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
Let us not kid ourselves here, the only reason you guys are taking issue with the prestige of said journal is because it published something you don't like, had it been for something you endorse, we would not even be having this conversation.Andre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Me_Thinks: General Relativity can be envisioned using hydrodynamic equations. The same is true for quantum mechanics. When dealing with 'feedback' systems, perhaps the arena of physics where we know the most is in the area of electronics. This might be the kick-off point that Monckton uses. Then, employing this analogy, he finds an equation used in the 'complex' models that is the analogue of the Bode-System equations. He then uses what is known from the field of electronics to 'correct' that equation. In this case, you will never find directly, or literally, the "Bode-system equations," but, the knowledge gained in electronics in how to employ the BSEqns is then used to set a limit in the climate model based analogically on electronic feedback systems (I suspect one is dealing with heat and heat flow in both systems). Using this 'correction,' his 'simple' model comes up with a model that actually conforms to recorded data. This might explain Dr. Jan Perlwitz' statement. IOW, we need to parse what the good Dr. said.PaV
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Andre:
Researchgate had no issue with the word prestigious used….
Researchgate is merely a social network of scientists and a repository of their articles. It does not endorse or even check what is written in the articles. The word 'prestigious' appeared in a self-congratulatory editorial written by the Editor-in-Chief of Science Bulletin and published, needless to say, in the same journal. See here: doi:10.1007/s11434-014-0715-6. Surely we can take the word of the Editor-in-Chief that his journal is prestigious. :)skram
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
And Springer is based in Germany, and that's the land of BMW! :) You've got to try harder, Andre. Not every publication bearing an imprint of a reputable publisher is a prestigious journal. Take my own field (physics). Springer's Journal of High Energy Physics has an impact factor of 6.220. That's pretty good, not that far behind the prestigious Physical Review Letters (7.728). On the other hand, International Journal of Theoretical Physics has only 1.202, not so impressive. At any rate, the phys.org PR piece makes silly claims to fame. They can be easily debunked.skram
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
For your own sake Piotr stop hyperventilating! Springer runs Science Bulletin, Is Springer not prestigious? http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/115/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11434-014-0714-7.pdf?auth66=1422553780_ed61cd632bf73c0b7d56b1b9946071bb&ext=.pdf Researchgate had no issue with the word prestigious used.... http://www.researchgate.net/publication/270398443_Science_Bulletin_entering_a_new_eraAndre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
For God's sake, Andre, it they didn't want to try "The Tabloids" (top-prestige interdisciplinary journals like Nature, Science, and PNAS), there is no shortage of serious journals specialising in climate science, with IFs in the 4-5 range, where the editors are more interested in the quality of the papers than their "WOW!" value, and where solid peer-review is guaranteed. Why not send the article to one of them, and choose instead a Chinese one that is both interdisciplinary and relatively obscure? Why lie about its quality and prestige? (Yes, Andre, calling it "one of the top six, worldwide" is not an exaggeration, but a brazen lie.)Piotr
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Andre @ 48,
Erm 0.18c only? Try again….
Tried again. Same result. Nothing in link to alter the figure.Me_Think
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Me_Think Erm 0.18c only? Try again.... http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/?n=sunspots http://t.space.com/all/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate#1Andre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Piotr You are a very dishonest person. I told you why, they do not publish negative results, why are you ignoring that and then setup a strawman? Those Chinese journals don't reject negative results nor do they worship dogma.Andre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Andre: The top journals are a farce... I see. So if Nature is a farce, "the Orient's equivalent of Nature" is... uh... a Chinese farce?Piotr
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Andre @ 37
So where you got the it’s constant from, only you will know! So can I call you a liar? Because that is what you’re doing!
Do you need a reason? However note that 'unchanged average' is not constant, you could say 'Constant Average' if you want to! Solar cycle contributes 0.18 C (Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection by Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung.) This is found by detrending the temperature data by removing the global warming trend. The change in the Sun’s yearly average total irradiance during an 11-year cycle is on the order of 0.1 percent or 1.4 watts per square meter, not much to claim that Global warming is due to Sun's activity. 'Anti-global warming alarmists' seemed to have frightened you - relax, we are not moving towards a Dalton minimum ! Then again, I may be lying :-)Me_Think
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Andre, As I have said, this was a back-of-the-envelope calculation. It nonetheless gives an idea of the order of magnitude. That's how we physicists roll. But feel free to fill in the gaps. Do your own calculation. Use the earth's albedo (0.3) if you must.skram
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
But who says the earth is a blackbody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bodyAndre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Andre, Here is a key paragraph from the DailyTech article you have just cited:
According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.
