Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Simple Pocket Calculator Model Outperforms Complex Climate Models

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
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.

Comments
skram cites a paper that has been superseded by a paper I cited and thinks it has somethingJoe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Joe:
Very minute, as I said.
An increase of 3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) is "very minute?" OK.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Piotr- are you saying that warmer oceans do not release more CO2 than cooler oceans? What is your point? Or are you upset because the warming has appeared to have stopped?Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
skram:
Here is a peer-review report that says CO2 doubling produces a temperature increase between 1.5 and 4.5 kelvins.
Very minute, as I said.Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Joe, do the calculations if you can. Hint: use the Van 't Hoff equation and Henry's Law to estimate how much (if any) CO2 will be released to the atmosphere from the ocean depending on the temperature (assuming, for example, that the mean temperature increases by 1K). Present your results. It shouldn't be a difficult task for an expert like you, who is so much smarter that professional climate scientists.Piotr
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Joe:
I posted a peer-reviewed paper that says CO2 doubling = only about a 0.6C increase.
Here is a peer-review report that says CO2 doubling produces a temperature increase between 1.5 and 4.5 kelvins.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
skram:
So increasing CO2 does cause warming?
It could- it all depends as CO2 is a very minute player in the climate scheme.Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
skram:
I said that changes in the concentration of the CO2 do not affect the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface.
Why did you say that as it relates to nothing that I posted?
Lindzen says that increasing CO2 warms the atmosphere and he has an estimate for the amount of warming.
I posted a peer-reviewed paper that says CO2 doubling = only about a 0.6C increase.Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
So increasing CO2 does cause warming? :)skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Low climate sensitivity to CO2 CO2 doubling to cause about 0.6C change- very minimal.Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Joe:
So more sunlight reaching the earth’s surface won’t cause warming? Is that really your stance, skram? Really????
I didn't say that. I said that changes in the concentration of the CO2 do not affect the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface.
skram- stop asking questions until you support your load about Lindzen- or retract it.
To do that, I need to know what exactly you mean by "very minute." Lindzen says that increasing CO2 warms the atmosphere and he has an estimate for the amount of warming. You say that the warming is "very minute." That isn't very specific. How minute? What exactly do you mean by that?skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
skram- stop asking questions until you support your load about Lindzen- or retract it.Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
So more sunlight reaching the earth's surface won't cause warming? Is that really your stance, skram? Really????Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Joe:
Propaganda- with the amount of CO2 we are releasing we can only be responsible for a very minute temperature change.
Can you be specific what you mean by "very minute?" What value of climate sensitivity does that translate into? How many kelvins per CO2 doubling?skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
skram you have reading issues. I never said that CO2 blocks sunlight. I never implied it. It's as if you are arguing with someone else and thinking you are arguing with me.Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Joe:
The clean air acts have allowed more sunlight to reach the surface. The sun heats the oceans which then release CO2.
A cute, but entirely pointless theory. CO2 does not block visible light. Therefore an increase in its concentration does not impede the warming of the earth's surface by the hot sun. CO2 blocks certain portions of the infrared spectrum (that aren't blocked by water vapor). Therefore an increase in the CO2 concentration reduces the amount of heat given off by the warm earth. Thus the overall effect of a CO2 increase in the atmosphere is to make the earth warmer. Write that down.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
skram- I dare you to tell me what he said I was wrong aboutJoe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Well skram, I bet he can read- unlike you...Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
The clean air acts have allowed more sunlight to reach the surface. The sun heats the oceans which then release CO2. The "warming" has been minimal and wouldn't even be detected if we didn't have sensitive equipment to make the measurements with. And last summer we had snow for the first time since the 19th century. The point being is it isn't as black and white as you want to make it. There are many factors that drive the climate and the climate changes regardless of us.Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
To be more specific, Richard Lindzen thinks you're a nut.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
skram, Obviously you have reading issues as what you posted is not contrary to what I said.Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Joe, here is someone on the sceptic side who clearly says you are wrong:
Among the many climate skeptics who plaster the Internet with their writings, hardly any have serious credentials in the physics of the atmosphere. But a handful of contrarian scientists do. The most influential is Dr. Lindzen. Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. The New York Times, April 30, 2012.
skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
As evidence strongly supports anthropogenic greenhouse warming, projected warming is the concern.
Propaganda- with the amount of CO2 we are releasing we can only be responsible for a very minute temperature change. The Sun is still the main driver of our climate and always will be. The orbit and axial tilt are other factors that are also greater than our CO2 contribution. AND the Earth has been warmer in the past when we were not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
The larger point of this trip into history is that I disagree with your bottom line:
So the original point I made to Me_Thinks still stands.
