Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

# Simple Pocket Calculator Model Outperforms Complex Climate Models

Share
Flipboard
Print
Email

I don’t know if someone has seen this item on Phys.Org, or not. One of my most strident objections to global warming is the failure of climate models to actually ‘model’ what temperature has done over the last twenty years. Here’s this simple program that gets it right.

As one of the authors put it:

Dr Matt Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “A high-school student with a pocket scientific calculator can now use this remarkable model and obtain credible estimates of global warming simply and quickly, as well as acquiring a better understanding of how climate sensitivity is determined. As a statistician, I know the value of keeping things simple and the dangers in thinking that more complex models are necessarily better. Once people can understand how climate sensitivity is determined, they will realize how little evidence for alarm there is.”

The two graphs are worth the visit.

Then there is this:

The new, simple climate model helps to expose the errors in the complex models the IPCC and governments rely upon. Those errors caused the over-predictions on which concern about Man’s influence on the climate was needlessly built.

Among the errors of the complex climate models that the simple model exposes are the following –
The assumption that “temperature feedbacks” would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.

The Bode system-gain equation models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits, but, when complex models erroneously apply it to the climate on the IPCC’s false assumption of strongly net-amplifying feedbacks, it greatly over-predicts global warming. They are using the wrong equation.

As they say, “Junk In, Junk Out.”

One last quote:

Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 °C but 1 °C or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 °C warming would result.

The crony capitalists must be squirming.

