Phoenix Records its Hottest Summer on Record

[blizzard1024]

11 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Argo floats, satellite measurements of solar irradiance, satellite measurements of ice melt, etc. all provide data for measuring the energy imbalance.

Yes the argo floats begin in 2003, the satellite data for ice begins during the late 70s a known cool period of the 20th century. Of course there easily can be a cyclical imbalance. Again I am not being disrespectful. I just don't agree. That's all. All of you are obviously passionate and smart people. 

[skierinvermont]

6 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

ENSO cycles. Since the late 1970s we have had stronger El Ninos vs La Ninas. This would easily increase OHC in a cyclical fashion. The 1970s had predominately strong La Ninas. Now we are seeing stronger El Ninos. Also there hasn't been a major volcanic eruption in almost 30 years. The 1960s, 80s and early 90s had major eruptions. Plus the clean air act has reduced soot and other pollution in many western societies which thermometer data is dense. This had led to warming. Regional changes in forest cover.  Ocean current changes. The Sun. The sun reached a grand maximum in the 20th century and it is waning now. There is a lag since the sun heats the oceans significantly vs IR radiation. Cooling could be on the way this century. There is so much more to natural variability that is understudied because the tail wags the dog in climate science.  It is assumed CO2 is the thermostat so all papers and studies have to show this or show how today's warming is unprecedented. They even adjust temperatures upward recently and downward in the past.  Anything that proves CO2 is the driver of the climate. They have a conclusion so now the research is done to back it up. This is backwards IMO. Respectively-  Blizzard1024 

 

ENSO doesn't increase OHC. By warming the ocean's surface, and thus radiating more heat to the atmosphere, OHC decreases during ENSO. 

ENSO is a slowing of the equatorial pacific mixing. Because the warm water isn't getting pushed into the deep oceans, the deep oceans cool and the upper oceans warm. The net effect is close to zero, with a gradual cooling as the heat trapped in the upper ocean gets radiated to the atmosphere, instead of mixed into the deep.

You're not thinking in terms of energy flows. Your mind is like "ENSO = hot". Well where did this heat come from?

 

Plus the ONI trend since the 1970s is essentially zero.

[blizzard1024]

2 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

ENSO doesn't increase OHC. By warming the ocean's surface, and thus radiating more heat to the atmosphere, OHC decreases during ENSO.

 

Plus the ONI trend since the 1970s is essentially zero.

Yes you are correct. But more El Ninos lead to more tropical convection. This leads to more water vapor at high altitudes increasing the Earth's temperature and indeed an imbalance. 

[bdgwx]

 

32 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

You can't say this unless you invoke a climate model. Maybe you trust models, I don't. 

I trust models to predict the location and timing of solar eclipses.

I trust models to predict the behavior of drugs in my body.

I trust models to predict how solutions to engineering problems will behave before those solutions are implemented so that I don't waste time and money.

I trust models to produce temperature readings from RTDs and thermocouples.

I trust models to produce satellite images of clouds and water vapor.

I trust models to forecast hurricane track and intensities several days out.

I trust models to forecast severe weather outbreaks.

Everyone trusts scientific models and even bets their lives on them on a daily basis.

We calibrate our trust based on the ability of the model to explain and predict observations. Invoking a model is not something to be ashamed of. It is something to embrace because if you aren't invoking a scientific model then you're just guessing.

[skierinvermont]

13 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Yes you are correct. But more El Ninos lead to more tropical convection. This leads to more water vapor at high altitudes increasing the Earth's temperature and indeed an imbalance. 

As I said before, the ONI trend since the 1970s is essentially zero. I was very into this PDO/ENSO cyclical warming in the mid 2000s. Even as we've seen more La Ninas the warming has continued. 

You can also pick trend lines with negative ONIs - negative ENSO trends - and the OHC trend (and the energy imbalance) over the period is extremely positive and persistent. Start your trends in the super 1998 El Nino and end in a more recent La Nina. The ENSO trend is negative. The OHC trend is vastly positive. Nothing - not the sun - not ENSO - has disrupted this persistent increase in OHC in any meaningful way.

Plus it doesn't explain the changes in the atmosphere's absorption/radiation patterns in the CO2 spectrum.