I have no problem with this finding. Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. If solar radiation reaching the earth varies by 0.1 percent then the temperature of the earth (modeled as a black body) should change by one quarter* of that, i.e., by 0.025 percent. The earth's temperature is around 300 kelvins. 0.025 percent of that is 0.075 kelvin, or 0.135 degree Fahrenheit. *One quarter comes from the black-body radiation law, which says that the power radiated by a black body scales as the fourth power of its temperature. Now what?skram
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Me_Think..... Now what? http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htmAndre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Piotr, We can argue the semantics, you know what you meant........ The top journals are a farce because they discourage publishing negative findings... ever heard of the file-drawer effect? Top journals are plagued by it.Andre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
#34 Andre, No, it isn't an instance of NTS. It would be if had I made a general statement like "No true scientist could present an analysis falsifying anthropogenic global warming", or "No true scientist would be able to publish a crappy article in a peer-reviewed journal". I am not even saying that the Science Bulletin is not a real peer-reviewed journal or that the authors (excepting C. "the Lord" Monckton, who is obviously just a comedian) are not real scientists. It is ridiculous to compare the SB with the top journals (whether climatological or with a general scientific profile), but this only shows how desperate the authors are to look respectable. I would say that we are dealing with a shoddy publication advertised in a hilariously bombastic press release. It's a statement concerning a particular case, not a generalisation.Piotr
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
If anyone needs a good laugh, this article is well worth reading: Climate Change Deniers Are Completely Insane - Matt Walsh - Jan. 28, 2015 http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/climate-change-deniers-are-completely-insane/bornagain77
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
Me_Think These guys must be science deniers then! http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2011/543146/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141349.htm http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=1073&cookieConsent=A And this report just blows your man-made nonsense out of the water! http://www.commdiginews.com/featured/sunspots-2015-year-of-the-decline-32772/#C5bOxGjkt8HXeB2S.99 "If solar physicists are correct, solar activity could be very low for several decades to come. How that will affect climate change is anyone’s guess, but low sunspot activity has already been identified by the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as one of the main causes for the 15+ year “hiatus” from atmospheric global warming." So where you got the it's constant from, only you will know! So can I call you a liar? Because that is what you're doing!Andre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
Andre @ 35
No, the data is not conclusive because we have evidence of natural processes causing the climate change, like the solar activity of the sun.
The solar radiative force causes imbalance which in turns causes global temperature change. The formula is : Solar radiative force = 0.7 x (TSI/4) TSI - Total Solar irradiance. Over the past 32 years, TSI has remained unchanged on average.(Wang 2005 and direct Satellite measurement)so we can conclude solar activity is not responsible for the global climate change. Apart from this, by using Fourier transforms, the influence of various natural factors is studied and after removing those trends, the anthropic global warming change is decided.Me_Think
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
Me_Think You have to make it clear when you talk about climate change sceptics...... Which one? Just like evolution you guys use fuzzy and use convoluted definitions to blanket everything. Is there climate change? Yes, it is a natural occurring cycle that's been documented since the 12th Century AD. Is there man made climate change? No, the data is not conclusive because we have evidence of natural processes causing the climate change, like the solar activity of the sun. There is no evidence that 120 ppm of CO2 increase is the cause of the change. In fact the increase in CO2 has actually helped with the recovery of Forests and plankton in the oceans. Be specific please, which one?Andre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
Piotr You made the claim, the guys in question are not really this or that, and that the paper is not really comparable to Nature..... It is a no true Scotsman fallacy, like it or not!Andre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
Andre, I didn't make any universal claim this publication could be an exception to, so NTS doesn't apply.Piotr
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
You can download the paper by clicking on pdf link. The model in one word:Bizzare. The model is based on process engineers designing electronic circuits ! and restricts the closed-loop gain (g) to 0.1. Page 130 (9 of the pdf) Section 8.3.2: They restrict the g[infinity] to 0.1 because it is the maximum value allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits intended not to oscillate under any operating conditions. If you restrict to 0.1 obviously equilibrium climate sensitivity will be about 1000 per co2 doubling.Me_Think
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
Piotr.... The no true Scotsman fallacy..... Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"). They are not really scientist and its not really a comparable journal falls nicely into the category......Andre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
PaV @ 23
Oops! One wrong equation caused the climate scare RED FACES all round among the profiteers of doom. A wrong equation that falsely triples the tiny direct warming caused by doubling CO2 concentration has been discovered and exposed in a major peer-reviewed paper just published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences... Hansen, and the tiny handful of other climate scientists who realized the rogue equation came from electronic circuitry, had assumed it would work for all kinds of dynamical systems from electronic circuits to the Earth’s climate. But it doesn’t.
Dr Jan Perlwitz - Climate scientist at Columbia University, working at NASA GISS has written to get a response from the author and here is what he received : William Briggs forwarded this question to Monckton who sent me a letter in response. I don't want to cite details from the letter, since it was addressed to me personally, but I can say as much that Monckton talked about a number of things, but didn't really give an answer to my question about where complex climate models supposedly applied the Bode system-gain equation. Of course you could say Dr.Jan is lying - if he had a track record like the venerable :-) Lord MoncktonMe_Think
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
Andre, You don't even understand the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Warning: This is not a true Scotsman!Piotr
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT
Andre @ 22,26 Haven't you read the first sentence of my comment @ 19 ?Me_Think
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
PaV @ 21
Back to the science. There has been no global warming for 18 years 3 months (RSS monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset, October 1996 to December 2014). Sea-ice extent globally reached a satellite-era maximum three months ago. Sea ice was supposed to have disappeared in the Arctic summer by 2013, according to Al Gore. It didn’t disappear (University of Illinois Cryosphere Today). Droughts were forecast, but the area of the Earth under drought has fallen for 30 years (Hao et al., 2014). Hurricanes and typhoons have neither increased in frequency nor intensity nor duration nor fraction of property value in harm’s way damaged (Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, Florida State University). Lives lost from weather events worldwide are declining (Prof. Will Happer, Princeton University). Area of the Sahara has shrunk by 300,000 km2 in 30 years owing to the greening of areas previously arid (Nicholson, 1981). Snow-cover extent in the Northern hemisphere shows no real change in 35 year
There are refutations and explanations for that (at least for the last 16 years) here I could copy-paste if you want. The entire website deals with FAQs on climate questions, so you could spend some time there to get answers to a lot of skeptical questions. A rational being would ask - With so much variables coming into play, how can a simple model be developed to explain climate change?Me_Think
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
I'm trying to follow the allegations your blog site makes but for some reason the links to the supposed evidence is dead.... example; http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf But I might as well take your approach and ask, what value do we get from the writings of a bunch od deluded Mormons that run the blog you cited? That's not fair is it? First refute the science! then take-on the character is a good start.Andre
January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply