Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Simple Pocket Calculator Model Outperforms Complex Climate Models

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
Zachriel said, "PDF wasn’t even available in 1984. It’s ironic that the “original paper published in 1984? you cited has a timestamp of 2004, modified in 2006." Yes, that's why I asked about the "printed" book. There's a difference however in the PDF reference you gave me and the PDF I linked. The one I linked is a Scanned Image. If you looked closely you should've seen hand written notes on it and obvious miscellaneous information and copy marks on sides of the printed copy. It's a Scanned Image of the original paper converted to PDF. OCR's been around long time before PDF. Using OCR for scanned imaged to PDF is not new. It's practical. I referred to it to search for the qualifier. Maybe the original "printed" book has the qualifier. Maybe it does not. I don't know. We need the actual book, or scanned image of it. This Scanned Image of the original 1984 paper does not show it.DATCG
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
DATCG: And if you look, you will see it was updated in year 2000. PDF wasn't even available in 1984. It's ironic that the "original paper published in 1984" you cited has a timestamp of 2004, modified in 2006. DATCG: Can we trust the current models?
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.
The distribution of the excess heat through the climate system is highly complex and chaotic. There is still significant uncertainty, including about climate sensitivity.Zachriel
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Zachriel said, "It’s from “Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for this Generation”, Chapter 2, 1984." Thanks, actually that link and Chapter 2 was created in 1999. Checking the PDF creation time stamp... **** Created 7/28/1999 12:18:34pm **** **** Updated 7/24/2000 6:20:53pm **** And if you look, you will see it was updated in year 2000. Maybe the original printed version of the 1984 book has same worded qualifier? I do find it an interesting admission they state "computed climate changes should not be viewed as a reliable prediction for a doubled C02 world, because current climate models still poorly represent many parts of the climate system.” Did he or they state that in 1984 or 2000? And is that qualifier true today? What are the ramifications for current climate models if they "still poorly represent many parts of the climate systems." Not a few, but many. Can we trust the current models? The original paper published in 1984 by Hansen, regarding Climate Change and Antarctic sea ice loss does not list that specific qualifier, least not that I could find. But glad to see they admit it. Maybe you can search for yourself if you have time. Original Paper with Antarctic Graphs included by Hansen, et al. Interestingly when I first came across the same book you referenced, it is also hosted at Penn State with same date and time stamps. Where Michael Mann of hockey stick fame is located. Same book with 1999 creation date at Penn State, same date, time stamps DATCG
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
DATCG: And it actually makes it more absurd the lengths Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et al., were driven to refuse access. They spent a lot of time and effort aggregating the data, and felt possessive about it. The data was always there, though, for anyone who made the effort. DATCG: McIntyre is one of the key figures who broke open this entire scandal with Mann’s hockey stick and “hide the decline.” There was no scandal outside the echochamber. Not only was no wrongdoing found, but the basic findings were supported by better data and methodologies.Zachriel
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Zachriel, No, not ignoring your point(s). Your point is a good one. And it actually makes it more absurd the lengths Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et al., were driven to refuse access. Why do you think they felt a need to hide, delete data? McIntyre was not allowed access. I quoted direct from Nature. They refused his request at that time. That's not in dispute. McIntyre is one of the key figures who broke open this entire scandal with Mann's hockey stick and "hide the decline."DATCG
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
DATCG: Can you please provide link and date of the paper you cited this quote from It's from "Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for this Generation", Chapter 2, 1984. http://papers.risingsea.net/Challenge_for_this_Generation.htmlZachriel
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Zachriel said, "While Hansen et al. showed West Antarctic ice loss, it was not a prediction." Can you please provide link and date of the paper you cited this quote from ...
Hansen et al., Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases: “Many aspects of the geographical distribution of the warming for doubled C02 are clearly related to changes in prevailing wind patterns. However, the detailed geographical patterns of the computed climate changes should not be viewed as a reliable prediction for a doubled C02 world, because current climate models still poorly represent many parts of the climate system.”
DATCG
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Zachriel: The original data was always available to interested researchers who took the time to aggregate it. Today, the data is easily available. DATCG: Then no need to hide behind Freedom of Information Act or delete data files in Phil Jones email that I quoted above You ignored the point.Zachriel
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Zachriel said, "The original data was always available to interested researchers who took the time to aggregate it. Today, the data is easily available." Then no need to hide behind Freedom of Information Act or delete data files in Phil Jones email that I quoted above...
"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
That is precisely what Phil Jones advocated they do. Hide behind Freedom of Information Act, refusing to turn over data, or worse - DELETION was clear intention. It is deceptive behavior, not science. Until emails came out, we did not know the truth of their deception. Again...
“The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we’re all using is this,” he wrote. “IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.”