PaV:
I found four of your comments in the “spam” category. Have no idea how they got there. You might consider how you posted, and maybe there was a problem there that you’ll want to avoid going forward.
The reason why my comments end up in spam is because Barry has banned my home IP address. I am able to post from work and also by using my university's VPN. We shall see how long this workaround remains effective. I suspect not too long.skram
February 8, 2015
February
02
Feb
8
08
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
DATCG: None proven due to human-caused Global Warming. So we are in agreement that there have been important climate effects. The primary evidence is the physics of greenhouse warming, the observed warming of the troposphere, the increase in oceanic heat content, and the cooling of the stratosphere.Zachriel
February 5, 2015
February
02
Feb
5
05
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Zachriel said, "There have already been important climate effects." None proven due to human-caused Global Warming. We do not know if there's any correlation due to failure of models and their failed predictions. Certainly none outside of normal climatic cycles from Ice Ages to Global Warm periods of past. To insist important climate "effects" are due to human causes is beyond current science and is more a reflection of a belief system. Zachriel said, "As evidence strongly supports anthropogenic greenhouse warming, projected warming is the concern." We know the concerns. But are those concerns based upon accurate information and models? Models failed. Thus, we know they are not accurate forecast for future trends. Either at collection points or in Modeling. Or both. And if they're not accurate, we cannot trust the "evidence" as presented today through failed models. "Global Warming" was the original meme of "concern." That was the original prediction. Due to these failed models, propaganda style marketing techniques kicked in. It no longer was about objective scientific methodology or getting it right. Politicians and activist changed Global Warming to Climate Change. So we are left with rhetoric and not scientific clarity, but confusion and failure. That is why there is distrust of climatologist, activist and politicians who push Global Warming. Especially when it seeks to move money from developed nations to under developed nations as means of progressive tax credits. This is no longer about science. It becomes wealth redistribution. Through corrupt organizations and leaders that cannot be trusted with local redistribution or held accountable for their actions. In the end, it still remains his models failed and he did not have that qualifier in his original research paper.DATCG
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
skram:
No, as far as we know, QM is not reducible to some classical theory. The EPR paradox and subsequent refinements in the form of Bell’s inequalities and such have demonstrated that QM is quintessentially non-classical.
I'm perfectly familiar with all this stuff. I don't think, however, that you've stated this properly. QM is "quintessentially non-local," and not necessarily "non-classical." The de-Broglie-Bohm theory is classical, AND, "non-local." Also, I wonder if you are aware, skram, that the philosophical school of "positivism" lies at the root of the Copenhagen Interpretation? Einstein moved away from the 'positivism' of his youth, even embracing the "aether." (Don't howl! Just look it up at Wikisource: "The Aether and the Theory of Relativity", 1920) The 'collapse' of the wave-function bothered Einstein, and it's a legitimate concern. I took a class in QM simply to get a handle on this putative "collapse," and was very surprised to find out that it was simply an "axiom." Yes, that's right, another "assumption." Permit me, now, to go back to the "dice" example so that I can push it forward a little bit. Let me point out that if one had a extremely high-speed camera, that instantaneously took notice of its coordinates and that of the incoming light, then you could film the 'roll of the dice' and, with a high-speed computer using the coordinates (including time) of the crap dice in mid-air, you could probably come up with an algorithm that would predict the actual roll while the dice were still in a "superposition," i.e., while in mid-air. Now they're doing something very similar to this with high-speed pulses of light measured in the femtoseconds, or smaller. And when they do this, then they can actually begin to predict "which-way" behavior while not disturbing the entangled state. (I've read these things over the last year-and-a-half or so, so I remember them imperfectly. But they're there for you to look into at your leisure.) This has the possibility of changing our view of QM at a more fundamental level. But, backing away from the "little" picture, the big picture is is that there is more than just a small analogy between fluid flow and QM. And, backing away even more, Monckton's appraisal of "forcing" could easily end up giving climate modelers a better understanding of how the model should be set up. I don't think it's good science to simply dismiss him out of hand. [[BTW, your comments (at least some) are now up]]PaV
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Here is one I saved. PaV:
But that doesn’t mean that within the gamut of QM, CM is not at work, but not fully understood. QM introduces probabiities. Do probabilities exclude CM? Now, is the rolling of dice something that falls outside of CM?
No, as far as we know, QM is not reducible to some classical theory. The EPR paradox and subsequent refinements in the form of Bell's inequalities and such have demonstrated that QM is quintessentially non-classical. You might want to read David Mermin's article "Is the moon there when nobody looks?" that explains in simple terms the strange outcomes of quantum measurements for entangled states. The results of such measurements violate the very basic notions of classical locality. The paper is not very long and pedagogically written. Mermin is an excellent teacher and something of a philosopher.skram
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Ask Barry, I am sure he knows.skram
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
skram: I found four of your comments in the "spam" category. Have no idea how they got there. You might consider how you posted, and maybe there was a problem there that you'll want to avoid going forward. Those comments should have already appeared, and they haven't; so, I don't know what to do next exactly. We'll see.PaV
February 4, 2015
February
02
Feb
4
04
2015
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
PaV:
But that doesn’t mean that within the gamut of QM, CM is not at work, but not fully understood. QM introduces probabiities. Do probabilities exclude CM? Now, is the rolling of dice something that falls outside of CM?
No, as far as we know, QM is not reducible to some classical theory. The EPR paradox and subsequent refinements in the form of Bell's inequalities and such have demonstrated that QM is quintessentially non-classical. You might want to read David Mermin's article "Is the moon there when nobody looks?" that explains in simple terms the strange outcomes of quantum measurements for entangled states. The results of such measurements violate the very basic notions of classical locality. The paper is not very long and pedagogically written. Mermin is an excellent teacher and something of a philosopher.skram
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
PaV, My comments seem to be in moderation, on and off. I may or may not be able to reply.skram
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
skram: A little bit more:
That is the trajectory actually followed by the particle. At the quantum level, theoretically all trajectories must be taken into account; in practice, one can keep those trajectories whose action deviates from the optimal value by no more than one quantum of action (Planck’s constant hbar).
This is simply Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle that you're invoking. But QM operates at a level 'above' the UP. Below this level, yes, we're left to guess. There's no way of probing it--as of now (who knows what discoveries await). But that doesn't mean that within the gamut of QM, CM is not at work, but not fully understood.
Note that one can restore the classical situation from the quantum one by simply narrowing the choice of trajectories to just the minimal one. There is, however, no way of going back from the classical to quantum situation as there is no hint of hbar in the classical description.
QM introduces probabiities. Do probabilities exclude CM? For instance, you're in Las Vegas at a Craps Table. The dice are thrown. You have no way of knowing what the roll will turn up. Before the roll, the eventual outcome is in a "superposition" with amplitudes equal to the odds of particular numbers coming up. When the 'roll' takes place, the 'superposition collapses' into the actual observance. Given enough 'rolls of the dice' the actual 'amplitudes' will emerge. Now, is the rolling of dice something that falls outside of CM?PaV