Or the fact that knowing nothing else other than the absorption/radiation properties of CO2 and the atmosphere's composition would predict CO2 causes warming.

The cause of the persistent .87W/m2 is CO2.

[blizzard1024]

The ONI actually has a positive trend since the 1970s...   data source https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

[bdgwx]

3 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

The cause of the persistent .87W/m2 is CO2.

I have to be pedantic here...the cause of the +0.87 W/m^2 EEI is the net effect of ALL radiative forcing agents. CO2 is but one component.

What you actually mean is...the dominating factor in the current +0.87 W/m^2 EEI is CO2. Though I must point out that other GHGs like CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs have significant components as well.

There are some components for which the uncertainty envelope on their contribution is frustratingly large. I'll throw out clouds and aerosols as examples here.

[skierinvermont]

4 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

The ONI actually has a positive trend since the 1970s...   data source https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

 Lots of other start dates would show a negative trend. And yet over all time periods OHC trend is vastly positive (other than maybe picking a very short 1 year period).

[blizzard1024]

15 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

 

I trust models to predict the location and timing of solar eclipses.

I trust models to predict the behavior of drugs in my body.

I trust models to predict how solutions to engineering problems will behave before those solutions are implemented so that I don't waste time and money.

I trust models to produce temperature readings from RTDs and thermocouples.

I trust models to produce satellite images of clouds and water vapor.

I trust models to forecast hurricane track and intensities several days out.

I trust models to forecast severe weather outbreaks.

Everyone trusts scientific models and even bets their lives on them on a daily basis.

We calibrate our trust based on the ability of the model to explain and predict observations. Invoking a model is not something to be ashamed of. It is something to embrace because if you aren't invoking a scientific model then you're just guessing.

 

Okay. First the top 5 you have are pretty basic science and not as complex as the climate system. 

Number 6 hurricane tracks several days out...now you are pushing it. There is tremendous uncertainty several days out and the hurricane center uses probabilities to determine risk. If the probability is greater than 10% of death and destruction, i.e the consequence is very high people evacuate. Rapid intensification, interaction with mid-latitude waves and extratropical transition are not well modelled. 

Number 7 you are pushing even way more. There are many instances where severe weather outbreaks don't materialize. we don't have a full understanding of CAPE vs shear and the balances needs plus dry air and other variables. There have been many busts here.

Number 8 climate models are extremely uncertain. 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

4 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

 

Okay. First the top 5 you have are pretty basic science and not as complex as the climate system. 

Number 6 hurricane tracks several days out...now you are pushing it. There is tremendous uncertainty several days out and the hurricane center uses probabilities to determine risk. If the probability is greater than 10% of death and destruction, i.e the consequence is very high people evacuate. Rapid intensification, interaction with mid-latitude waves and extratropical transition are not well modelled. 

Number 7 you are pushing even way more. There are many instances where severe weather outbreaks don't materialize. we don't have a fully understanding of CAPE vs shear and the balances needs plus dry air and other variables. There have been many busts here.

Number 8 climate models are extremely uncertain. 

 

 

Clearly you've never studied biology if you think drugs in the body are basic science.

I'll concede there are good models and bad models. Models have to be used within the means for which they were designed and within the limits of their capabilities. You've presented nothing to show you've done any analysis of these models and why the scientists who have put much research into them are mistaken.

You've presented nothing more than an emotional appeal to 'its just a model!!' As bdwx pointed out this appeal is baseless. Models are routinely used for incredibly complex systems with great utility.

[blizzard1024]

2 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

 Lots of other start dates would show a negative trend. And yet over all time periods OHC trend is vastly positive (other than maybe picking a very short 1 year period).

But we are talking about OHC since the 1970s. We don't have a good handle on OHC really before the Argo floats but I will let that go. Let's try 2003-present after the Argo floats are active and you will see a tendency toward more El Nino ish conditions which is known to warm the planet.

[skierinvermont]

Just now, blizzard1024 said:

But we are talking about OHC since the 1970s. We don't have a good handle on OHC really before the Argo floats but I will let that go. Let's try 2003-present after the Argo floats are active and you will see a tendency toward more El Nino ish conditions which is known to warm the planet.