"we don't have an obligation to pass it on." From Nature 2009...
"Although these data are made available in a processed format that shows the global trend, access to the raw data is restricted to academics." "The dispute is likely to continue for some time. McIntyre is especially aggrieved that Peter Webster, a hurricane expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, was recently provided with data that had been refused to him."
McIntyre is most likely one of the "MM's" Jones is referring to in above quotes. FOI request had to be made to get the raw data. There's a reason they were hiding raw data and Model Code. We know that today by Emails from Climate Gate. It is obvious they did not want to give opposing views opportunity to review the raw data and manipulation of data for their failed models. It's truly sad because Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et al, undermined the scientific community's standing as being neutral observers and scientist the public can trust. I love nature contributing to the conservation of nature. Belonged to the Sierra Club well over a decade. There are reasonable steps we should take to reduce pollution and create cleaner energy. Been a solar energy enthusiast long before it was popular. I've invested in green energy stocks. I admire and cheer innovators like Elon Musk and followed Tesla since the start. But the actions of these climate scientist lead to distrust by the public.DATCG
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
The so-called greenhouse gases allow the radiated heat to stay around a bit longer. And it so happens that we need them. We need CO2. Also a warmer planet is a better planet so warming the cooler years is a good thing. The Sun is still the main driver. And soot on snow and ice will cause melting even in freezing temperatures. The point is by focusing on CO2 you are focusing on the wrong thing. The climate changes and will do what it does regardless of us.Joe
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
joe, If CO2 caused warming then each year should be warmer than the previous year as the CO2 concentration is increasing. Yet we do not see that. It can be warmer in two ways, warming the peaks or warming the troughs. An one hundred degree day with a low temp of eighty is warmer than an one hundred degree day with sixty. Now just apply that on a year basis, the cooler years are warming, there is a warming trend at the bottom.velikovskys
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
DATCG: Refusing to share data for years on purpose, seeking to delete data, it is no longer science. The original data was always available to interested researchers who took the time to aggregate it. Today, the data is easily available. DATCG: In 1984, Dr. Hansen predicted a large amount of ice loss in Antarctica as CO2 increases. While Hansen et al. showed West Antarctic ice loss, it was not a prediction.
Hansen et al., Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases: "Many aspects of the geographical distribution of the warming for doubled C02 are clearly related to changes in prevailing wind patterns. However, the detailed geographical patterns of the computed climate changes should not be viewed as a reliable prediction for a doubled C02 world, because current climate models still poorly represent many parts of the climate system."
Zachriel
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
More deleting... actual email...
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it! -- snip -- Cheers Phil(Jones)
Hide the data, hide the Model Code. This is not the behavior of good scientist. Especially involving decisions that lead to trillions of dollars in spending. Emails of ClimateGate DATCG
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
When Global Warming alarmist made wild predictions that failed, then intentionally manipulate data, "hide the decline" and refuse transparency they're not acting as scientist. Refusing to share data for years on purpose, seeking to delete data, it is no longer science. It is deception and abuse of science. There's a reason people became skeptical of human-induced Global Warming and for good reason. They could no longer trust the people in charge of carrying out their duties responsibly and honestly as scientist. The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science. "delete the file" - NOT science
'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet. The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service.
"hide the decline" - NOT science...
Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.
"we don't have an obligation" - NOT science...
Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with." When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."
DATCG
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Jim Hansen's failed predictions over and over... Unfortunate history of poor Climate science at NASA
In 1988, Hansen told (sympathetic) journalist Bob Reiss that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would be underwater within 20 or 30 years (2008-2018). In 2001, he confirmed and reiterated that claim.
Hansen's Antarctic prediction...
In 1984, Dr. Hansen predicted a large amount of ice loss in Antarctica as CO2 increases. The image below(see link) forecasts 40% albedo loss in the Ross Sea (after a doubling of CO2) which corresponds to loss of white, reflective sea ice. Contrary to Hansen’s forecast trend, Antarctic sea ice has steadily increased – particularly in the Ross Sea.
As of this September 2014, "For an unprecedented third year in a row, Antarctica's sea ice is poised to smash a new record this month." CS Monitor Is Antarctic sea ice important?
First, it is almost always ignored by the CAGW press agents because the Antarctic sea ice reflects badly on several of their predictions about the effects of CO2 in particular and global warming in general. As observers of the global warming debate, you need to know what is happening all over, not just what the press agents want you to know, and what they don’t want you to know.