Analogies between different fields can be useful, but they are by no means straightforward. Knowing how something works in engineering gives no guarantee that superficial analogies (as yours are) to other fields will provide immediate and reliable answers (as you seem to suggest). This is particularly true when the devil is in the details, as is the case with the physics of climate. "Lord" Monckton does not possess deep knowledge of either engineering or climate physics. Defending his doodles that pretend to explain how climate works is not a good bet.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
PaV:
And, IIRC, Schrodinger—who you know very well wanted to couch QM in a classical guise—used the HJE in his original papers.
Let's have a look at Schrödinger's paper, "An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules," Phys. Rev. 28, 1049 (1926). Here is a free copy on the internet archive. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation is there as Eq. (3). However, as I said above, Schrödinger does not derive his equation from it. If that could be done, it would have been done well before him. Instead, he draws a parallel with optics. Geometrical optics (optics of rays) has the mathematical structure similar to that of classical physics. Like particles, light rays follow well-defined trajectories. There is a quantity called eikonal that is similar to mechanical action. Wave optics cannot be derived from geometrical optics, but geometrical optics can be obtained from wave optics by taking the limit of zero wavelength. The eikonal turns out to be related to the phase of the light wave. So Schrödinger brilliantly guesses that the relation between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics is the same as that between wave optics and geometrical optics. And that just like the eikonal can be derived from the phase of the light wave, action can be derived from the phase of de Broglie's particle wave. Now he had to guess what the wave equation should be in order to yield the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for action in a certain limit. The answer is not unique. To see why, let's look back at optics. There, too, geometric optics can be obtained from more than one wave theory of light. You can write down a scalar wave equation as is done on this Wikipedia page. It would have the right geometrical limit, but it would still be the wrong theory of light. It would not describe polarization phenomena. The right—vector—wave theory comes from Maxwell's equations. So no, you can't derive quantum stuff from classical. You have to make some guesses and be lucky.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
PaV:
I know that the Schrodinger equations can be derived from the Hamilton-Jacobi equations. Do you know why? Because Dirac wrote a paper on it.
No, the Schrödinger equation cannot be derived from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. That would amount to deriving quantum physics from classical. It cannot be done. Planck's constant (present in the Schrödinger equation) simply does not exist in classical mechanics (Hamilton-Jacobi equation is a product of classical physics). It's the other way around. One can start with the Schrödinger equation and obtain the Hamilton-Jacobi equation from it by taking the limit of zero Planck's constant. See this Wikipedia page for example. That is precisely how it should be: quantum mechanics contains classical mechanics within it.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
skram: Thank you for pointing out the distinction between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics---that conjugate canonical coordinates don't commute. I know that the Schrodinger equations can be derived from the Hamilton-Jacobi equations. Do you know why? Because Dirac wrote a paper on it. And, IIRC, Schrodinger---who you know very well wanted to couch QM in a classical guise---used the HJE in his original papers. So the original point I made to Me_Thinks still stands.PaV
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Me_Thinks: Whatever you say seems hollow given that the simple model conforms to actual temperature and the sophisticated, complex models do not. Monckton is addressing a basic assumption of those complex models, and, using his own interpretation of how 'forcing' should be looked at, gets the more correct answers. How do you "KNOW" your assumption about the 'forcing' is right? It would help if the models you support came up with the right answers.PaV
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT
DATCG: Maybe the original “printed” book has the qualifier. Maybe it does not. The reasonable presumption is that it does, but we'd be happy to look at evidence to the contrary. Even today, regional effects are difficult to predict. However, the overall heat of the climate system continues to increase. DATCG: Their model in 1984 failed. Proclamations of “clear evidence that important climate effects are imminent” failed. There have already been important climate effects. DATCG: We’re still within climatic norms. As evidence strongly supports anthropogenic greenhouse warming, projected warming is the concern.Zachriel
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
Zachriel, you quoted... "Hansen et al. 1984: We are left in the very unsatisfactory position of having clear evidence that important climate effects are imminent but not having the knowledge or tools to specify these effects accurately." Their model in 1984 failed. Proclamations of "clear evidence that important climate effects are imminent" failed. There have always been important and imminent climate change in past and today. We're still within climatic norms. His model and other models put forth by Mann, Jones, IPCC were far to aggressive in their initial predictions for global warming and failed. Thus the attempt at re-branding as "Climate Change." But people see through that. Their actions then caused distrust by the public at-large. Clean air, yes, clean energy, all for it. There's many reasons to drive efficient use of energy resources. I think there's middle ground to come together on. But not through the Chicago Climate Exchange. Thankfully, it folded and was sold. Hopefully not to be resurrected anytime soon.DATCG
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply