stadiumwave Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Not true. The chart below shows global temperatures are catching up with model predictions. http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/ Climate_Lab_models.png TheN you're saying there is a problem if they don't? I don't get it...a slowdown doesn't mean anything to you but a very slight increase does? And that slight increase is ENSO related...I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Climate models weren't ever intended to provide a decadal projection. I also completely disagree that the vast majority of the envelope of climate model projections is farther out of reach than it was 10 years ago. Perhaps the most extreme tail of the distribution, but that is about it. And that was never likely to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 TheN you're saying there is a problem if they don't? I don't get it...a slowdown doesn't mean anything to you but a very slight increase does? And that slight increase is ENSO related...I don't get it. The hiatus and the recovery are both ENSO related. I said above the models can only be evaluated over long periods of time and they clearly have the long-term trend right. However, you don't need a model to know that the earth is going to warm significantly this century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I'm skeptical of this skepticism. The paleoclimate data strongly suggests that ECS/TCR vary significantly over time, in relation to any radiative forcing. The ECS/TCR are governed exclusively by wind/circulation/convective/photochemical processes, so extrapolating those into the future really has no purpose, in my opinion. With TCR, we're only talking about a few decades...and there is a growing body of scientific evidence that GCMs are a bit too high with this. I gave you all the papers discussing the shortfalls and issues with paleoclimate studies...there's a lot of error there. Esp in ECS studies (they are almost completely useless for TCR). Being sketpical of the skepticism of TCR on GCMs based on paleoclimate makes no sense to me. I could at least understand ECS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 With TCR, we're only talking about a few decades...and there is a growing body of scientific evidence that GCMs are a bit too high with this. I gave you all the papers discussing the shortfalls and issues with paleoclimate studies...there's a lot of error there. Esp in ECS studies (they are almost completely useless for TCR). Being sketpical of the skepticism of TCR on GCMs based on paleoclimate makes no sense to me. I could at least understand ECS. I disagree. The growing body of evidence suggests the GCMs would be pretty close at a 3C ECS and 1.8 TCR when natural factors are included in the modeling. Many of the papers that suggested otherwise, were the same papers that suggested the hiatus could last until 2030. There were certainly some in the scientific community that have been overzealous to scrap well verified decadal modeling because of the "hiatus." Wrongly so, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I disagree. The growing body of evidence suggests the GCMs would be pretty close at a 3C ECS and 1.8 TCR when natural factors are included in the modeling. Many of the papers that suggested otherwise, were the same papers that suggested the hiatus could last until 2030. There were certainly some in the scientific community that have been overzealous to scrap well verified decadal modeling because of the "hiatus." Wrongly so, IMO. We will agree to disagree. I have posted a plethora of papers here that showed TCR well under 1.8C...and like I explained multiple times before, the hiatus only impacted the TCR mildly. Go read the Lewis and Curry paper again or any of the other ones...they give code for their energy budget equation....all you have to do is change deltaT to whatever you want to test it...if you get rid of the hiatus, you change the TCR by less than 0.1C. We've been over this before though, so no use in rehashing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The hiatus and the recovery are both ENSO related. I said above the models can only be evaluated over long periods of time and they clearly have the long-term trend right. However, you don't need a model to know that the earth is going to warm significantly this century. Fair enough. Then let's do away will all model projection talk when discussing the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.