State of the Sea Ice 2015DATCG
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Andre, Svante Arrhenius discovered the greenhouse action of CO2 119 years ago and gave a rough formula for its effect (known as the "greenhouse law"), which makes it possible to estimate the radiative forcing resulting from changing CO2 concentrations. It's been basic physics for a century now.Piotr
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
Joe, Only if you don't understand the difference between heat and temperature, ignore the fact that the atmosphere stores only a small part of the total heat, and assume that heat is distributed uniformly in the Earth's system (that is, a thermal equilibrium is reached instantly).Piotr
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
If CO2 caused warming then each year should be warmer than the previous year as the CO2 concentration is increasing. Yet we do not see that.Joe
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
Andre, If you think CO2 produces no warming, shouldn't you be criticizing the Science Bulletin paper? Its authors argue that CO2 does lead to warming:
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.
What gives?skram
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
Me_Think Again There is absolutely no evidence that the rise in CO2 causes any warming. 0......Andre
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT
Andre @ 64, If you don't take the moving average of the global temperature, you will get the forbes article result. Even better than the moving average,is the Cowtan & Way (2013) kriging method (It even accounts for Africa, Antarctica and Arctic missing data) .It shows 0.11 to 0.12 C Global surface warming trend. Yes, Bill Nyle and Gore's experiment was a simple demonstration which was not thought out properly.That doesn't prove CO2 has no role in warming. You shouldn't expect simple lab experiment or a calculator to whittle down complex global warming phenomenon.Me_Think
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT
There is simply no evidence that CO2 is the cause of warmer tempratures http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/06/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-continue-to-rise-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/ Bill Nye and Al Gore's failed experiment; http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/Andre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
PaV @ 59 CO2 is not the only driver of climate. There are a number of factors which affect the net energy flow into our climate. Stratospheric aerosols,solar activity,surface albedo etc. add to the radiative forcing. However the dominant radiative forcing is CO2. It is borne out by studying the probability Distribution functions of the various radiative forcings.Me_Think
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
PaV @ 54 The reason given for a 0.1 upper limit is this :[it is]the maximum value allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits ! They are just suppressing the positive feedback.6 Kelvin temperature change(between glacial and interglacial period) in response to a forcing of 0.5 W/m2 is a response which cannot be explained without strong positive feedback in the climate system. It seems they are trying to match a set of narrow range historical data instead of coming up with a model which would work with varied climate system inputs.Me_Think
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
PaV:
Hamilton_Jacobi equations.
PaV, the Hamilton-Jacobi equations were introduced and have been used in classical mechanics. They don't play a major role in quantum mechanics. There is a good reason why not: coordinates and their conjugate momenta do not commute in quantum mechanics, so equations including both make things complicated.skram
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
PaV: if warming began in the 1800?s, likely before mid-century, then how do you account for that warming given that putative ‘man-made’ CO2 was next to neglible compared to current production? Because there is more than one driver of climate. This is Science 101. How to interpret data. It’s easy. It’s simple.Zachriel
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Me_Thinks: Here's the NASA's Goddard Institute in Space Studies homepage: You'll notice the temperatures from around 1938 to 1977 are basically 'flat.' Seems just like the 'pause' we've now seen for the last twenty years. IOW, the current 'pause' might go on for another twenty years. Now consider that "man-made CO2" production started rising in the early 40's, and continued to rise until present day, with, perhaps, a lull during the 1970's because of OPEC and Jimmy Carter. Yet, through all of this rise in CO2, we see two extended flat periods. Basic Science 101 tells you that to correlate surface temperatures with CO2 levels over the past 75 years would be ludicrous. You can't even begin to be serious about "man-made" global warming. And, of course, the real kicker is this: if warming began in the 1800's, likely before mid-century, then how do you account for that warming given that putative 'man-made' CO2 was next to neglible compared to current production? This, again, is Science 101. How do interpret data. It's easy. It's simple. The only thing that makes it difficult is if you have an agenda you want to promote, either make yourself rich, make yourself famous, or make yourself secure at the educational institution you happen to work at. The above factors are the "real" causes of "man-made global warming"!PaV
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
skram: Hamilton_Jacobi equations.PaV
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
PaV:
General Relativity can be envisioned using hydrodynamic equations. The same is true for quantum mechanics.
Could you expound on that, PaV? Specifically, which equations in hydrodynamics correspond to which in quantum mechanics? I might use that in my teaching practice.skram
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Andre, It was not us who brought up the prestige of the journal. It was the phys.org PR piece:
A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.
It goes on to hype the authors' credentials as well:
Dr Willie Soon, an eminent solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
The superlatives would be OK if the piece were written by an independent journalist, but it wasn't. There is no name attached to it. The publisher submitted it, and it was likely ghost-written by the authors. This kind of puffery is amusing, so we couldn't help but comment on it. If you want to discuss science, let's discuss science. In fact, I invited you to do so a few posts above, but you didn't seem particularly keen on that.skram
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply