Are AGW climate models a failure

Therefore you can't predict. See how that works?

 

Of course farmers can predict based on averages and the expected variations for each particular year. The farmers are doing very well adapting to climate variations.

 

And when those averages don't turn into reality, the crops don't produce what they were designed to produce. It does not represent a "model" in the same way that a climate model then suggests. If you have an average of 12" of rain, and you get 2" of rain, for a given period, but you get 18" of rain three months later, and your average was 8", your average for a year is sustained, even though you didn't get the rain when probably you needed it. So, the average as a model isn't exactly useful.

The difference is that our climate models, as built, only understand the averages. They don't project useful results because there truly is no expectation that what is average today will continue to be a reasonable expectation. Trying to project what will be is simply not possible. Using these models to then underpin policy is stupid.

 

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

and never forget snow will soon be a thing of the past in Washington DC

 

Farmers do a much better job of predicting rainfall and variations by basing those estimates on the previous few years. Actually climate overall is best predicted by doing the same. Models do a much poorer job.

 

Old Farmers Almanac is worth more than all the models combined none of which were ever verified or validated

 

You just keep thinking that.

 

is snow a thing of the past yet like the climate alarmists of the 1990's predicted? Is the arctic ice free? How many times do the AGW priests have to be wrong before the lemmings get a clue

 

Might I suggest taking a course in physics?

There are two primary forms of heat effecting the earth. First is frictional heat caused by the gravitational pull of the moon rotating around the earth. This is responsible for the molten core of the earth. The second is the radiant heat transferred by light, predominately in the infrared spectrum, from the sun.

There is only one way that the heat escapes from the earth and that is as light also in the infrared spectrum.

Global warming is when earth generates more heat from friction and absorbs more heat from the sun than it radiates back out into space. It doesn't matter where that heat energy is stored (i.e. land, water, or atmosphere).

When referencing the heat energy transfer from the oceans to the atmosphere it's just a reference to the same energy moving from liquid storage to gas storage but it's still here and hasn't left the planet.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are significant because they both absorb incoming solar radiation as well as absorbing outgoing radiation of heat. The amount of greenhouse gases determine whether the mean global temperature will decrease, increase, or stay constant over extended periods of time because they are the "heat filter" of the planet.

The mid-19th century scientific models, based upon the increased emission of manmade greenhouse gases alone, predicted that the mean temperature of the earth was going to increase.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

That scientific model has been verified but it did not include calculations related to deforestation of the rain forests, a primary means for nature to recycle the carbon in CO2 from the atmosphere back into a solid state, that predominately began in the 20th century. Nor did the 19th century models anticipate the massive increase in manmade CO2 production that also occurred during the 20th century. The 19th century models actually underestimated the amount of heat energy that would be stored by the earth because of the combined manmade causes of CO2 production and deforestation.

There are a few caveats related to these findings.

First of all temperature is a measurement of heat intensity and not the quantity of heat. The quantity of heat is related to the density of the materials that are heated. A pound of rock* absorbs much more heat energy that a pound of salt water before it increases in temperature by one degree. Salt water absorbs more heat energy per pound than fresh water because of it's density. And water absorbs thousands of times more heat energy when compared to the atmosphere related to a rise in temperature. (* Rock surface temperatures vary more than the ocean surface because the water circulates while the rock doesn't but the core rock temperatures don't vary much at all)

Next is that the measurements of temperature over the last 100 years were actually very few compared the total heat absorption of the planet. They were a mere sampling of heat intensity relative to the amount of heat energy being absorbed. For example in the deep oceans an increase of 1/1000C represents a huge amount of heat energy absorption because of the vast amount of salt water being heated.

Finally the scientific models you're concerned about are models of how the global mean temperature (intensity) increase created by the massive excess energy resulting from human activities will manifest itself in sample measurements over short time periods measured in decades and not centuries or millennia timeframes. The increased heat energy stored isn't being measured because we can't really do that. It's calculated based upon sample measurements. Then how that heat energy will manifest itself as increased mean land temperatures that would be measured in the 1/1000C increments, or in the oceans that would reflect a significantly higher temperature rise in 1/100C temperature increments, or in the troposphere that would measure it in 1/10C increments are all rolled into a climate model.

The short term climate models based upon global warming aren't perfect nor could we ever expect them to be perfect because the variables of where the heat is stored are too numerous to count and it's impossible to measure the temperature of every rock on earth, every gallon of water in the ocean, or every cubic foot of air. Over the longer term of perhaps 100 years then the temperatures tend to average out and the climate models become far more accurate and that's because it takes a very long time for the heat energy to dissipate and equalize it's distribution.

For the climatologist it's like us predicting how quickly a closed off room will take to heat up to the rest of the house without knowing exactly how wide we're going to open the door. We know it will eventually "normalize" but it could take hours or days for that heat transfer to finally be complete.

In the end of course the climate models don't have much to do with AGW anyway because they're predictors of the dissipation of the heat energy and not the heat absorption itself that's already been proven over the last 100 years.

