produce nearly enough warming to match the levels implied by the
fossil record. Dr Bice says it may be that the climate models are not
sensitive enough to carbon dioxide, and so come up with temperatures
that are too low. Mark Chandler, of Columbia University, who also
presented research to the meeting, shares her worry that this indicates
these models may also be producing forecasts of future warming that are
much too low.
That does not necessarily mean it is time to panic. The models could be
right after all, if the palaeo-temperature estimates turn out to be
wrong (though the fact that multiple approaches undertaken by rival
palaeo-climatologists at different sites generally agree suggests that
they are not far off). Another explanation is that atmospheric
concentrations of methane, a much more powerful greenhouse gas than
carbon dioxide, were far higher than currently thought (though analysis
by Dr Bice suggests that methane levels would need to have been an
unrealistic 30 times higher than today's levels to explain the
palaeo-temperature record).
On balance, it is probably too early to tell. But that is hardly
reassuring. As Dr Wing puts it: "This is probably the single scariest
result of deep-time palaeo-climate work. The models we use to predict
the future have been shown to be conservative, and we don't know why."
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>JK--thanks a lot, of all the posters you alone got the point of my
>missive. Simpleton dan, as usual, jumped the gun, as did Lloyd Parker.
> H2-PV-whatever attacked the messenger, not the message (note to idiot
>H2-PV-whatever--Ray Lopez is also an infamous Spanish speaking serial
>killer).
I quoted from the actual source you cited. It appears you stop reading your
sources as soon as they say something you don't like. It's like a red light,
sending you into catanoia.
Lloyd Parker
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <du4d9i$817$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
> lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>> In article <1141205254.5...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
>> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >As reported in the February 25, 2006 issue of The Economist magazine,
>>
>> Hardly a scientific journal.
>>
>> >in a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
>> >Science, experts there (principally Karen Bice, researcher at the Woods
>> >Hole Oceanograpic Inst) criticised the GCMs existing today for not
>> >being able to predict paleo-climate based on historical CO2 levels that
>> >existed then.
>>
>> But here's the kicker:
>>
>> "Bice concludes that climate models predict too little warming as carbon
>> dioxide skyrockets"
>>
>> So that totally shoots down your argument.
>
>There you go with that language of exaggeration again. Why should one
>share your apparent assumption that Bice et al's CO2-temperature curve
>is accurate.
Hey, you cited her! Now you're saying your own reference is wrong?
Scott Nudds
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> As reported in the February 25, 2006 issue of The Economist magazine,
> in a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
> Science, experts there (principally Karen Bice, researcher at the Woods
> Hole Oceanograpic Inst) criticised the GCMs existing today for not
> being able to predict paleo-climate based on historical CO2 levels that
> existed then.
>
> In layman's terms: today's computer models cannot even get the past
> right, so how can we expect them to predict the future?
Posted: February 28, 2006
Scientists Confirm Historic Massive Flood In Climate Change
Scientists from NASA and Columbia University, New York, have used
computer
modeling to successfully reproduce an abrupt climate change that took
place 8,200 years ago. At that time, the beginning of the current warm
period, climate changes were caused by a massive flood of freshwater
into
the North Atlantic Ocean.
Circulation patterns in the North Atlantic Ocean. Cold, dense water is
shown in blue, flowing south from upper latitudes, while warm, less
dense
water flows north. (Credit: Jack Cook for Ocean and Climate Change
Institute, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)
Scott Nudds
> are not really climate models that obey universal laws, like Newton's
> laws or Maxwell's equations (which, as an aside, amazingly work both in
> the Newtonian universe and Einsteinian universe). Instead, the GCMs
> are like the curve-fitting package that comes with the program "MATLAB"
> which 'fits' a series of points onto an n-th order polynomial.
Posted: February 28, 2006
Steve Schulin
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> > lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> >> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >As reported in the February 25, 2006 issue of The Economist magazine,
> >>
> >> Hardly a scientific journal.
> >>
> >> >in a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
> >> >Science, experts there (principally Karen Bice, researcher at the Woods
> >> >Hole Oceanograpic Inst) criticised the GCMs existing today for not
> >> >being able to predict paleo-climate based on historical CO2 levels that
> >> >existed then.
> >>
> >> But here's the kicker:
> >>
> >> "Bice concludes that climate models predict too little warming as carbon
> >> dioxide skyrockets"
> >>
> >> So that totally shoots down your argument.
> >
> >There you go with that language of exaggeration again. Why should one
> >share your apparent assumption that Bice et al's CO2-temperature curve
> >is accurate.