Again, you are cherrypicking start dates. 

Many start dates show a negative ONI trend. And yet over all periods the OHC trend is vastly positive. This is the lack of genuine engagement and the deceptive behavior I am referring to. 

This isn't an 'opinion' of yours. Deliberately picking start dates to avoid the point I have already spelled out for you is a lack of genuine engagement.

[blizzard1024]

4 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Clearly you've never studied biology if you think drugs in the body are basic science.

I'll concede there are good models and bad models. Models have to be used within the means for which they were designed and within the limits of their capabilities. You've presented nothing to show you've done any analysis of these models and why the scientists who have put much research into them are mistaken.

You've presented nothing more than an emotional appeal to 'its just a model!!' As bdwx pointed out this appeal is baseless. Models are routinely used for incredibly complex systems with great utility.

I don't know much about biology I will give you that. How many times does a drug end up causing unknown side affects or other problems? anyway, I have been using atmospheric models  for more than 30 years and I know the inherent problems with them. The atmosphere is a high non-linear system very hard to model. 

[skierinvermont]

1 minute ago, blizzard1024 said:

I don't know much about biology I will give you that. How many times does a drug end up causing unknown side affects or other problems? anyway, I have been using atmospheric models  for more than 30 years and I know the inherent problems with them. The atmosphere is a high non-linear system very hard to model. 

The fact is you know nothing about the models in question other than the cover a similar domain as weather models. You have no basis for calling their scientific rigor into question. How many peer-reviewed studies have you read on climate models cover to cover, how many conferences have you gone to on them, how much have you tried to have your concerns addressed by the designers of said models?

[blizzard1024]

Just now, skierinvermont said:

Again, you are cherrypicking start dates. 

Many start dates show a negative ONI trend. And yet over all periods the OHC trend is vastly positive. This is the lack of genuine engagement and the deceptive behavior I am referring to. 

This isn't an 'opinion' of yours. Deliberately picking start dates to avoid the point I have already spelled out for you is a lack of genuine engagement.

I told you I started when the argo floats were deployed in 2003 so you can assume much better OHC data. it wasn't a random date. if the data showed negative I still would have posted it. 

[skierinvermont]

9 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

I told you I started when the argo floats were deployed in 2003 so you can assume much better OHC data. it wasn't a random date. if the data showed negative I still would have posted it. 

Yes and coincidentally it shows a positive trend. As I said (3 times now!!) there are lots of other start date and end dates with negative ONI trends, and yet over all start and end dates the OHC trend is vastly positive.

If ENSO had a large cumulative long-term effect on the earth's planetary energy imbalance (it has some but over long time periods with very weak trends in ONI the effect is small) we would expect to see that over periods with negative ONI trends the OHC would decrease. It doesn't. We can even pick periods with very negative ONI trends - far more negative than the slightly positive trends you showed - and yet the OHC trend is vastly positive over all start and end dates.

This is how science works. Make a prediction and test it. If slight trends in ENSO over long periods modulated the earth's energy imbalance, we'd expect periods with negative ENSO trends to also have negative OHC trends. They don't. Not even close.

I've repeated this point 3 times now, and you have yet to address it.

[blizzard1024]

Okay....follow my logic. Argo floats deployed in 2003. Very reliable much higher resolution dataset. Data for deep oceans before this is suspect. So using this new dataset which is the most comprehensive we see ONI or a tendency for more El Ninos, and,  indeed OHC from the Argo floats has increased. Before 2003, one can say the data is of lower quality. Before the satellite era of the 1970s the data was even poorer in quality. Hence starting in 1970 (satellite era) or starting in 2003 (Argo data) makes sense and is not cherry picking. The tendency for more El Ninos leading to a warmer planet makes sense meteorologically and climatologically. Maybe CO2 causes more El Ninos?  I know that has been stated (of course). But whatever the cause the increase in El Ninos likely is a major player in the warmth of the planet recently. 