 

Historically the ocean temperature measurements were very, very limited. They were almost always in the Northern Hemisphere and were overwhelmingly surface or near surface measurements. Even today the deep ocean measurements are very limited. People need to understand how vast and deep the oceans really are because getting a really good measurement analysis would require thousands of more measurements in different locations and at different depths that are affordable.

We basically "spot" measure ocean temperatures and that's good for a general understanding but it doesn't provide precise information. It's only been in recent years that more extensive measurements have been taken and it's indicated significant changes in deeper ocean temperatures. It was only within the last decade, for example, that we found the Northern Atlantic Ocean has a significant increase in heat energy accumulating over previous measurements. Scientists are also finding that true in the Pacific where the increased temperatures are moving the fish to cooler Northern waters.

There's no doubt at all that our oceans are getting warmer due to global warming.

 

Of course they are. They have been since the end of the last global glacial period. The question we have is why are we surprised? Why wouldn't they?

Sat surface temp data are reflecting though that normal cyclic circulation is now cooling them, rapidly. Or at least to temperature assumptions that have been established from a very small data set. Do we rejoice? Or buy more heavy winter jackets?

 

This is one of the most absurd statements ever made.

FACT: The planet is getting warmer. All of the evidence from increased measured global temperatures of the troposphere and oceans over the last 100 years to the noticeable movement of fish in the ocean that are temperature sensitive moving toward the cooler oceans at the poles to the melting of the sea ice near the North Pole that has opened up the artic to sea traffic to the melting of glaciers indicates the planet is getting warmer.

That's called GLOBAL WARMING.

FACT: The prediction that the burning of coal in about 1850, adding CO2 to the atmosphere, would cause the global temperatures to rise has been confirmed by the actual global warming over the last 100 years.

FACT: The deforestation of the tropical rain forests, the most efficient means for nature to return the carbon in CO2 to a solid state, has reduced the ability of nature to recycle the carbon back into a solid state.

FACT: Nature is unable to recycle all of the carbon that's in the atmosphere from it's greenhouse gas state of CO2 into Carbon (C) and oxygen (O2). Mankind is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in excess of what's produced natural and it's the excess CO2 that's primarily responsible for global warming.

FACT: There are no scientific models that account for the increased CO2 in the atmosphere or the measured increase in global temperatures based upon purely natural causes.

FACT: The increased global temperatures are causing secondary releases of greenhouse gases including CO2 and methane (CH4) from sources like the melting permafrost resulting in decomposition of plant matter that's accelerating the global warming. There's also great concern about massive amounts of methane captured in the ocean floor that can be released due to warming oceans. Run-away global warming is a real possibility and that could, in theory, make Earth uninhabitable like Venus.

The planet is warming and man-kind's release of CO2 that's been captured in a solid form for millions of years in a very short time period where nature cannot recycle it back into a solid state is responsible, That's referred to as:

Anthropogenic Global Warming​

It's not only real, it's been proven.

 

seems like some here cannot distinguish between climate change which is a natural ongoing process and man made climate change, which is pretty insignificant in light of past global climate changes. Does mankind cause a change sure it does. just ask my neighbor whose backyard suddenly started flooding when I built a garage in my backyard. I went back and installed drainage pipes and the flooding went away. So yes everything we do will have an impact, just the alternative is near extinction which is what the Malthusians want. You want to have a positive impact on the environment , go walk into the desert and die

 

The increases in the ocean temperatures have accelerated and are much higher than the natural causes explain.

Measuring ocean surface temperatures is absurd as measuring tropospheric temperatures related to global warming. Surface temperatures are basically confined to the top 30' of water or less while the average ocean depth is over 12,000 feet. Virtually all of the heat in the ocean is in the depths of the ocean while surface temperatures are variable based upon heat transfer between the air and the water and weather conditions. For example wind causes surface evaporation and that cools the surface temperature of the water.

Jeeze, there's one constant about science deniers. They don't have much of a clue when it comes to science. They try to fake it but anyone with any scientific knowledge can see they're faking it.

 

this coming from alarmists who deny past climatic changes, the Vostok Ice cores which show that CO2 follows temperature, thinks principles of molar absorption works only in the lab, and does not apply to the atmosphere and cannot seem to grasp gas solubility priciples

now scurry over to skeptical science and come back with some half truths and outright lies and tell me I am wrong.....3...2...1

 

For nearly 2 decades, "scientists" warned that we were entering a new ice age as an absolute scientific fact. Only anti-science fools dare disagree that we are entering an ice age due to global cooling.

But then a big government control freak failed politician name Al Gore, with absolutely no expertise whatsoever, produced a movie that made him $100 million dollars+ in which he claimed the exact opposite. His movie declared that all those scientists were 100% exactly wrong and declared horrific disaster was imminent (all predictions that did not happen) and called upon the government to massively take more power and gather more money.

Government seized upon this for the power and money. Schools began indoctrinating children like China forced children to recite Mao's Little Red Book, forcing them all to watch the movie and accept that politician's claims that all previous scientists and climatologists were wrong as fact, while all big government advocates joined in declaring their is imminent doom - and hiring "scientists" to prove the politician correct - for which they falsified records and documents to make their case.