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
skram: For the time being, I'll only respond to this statement:
The similarity would be relevant to the paper of Monckton et al. if you could demonstrate that you can take some hydrodynamic phenomenon and, based on that, make progress in quantum mechanics. (Or vice versa.) Would you like to demonstrate that this is even possible?
Implicit in your argument here is that "climate" science is a well-established as QM. But, of course, this is not the case. One can use QM and calculate out to an accuracy of 10 significant digits. It is highly accurate. And, then, there is "global warming," and its attendant "models." We, of course, know that these 'models' are WAY off. Monckton's is not. It is the global warming hysterics you have a case to make; not me.PaV
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
PaV, I no longer have the ability to post comments at UD. Ask Barry why. Best regards, skramskram
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
Well, we do know that “very minor” could mean “as high as 5 degrees Fahrenheit.”
Because "5 degrees Fahrenheit", wrt CO2 and warming, exists only in imaginationland.Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Of course, Joe, I can post multiple papers supporting the hypothesis.skram
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
skram, If you can't support your trope then don't post it. There isn't any evidence that a doubling or tripling of CO2 will produce a 5 degree F increase in temps. I can post papers- plural- that dispute that.Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
Piotr:
If you read it you misunderstood it.
That is your uneducated opinion.
The oceans take up about 30% (I think ca. 35% would be more accurate) of the excess CO2 emitted by the human civilisation, thus reducing somewhat the greenhouse effect. Most of that CO2 supposedly ends up dissolved in the cold, deep waters of the oceans, and it used to be thought that even as the Earth warms a little, those waters will release the dissolved CO2 very slowly, delaying its effect on the climate (though not stopping the warming).
I never said anything to the contrary.
However, the exchange between the deep waters and the ocean surface turns out to be more dynamic than previously thought.
Yes, I know. CO2 still is NOT the problem, Piotr. You chicken-little alarmists just crack me up.Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Well, we do know that "very minor" could mean "as high as 5 degrees Fahrenheit." It's important to define your terms. Thank you for doing so. P.S. Hi all, this is probably the last comment from me. Barry has started deleting my comments and the new ones aren't showing up. So long! It's been nice chatting with ya.skram
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
No it doesn't skram. We all know that you can't support the crap you post.Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
Of course it does, Joe. We now know what you mean when you say
CO2 is NOT the problem as it is a very minor player in the climate scheme.
skram
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
#151 Joe, If you read it you misunderstood it. Here's what it says, in a nutshell:-- The oceans take up about 30% (I think ca. 35% would be more accurate) of the excess CO2 emitted by the human civilisation, thus reducing somewhat the greenhouse effect. Most of that CO2 supposedly ends up dissolved in the cold, deep waters of the oceans, and it used to be thought that even as the Earth warms a little, those waters will release the dissolved CO2 very slowly, delaying its effect on the climate (though not stopping the warming). However, the exchange between the deep waters and the ocean surface turns out to be more dynamic than previously thought. That means that the oceans cannot trap as much excess CO2 as they did in the past, and they release some of it back into the atmosphere. Both the CO2 level in the atmosphere and its concentration in the oceans (causing their acidification) have increased -- in accordance with Henry's Law, by the way. The excess comes from human activity, and the mitigating effect of the oceans is becoming much weaker than before.Piotr
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
That has nothing to do with it, skram. If you had some intelligence you would be able to understand that.Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
You did characterize a 5-degree warming as a "very minor" thing, did you not, Joe?skram
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
It is your imagination, skram as there isn't any evidence to support your claim.Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
It's not my imagination, Joe. It was you who said that a 3-kelvin warming is a very minor thing.skram
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
skram:
Very minor indeed: an extra 5 degrees Fahrenheit is surely nothing to worry about!
LoL! Your imagination is nothing to worry about!Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Joe:
Again- CO2 is NOT the problem as it is a very minor player in the climate scheme.
Very minor indeed: an extra 5 degrees Fahrenheit is surely nothing to worry about!skram
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Piotr, I have asked you straight-forward questions too and you have refused to answer them. Make your point, Piotr. I read the report AND the paper, Piotr. Again- CO2 is NOT the problem as it is a very minor player in the climate scheme. CO2 released by the ocean adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere. That is my only point- that and it lags the warming.Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
#149 Joe, King of One-Liners I asked you a straightforward question. Did you read the press report, or only the title? Do you really know what it's about? Why do you think it confirms what you wrote -- that (sez Joe) the growing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are the effect of sun-induced warming, and not the cause of warming? Has the concentration of CO2 in the oceans been increasing or decreasing in recent decades? Don't be ashamed to admit your ignorance: it's the first and necessary step towards knowledge.Piotr
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
#147 Piotr- If you have a point then make it. If all you have are head games then never mind.Joe
February 3, 2015
February
02
Feb
3
03
2015
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
PaV:
But how is this any different from the calculus of variation? You have two end points, and, in between, the path can be anything. The calculus of variation, of course, leads to Hamiltonian theory, which is fully classical.
The difference is not between QM and calculus of variation, it's between classical and quantum mechanics. There are some things in common between quantum and classical treatments, but then there are some crucial differences. They can be seen in both the standard Copenhagen treatment as well as in Feynman's formulation inspired by that paper by Dirac. In the Lagrangian classical approach and in Feynman's picture, we compute the quantity called action for every conceivable trajectory (path) of a particle. At the classical level, we select the one trajectory that has the lowest action and throw away all the others. That is the trajectory actually followed by the particle. At the quantum level, theoretically all trajectories must be taken into account; in practice, one can keep those trajectories whose action deviates from the optimal value by no more than one quantum of action (Planck's constant hbar). Note that one can restore the classical situation from the quantum one by simply narrowing the choice of trajectories to just the minimal one. There is, however, no way of going back from the classical to quantum situation as there is no hint of hbar in the classical description. The similarity between classical and quantum exists in the standard Copenhagen picture, but the transition from the quantum to classical is less intuitive, so I won't go into it.
Where we get into quantum theory is where we begin dealing with Plancks’ constant. You’ve already stated that. But there is more than the possibility that underlying Planck’s constant is some kind of flux, and which may in the end simply be the effect of some form of a classical field. IOW, something is going on ‘classically’ in between the ‘standing’ nodes of the wave equation.
This is some vague speculation that goes nowhere.
I know the orthodox position. I cannot “prove” the orthodoxy wrong. However, the similarity between QM and hydrodynamics was my original point. This point still stands, as irritating as this might sound to the “orthodox” ear.
The similarity would be relevant to the paper of Monckton et al. if you could demonstrate that you can take some hydrodynamic phenomenon and, based on that, make progress in quantum mechanics. (Or vice versa.) Would you like to demonstrate that this is even possible?skram
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
1 2 3 6