[skierinvermont]

4 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Okay....follow my logic. Argo floats deployed in 2003. Very reliable much higher resolution dataset. Data for deep oceans before this is suspect. So using this new dataset which is the most comprehensive we see ONI or a tendency for more El Ninos, and,  indeed OHC from the Argo floats has increased. Before 2003, one can say the data is of lower quality. Before the satellite era of the 1970s the data was even poorer in quality. Hence starting in 1970 (satellite era) or starting in 2003 (Argo data) makes sense and is not cherry picking. The tendency for more El Ninos leading to a warmer planet makes sense meteorologically and climatologically. Maybe CO2 causes more El Ninos?  I know that has been stated (of course). But whatever the cause the increase in El Ninos likely is a major player in the warmth of the planet recently. 

Sure the data post 2003 is better. But the data pre-2003 is also fairly reliable. Sure you can look at 2003-present. We could also look at 1998-present. Or 1992-present. 

Or if you suddenly will only use only post 2003 data (without providing any evidence that pre-2003 data is fatally flawed) we can still pick periods with negative ONI trends. 

2003-2013 had an extremely negative ONI trend. Far more negative than ANY of the trends you've cherrypicked. And yet the OHC trend over that period is VASTLY positive.

We can go on, we can pick countless start and end dates with negative ONI trends and positive OHC trends. All of these disprove your 'hypothesis'. It only takes one to disprove it. But there are many that disprove it.

On the other hand, the CO2 theory is consistent with all of these observations.

[skierinvermont]

30 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

I have to be pedantic here...the cause of the +0.87 W/m^2 EEI is the net effect of ALL radiative forcing agents. CO2 is but one component.

What you actually mean is...the dominating factor in the current +0.87 W/m^2 EEI is CO2. Though I must point out that other GHGs like CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs have significant components as well.

There are some components for which the uncertainty envelope on their contribution is frustratingly large. I'll throw out clouds and aerosols as examples here.

True. The biggest one we both left out is the cooling effect of aerosols. Also water vapor.

[blizzard1024]

3 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Sure the data post 2003 is better. But the data pre-2003 is also fairly reliable. Sure you can look at 2003-present. We could also look at 1998-present. Or 1992-present. 

Or if you suddenly will only use only post 2003 data (without providing any evidence that pre-2003 data is fatally flawed) we can still pick periods with negative ONI trends. 

2003-2013 had an extremely negative ONI trend. Far more negative than ANY of the trends you've cherrypicked. And yet the OHC trend over that period is VASTLY positive.

We can go on, we can pick countless start and end dates with negative ONI trends and positive OHC trends. All of these disprove your 'hypothesis'. It only takes one to disprove it. But there are many that disprove it.

On the other hand, the CO2 theory is consistent with all of these observations.

What you are forgetting here skier is that it doesn't cause an automatic response in the Earth's temperature OHC there is a lag too.... to be truthful we need more data from the Argo floats to make any conclusions. This easily could be a cyclical trends in OHC.  

[skierinvermont]

18 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

What you are forgetting here skier is that it doesn't cause an automatic response in the Earth's temperature OHC there is a lag too.... to be truthful we need more data from the Argo floats to make any conclusions. This easily could be a cyclical trends in OHC.  

Ok sure make up some magic lag with no plausible physical explanation. I'll play. I've heard it all before and believed half of it myself.

There is NO period with decreasing OHC. If there was a lag from ENSO to OHC, we would still see periods of OHC going down when lagged to the periods of decreasing ENSO.

What you seem to not understand is OHC is climbing relentlessly with no perceptible affect from ENSO whatsoever over periods more than a year or two. 

ENSO can tank for a decade as it did from 2003-2013. OHC marches higher with no decrease - not even a slowdown - with a lag or without a lag.

ENSO literally tanked from 2003-2013. OHC skyrocketed. Throw in a lag. It still skyrocketed whatever lag period you pick. There was no significant effect whatsoever. All aspects of the system warmed. The cooling must by hiding in the earth's core only to magically reappear in the year 2053!

 

At least the skeptics back when I was in college had the intellectual honesty to predict that decreases in ENSO would lead to a decrease in OHC. Some of the very people you idolize made such predictions. I made such predictions. They failed because they are based on faulty science.