Those whore-scientists, caught outright lying for personal profit, then declares it isn't "global warming" at all, but "climate change," a safe claim since the climate is perpetually changing - always has, always will.

With time, the indoctrinated school children and those who will believe and do anything their media and political masters tell them continue to push the panic that we must stop the earth's climate ever changing again, many acting no different that religious zealots sobbing and raging that if you don't worship their God and agree with them you're going to hell.

 

You should have stopped there. It was the only factual part of your post. The rest are at best unsupportable assertions.

 

How to then explain the Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages Cool Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and the first part of the current Warm Period all of which happened at constant atmostpheric CO2 concentration ?? How to then explain the periods of cooling, warming, and steady global average temperature with steadily increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration in the later (after 1950) portion of the current warm period ??

The global average temperature is increasing but increasing CO2 is not the controlling driving force.

Exactly correct ^^ And yet the globe has warmed and cooled at constant atmospheric CO2 concentration. So why should energy policy be made based on model outputs which cannot "predict" the past.

 

It's clear just who needs to do some homework on climate science.

 

Here is their claims.

Super high up, too much carbon dioxide.

But they also do not explain why a heavier than air gas gets so high?

They also do not explain why when solutions are offered to them, not including taxation, they get angry or huffy and very resistant to solutions.

To help remove carbon dioxide, removers are available and used by industry.

I am amazed they do not rip into China. They actually make excuses for China. Amazing but true.

There are also scrubbers that spin and collect the gas. They are also resistant to using those.

[video=youtube;IKNdGC04H_U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKNdGC04H_U[/video]

[video=youtube;JUSSTYJslXQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUSSTYJslXQ[/video]

This last video shows how to collect carbon dioxide and then make use of it.

I have shown this before but got no interest from Democrats.

 

I was studying the hot records of this planet but find they range from the 1880s to 2012 I think the last hot day was.

Still, it is surprising how many records date to the 1913 for death Valley, CA to the 1930s in many cases and in other cases a wide range of years.

But per them, I must get taxed or change my scope of living life.

Pure politics

 

Well I recall my days of training to be a pilot. I studied weather since it was on the FAA written test. There was so much weather given one never knew what would be on the FAA test I was exposed to a lot of weather. I often am told weather is not global warming. Now they stopped saying that and currently it is global climate.

To pass the FAA test on weather, you must know climate. You must because your flying takes you into many many climates.

They do not simply assume you fly only over the USA. Even here, we have many climates. Who wants to tell me the climate at Death Valley is what it is at Lake Tahoe or any of the Great lakes?

Flying you get to feel it.

Commercial airplanes deliberately evade weather. They fly as far over it as they feel safe doing so.

But private pilots get to experience it.

I paid extra for mountain flying training. If you have not taken off or landed on a hot day at high altitudes, you may not know what happens.

Truckee, CA has a decent small airport. That day it was very warm. I think it was over 100 degrees. And Truckee is at 5900 feet.

So what was different?

Well, at Hayward, take off and landing was very easy. The plane operated normally.

At Truckee on landing, it floated. It was acting as if it did not want to land. The heated air was lifting up the airplane. It glided.

I landed it of course. Then the take off. At Hayward, at a bit over sea level, the plane took off briskly.

At Truckee it was so sluggish the RPM could not go over 2200. At Hayward it was 2600 RPM. The power at Truckee was so poor it took up much of the runway to get much above the ground. Rather than take off, normally, one had to stay in ground effect. And allow the airplane speed to creep up.

When you take off to the West at Truckee on a hot day, you slam headfirst into hot air that robs you of horsepower, into a downdraft that wants to slam you back into Earth. As you fight the downdraft, and win of course, you bank left to circle back to do another full stop landing. You fly above trees. Those you feel instantly. You are buffeted by turbulence. And you feel like somebody is knocking you around.

OK, I had an instructor pilot with me. And behind us, sat a pilot that waited his turn to fly the plane.

I landed at Truckee 5 times in all. Then I headed to the Lake Tahoe Airport at the south end of the lake and landed there. Due to the cool water of the lake, that landing was easy.

We had lunch and then the other guy was the pilot. i sat in back.

He got to Truckee and made one pass at trying to land. He got scared and gave it up. That was one rough day of flying.

So what is the lesson. The climate is all over the map. Climate at Truckee is not the same as at Hayward, which is maybe 1.5 hrs flying South. The pilot had no trouble at all landing at Hayward.

Climate varies a lot. So much so, only a fool says he averages climate.

Even globally, you do not average climate. It is stupid to try.

 

Sage words. But, if we are to take that approach, the revenue stream that funds research that vainly attempts to "describe" climate as an aggregate dries up. Common sense and actual observation are the true adversaries of the AGW faithful.

 

And to top it off the process of "homogenization" is used to combine known good with known compromised temperature data to calculate averages. Where in any process of data analysis is known bad data used in the process of making energy policy with significant adverse economic consequences which act regressively on the poor ??

 

On top of that where there are no records they use a 1200km radius to guess at the temperatures. That's about 750 miles. Is the temperature 750 miles away from you similar?