>
> Hey, you cited her! Now you're saying your own reference is wrong?
I don't recall citing her. And if I said I knew she was wrong in this
case, then I'd be an exaggerator on par with you.
Steve Schulin
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Gee whiz Lloyd. Your quote was not from the source Ray cited. Ray cited
a news story in The Economist. Your quote was from a news story in
Science.
raylopez99
Lloyd Parker wrote: {NONSENSE DELETED}
Lloyd, poor boy, you should know better than to debate Steve, who has a
job, unlike you, and brains too, unlike political hack you.
I almost feel sorry for you AGW cultists except for the fact the fate
of the world lies in avoiding your calamitous remedies of "roll over
and die".
RL
Lloyd Parker
Which he said the Economist referenced as their source.
Scott Nudds
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Nothing but stupidity >
Meanwhile, back in the real world.
Antarctic ice sheet in 'significant decline': study Thu Mar 2, 2:10 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Antarctica's mammoth ice sheet, which holds 90 percent of
the
Earth's ice, is showing "significant decline" as world temperatures heat up,
according to a new study released.
As Earth's fifth largest continent, Antarctica is twice the size of
Australia
and contains 70 percent of Earth's fresh water resources. British research
suggests the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet alone would raise
global
sea levels by over 20 feet (six meters).
And now a team of US researchers at the University of Boulder in Colorado
say
they have discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing up to 36 cubic
miles
(152 cubic kilometers) of ice annually.
The estimated ice mass in Antarctica is the same as 0.4 millimeters of
global
sea rise annually, with a margin of error of 0.2 millimeters, according to
the
study. There are about 25 millimeters to one inch.
The study, however, appears to contradict the 2001 assessment by the
UN-mandated
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which forecast that the Antarctic
ice
shelf would actually gain mass in the 21st Century due to higher
precipitation
in a warming climate.
Using specialized data from two
NASA satellites orbiting Earth in tandem, the Boulder researchers determined
the
Antarctic ice sheet has lost significant mass in recent years.
"This is the first study to indicate the total mass balance of the Antarctic
ice
sheet is in significant decline," said Isabella Velicogna, of the
university's
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.
The bulk of the loss is occurring in the West Antarctic ice sheet, according
to
Velicogna.
"The changes we are seeing are probably a good indicator of the changing
climatic conditions there," she said.
The continent's ice sheet has an average thickness of about 6,500 feet
(1,981
meters).
The study appears in the online issue of Science Express.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information
contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten
or
redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Steve Schulin
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> In article <steve.schulin-A4B...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> > lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> >> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >JK--thanks a lot, of all the posters you alone got the point of my
> >> >missive. Simpleton dan, as usual, jumped the gun, as did Lloyd Parker.
> >> >...
> >>
> >> I quoted from the actual source you cited. It appears you stop reading
> >> your sources as soon as they say something you don't like.
> >> It's like a red light, sending you into catanoia.
> >
> >Gee whiz Lloyd. Your quote was not from the source Ray cited. Ray cited
> >a news story in The Economist. Your quote was from a news story in
> >Science.
> >
>
> Which he said the Economist referenced as their source.
I respectfully disagree. The Economist piece, he accurately said, was
based on panel at AAAS conference. That the AAAS journal Science also
subsequently ran an article about the panel is quite a different matter.
Lloyd Parker
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <du7ic8$ok6$2...@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
> lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>> In article <steve.schulin-A4B...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> > lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>> >> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >JK--thanks a lot, of all the posters you alone got the point of my
>> >> >missive. Simpleton dan, as usual, jumped the gun, as did Lloyd Parker.
>> >> >...
>> >>
>> >> I quoted from the actual source you cited. It appears you stop reading
>> >> your sources as soon as they say something you don't like.
>> >> It's like a red light, sending you into catanoia.
>> >
>> >Gee whiz Lloyd. Your quote was not from the source Ray cited. Ray cited
>> >a news story in The Economist. Your quote was from a news story in
>> >Science.
>> >
>>
>> Which he said the Economist referenced as their source.
>
>I respectfully disagree. The Economist piece, he accurately said, was
>based on panel at AAAS conference. That the AAAS journal Science also
>subsequently ran an article about the panel is quite a different matter.
>
>> >Very truly,
>> >
>> >Steve Schulin
>> >http://www.nuclear.com
Perhaps you're upset because this panelist published her work, unlike the one
you keep mentioning.
Steve Schulin
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Gee whiz, Lloyd. Can't you get _anything_ right?
Best wishes,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com