 

[donsutherland1]

23 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Okay....follow my logic. Argo floats deployed in 2003. Very reliable much higher resolution dataset. Data for deep oceans before this is suspect. So using this new dataset which is the most comprehensive we see ONI or a tendency for more El Ninos, and,  indeed OHC from the Argo floats has increased. Before 2003, one can say the data is of lower quality. Before the satellite era of the 1970s the data was even poorer in quality. Hence starting in 1970 (satellite era) or starting in 2003 (Argo data) makes sense and is not cherry picking. The tendency for more El Ninos leading to a warmer planet makes sense meteorologically and climatologically. Maybe CO2 causes more El Ninos?  I know that has been stated (of course). But whatever the cause the increase in El Ninos likely is a major player in the warmth of the planet recently. 

Here is a key finding from a relevant paper that removed the impact of ENSO:

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

 

[blizzard1024]

33 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Here is a key finding from a relevant paper that removed the impact of ENSO:

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

 

This is counter intuitive to me. We had two major volcanic eruptions one in 1982 (El Chicon) and Pinatubo in 1991 early in these records and we have had three intense El NInos 1983, 1998 and 2015. How can removing all this lead to a strong warmer trend? Volcanos cool the atmosphere and strong El Ninos warm the atmosphere. I will read in more detail. Thanks. 

[blizzard1024]

49 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

At least the skeptics back when I was in college had the intellectual honesty

your anger in your posts shows that you are insecure about your position related to the whole CO2 CAGW viewpoint.  I am totally secure in my position. Basic physics. Not computer models and analyses based on computer models that have a high degree of uncertainty.  

[blizzard1024]

48 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Here is a key finding from a relevant paper that removed the impact of ENSO:

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

 

The fatal flaw in this paper is that it ignores the UAH data in its conclusion which is the best dataset. RSS uses NOAA-14 which has a known warming bias. Plus they use a model to calculate the diurnal drift factor instead of empirical data. Hence RSS diverges closer to the really flawed surface dataset around 2015. Just like Karl et al 2015 adjusted SSTs upward using faulty methodology to enhance warming.  If one looks at my climate division from NCEI, the unadjusted datasets i.e the actual measurements show NO trends since the late 1800s. The adjusted shows 3F rise. So all the global warming is man made by adjustments not the real data. UAH is the closest to reality showing modest warming well within the bounds of the holocene. Nothing unusual. 

[blizzard1024]

read this paper on climate models...

https://judithcurry.com/2020/06/20/structural-errors-in-global-climate-models/#more-26311

[donsutherland1]

35 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

The fatal flaw in this paper is that it ignores the UAH data in its conclusion which is the best dataset. RSS uses NOAA-14 which has a known warming bias. Plus they use a model to calculate the diurnal drift factor instead of empirical data. Hence RSS diverges closer to the really flawed surface dataset around 2015. Just like Karl et al 2015 adjusted SSTs upward using faulty methodology to enhance warming.  If one looks at my climate division from NCEI, the unadjusted datasets i.e the actual measurements show NO trends since the late 1800s. The adjusted shows 3F rise. So all the global warming is man made by adjustments not the real data. UAH is the closest to reality showing modest warming well within the bounds of the holocene. Nothing unusual. 

Actually, it is the UAH data that is likely flawed:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/jtech/article/34/1/225/342433/A-Comparative-Analysis-of-Data-Derived-from

[bdgwx]

46 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

The fatal flaw in this paper is that it ignores the UAH data in its conclusion which is the best dataset. RSS uses NOAA-14 which has a known warming bias. Plus they use a model to calculate the diurnal drift factor instead of empirical data. Hence RSS diverges closer to the really flawed surface dataset around 2015. Just like Karl et al 2015 adjusted SSTs upward using faulty methodology to enhance warming.  If one looks at my climate division from NCEI, the unadjusted datasets i.e the actual measurements show NO trends since the late 1800s. The adjusted shows 3F rise. So all the global warming is man made by adjustments not the real data. UAH is the closest to reality showing modest warming well within the bounds of the holocene. Nothing unusual. 

I don't see how you can say UAH is the best. What dataset/model are you comparing UAH to to assess its "bestnest". And why did you select that dataset/model for comparison to begin with? Why not just call that chosen dataset/model the best?

RSS used to use a GCM to make diurnal bias corrections. The academic community criticized them for it. They changed their methodology in this regard in v4. The warming trend went up. Perhaps the GCM method was more correct afterall? (see Mears 2017).

Karl did not adjust SSTs upward. He gets SSTs from ERSST (see Karl 2015). I read the ERSSTv4 papers (see Haung 2015 part 1 and part 2 and supplemental). Now, understanding that I'm not an expert, I did not see any adjustments documented that I felt were mistakes. In fact, quite the opposite. I think it would be a mistake to omit these adjustments and not publish v4 of ERSST. BTW...I believe ERSST is now up to v5. And GISTEMP and others also uses ERSST as well.

I don't know about the early 1800's but at least since the 1880's the unadjusted data show MORE warming; not less. (see figure 2B Karl 2015). And again...show me a dataset/model that you feel best characterizes reality so that we can make objective comparisons between it and UAH (or any dataset really). Justify why you think that chosen dataset/model best characterizes reality.

 

[bdgwx]

53 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

Justify why you think that chosen dataset/model best characterizes reality.

This is a challenge other scientists and myself must accept as well. Here is how I select the temperature dataset that best characterizes reality. In lieu of having any compelling reason to select a single representation of reality I equally weight and blend all of the representations available into an ensemble and use the mean as the "best guess" at reality. I take the month-to-month temperature anomalies from as many datasets as are available and let that be my baseline for comparison. When you do this you will see that UAH deviates significantly from the ensemble mean; more so then any other dataset. It is an outlier in most respects. To claim that UAH is the best is to claim that UAH has a monopoly on correctness and that all of the other datasets using wildly different techniques and available input data somehow managed to mistakenly come up with the same wrong answer. How likely do you think that scenario is? I'll answer that...not very likely.

And I'd miss a great opportunity for discussion if I didn't point out that many weather forecasters use this same basic approach to make weather forecasts. I have no idea which model will best characterize the state of the atmosphere at some random point in the future. Sometimes the GFS does better. Sometimes the ECMWF does better. Sometimes the UKMET does better. How does one decide which to choose? Well...we don't. We blend them together into a model of models. You've probably noticed that the NHC heavily weights their official forecast on the TVCN and IVCN ensembles because historically the ensemble mean of many models performs better than any individual model alone. In fact, it is my understanding that the human element at the NHC was actually making forecasts worse (OFCL performed worse than TVCN and IVCN) and so the NHC forecasters were encouraged to essentially carbon copy the TVCN and IVCN ensemble means for track and intensities forecasts going forward. It was a lesson in humility that adding human intuition and feeling to the forecasts only made things worse.

[bdgwx]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

read this paper on climate models...

https://judithcurry.com/2020/06/20/structural-errors-in-global-climate-models/#more-26311

The guy brings up good points. Physical parameterization schemes are fraught with assumptions and other problems. Solving partial differential equations is done numerically only with errors that propagate (chaos theory). Model parameters must be approximated and tuned. Everybody who is anybody understands this. Global circulation models will NEVER be perfect; not even remotely. But...just like any other approximation of reality they still perform reasonably well and are quite useful. In fact, GCMs provide a reasonable (dare I say best) match to the contemporary warming era on decadal scales than any other type of model. Why then would anyone chose to abandon a model with demonstrable skill for an inferior model or no model at all? These kinds of arguments that Mr. Browning is making are what I often call "nuh-uh" arguments. Convince people that an imperfect, but useful model of reality should be abandoned in favor of inferior models or no model at all. Sorry, but I and most other scientists are convinced not by "nuh-uh" arguments but by "here's how to do it better" arguments. Show me a model that performs better than what we already have and I'll be all over it.

And besides the implication here is that climate sensitivity is only determined via global circulation models. That could not be further from the truth. As I've already pointed out scientists consider many lines of evidence including modeling (radiative transfer models, energy budget models, GCMs, etc.), observational (paleoclimate, instrumental, etc.), and physical laws (thermodynamics, molecular physics, etc.) for determining climate sensitivity. It is possible that Mr. Browning is unfamiliar with the state of climate science in this regard. I don't know.