How good were climate models 30 years ago?

On Jul 19, 10:28*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:03*pm, "Androcles" wrote:

*Currently Antarctica is tilted toward the sun at perihelion

where it is reflecting solar energy but melting. At aphelion the
North Pole is tilted toward the sun and absorbs more solar energy,
but less than Antarctica due to the inverse square law.

Just another empiricist child with no feeling for orbital dynamics.

One of the oldest human clocks is 5200 years old or 20 % through a
precession of *roughly 25920 years - the Solstice marker using a
roofbox still registers the orbital point of the Earth in December
just as it has been doing for the last 5000 years .This fact would
normally send people adjusting their views to look on orbital
precession as a separate issue to the quasi-rotation of the polar
coordinates to the Sun each orbital circuit.

Use a broom handle to fix your axial inclination in constant alignment
throughout an orbital circuit as you walk/orbit a central object and
watch in amazement as precession to the central Sun emerges as an
orbital trait with only a slight adjustment to consider the ecliptic
precession which most people mistake for axial precession.

All in a day's work for an astronomer in a world full of
mathematicians who don't have a feel for terrestrial effects arising
from planetary dynamics.

Oops - forgot the ancient human clock which affirms ecliptic
precession as an orbital trait and not an axial one.

http://www.newgrange.com/winter_solstice.htm

Don't think you can make heads nor tails of why axial coordinates
remain fixed and in relation to the circle of illumination hence the
polar coordinate don't gyrate separately to their quasi-rotation to
the central Sun in acting like a beacon for the orbital behavior of
the Earth.It is not that axial precession has to go,it already exists
as an annual event by switching focus to the central Sun and taking
notice of an additional orbital component that causes the seasons to
change and natural noon cycles to vary.

All this 'tilted to the Sun' business is trying to do too much with
too little,be a man and be the first to recognize a necessary
modification to the older perspectives and know exactly what is being
done as though our generation is capable of thinking on its own.

In article
-septemb
er.org,
Mike Collins wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

snip

The Earth has a magnificent equatorial climate ,its degree of
inclination is heavily biased towards the equatorial end of the
spectrum

Rubbish. A large fraction if the Earth is within the Arctic and Antarctic
circles.

The portion of the earth's surface between the tropics is about sin(OE)
~= 40% of the sphere, while the polar regions make up only 1 - cos(OE)
~= 8%. The temperate zones amount to a slight majority of the total.

--
Odysseus

On Jul 20, 3:38*am, Odysseus wrote:
In article
-septemb
er.org,
*Mike Collins wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

snip

The Earth has a magnificent equatorial climate ,its degree of
inclination is heavily biased towards the equatorial end of the
spectrum
Rubbish. A large fraction if the Earth is within the Arctic and Antarctic
circles.

The portion of the earth's surface between the tropics is about sin(OE)
~= 40% of the sphere, while the polar regions make up only 1 - cos(OE)
~= 8%. The temperate zones amount to a slight majority of the total.

--
Odysseus

None of you are getting it are you ?.

A planet with 0 degree inclination has an equatorial climate,a planet
with 90 degree inclination has a polar climate hence a planet's
climate is defined by the degree of inclination with the Earth's
climate being largely equatorial.The old 'no tilt/no seasons'
ideology obscured what actually reflects global climate - an
equatorial climate does not mean a planet's temperature is hot nor a
polar climate represents global climate,in planetary climate terms an
equatorial climate denotes a lack of variations in latitudinal
temperature fluctuations at different orbital points whereas a polar
climate has large swings.You can't get your head around the planetary
comparisons which define global climate as falling between one and
the other thereby allowing for distinct polar and equatorial inputs
whereas you are stuck with latitude temperatures and the idea that the
polar climate is cold and an equatorial climate is hot.

Forget this modeling business of trying to make global climate out of
local long term weather patterns,an astronomer or a genuine climate
scientist would have immediately recognized what the modification of
the 'no tilt/no seasons' to an equatorial climate actually is and
adjusted to a whole new playing field ad one that is far more complex
and intricate than 'tilt causes the seasons'.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:13:03 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
wrote:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/0...s-30-years-ago

Pretty good it appears.

Yes. Even 30 years ago the models were very good at dealing with the
global energy balance, and with continental and oceanic scale climate.
As you note, that's because the primary forcers had all been
identified and were included in the models.


ROFL.

Why don't you draw a graph of the predicted temperatures since 1982 with
what actually happened.

Any resemblance is co-incidental.

Tests of GR are good to 12 significant places of accuracy. What was the most
accurate prediction of global temperatures in 2011, and how good were they?


What has happened since is that more subtle forcers have been
included, and increased computer power has allowed for smaller cells
in the simulations. The result is that models are now good for
regional climate, where regions are on order of a million square
kilometers... and that is getting less all the time. In some cases
quite small areas are now well modeled (for instance, the central
Rockies in the U.S.)

Have you any evidence that these models predict future climate than did
Mann?


In addition, a better understanding of air and
ocean currents is increasing the temporal resolution of the models.
While the models used 30 years ago typically output results based on a
30-year floating average, current models use 10-year or even 5-year
resolution. Most researchers expect that they'll be operating 2-year
and 1-year models within the next few years.

And the most accurate prediction made in 2001 as to the temperature in 2011
(a period of 10 years) was what?



There are a half dozen or so independently developed models, and all
yield very similar results, and those results quite accurately
describe the actual temperatures for the last couple hundred years,

Oh dear. Predicting the past is very easy. You are supposed to be able to
predict the future. You don't claim that, for very good reason.


and are increasingly good at predicting the water cycle patterns, as
well.

So, post the predictions of future temperature (say 2001 - 2011 made prior
to 2001) so we can see for ourselves how they good they are.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 05:57:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

BBC reported Scotland will not meet it's targets for greenhouse gas
emission control because of unseasonably cold weather in 2010-2011.
Ironic, isn't it?

Not at all. The models show quite accurately how increasing the total
stored thermal energy in the global climate system leads to shifts in
regional heating, regional cooling, and regional precipitation.


Quite accurately, huh?

What makes you think this is true? Have you got experimental evidence that
regional predictions of future temperature are "quite accurate"? What is it?


It's not a complicated concept, although the science deniers clearly
choose to ignore it: global warming produces climate change.

Global warming *is* climate change, dumbo. Please, find me a skeptic as dumb
as you who actually says global warming is not climate change.

Do you even read what you post, let alone think about it?

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:20:26 -0500, Rich wrote:

So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. AGW = world
socialist control, not control of C02.

Revisionist mythology. The climate models 30 years ago did not predict
an ice age. No climate model has predicted an upcoming ice age.

Pity. Ice Ages appear to be part of our long term climatic patterns.

Does this mean that all climate models are wrong?

"Peter Webb" wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:20:26 -0500, Rich wrote:

So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. AGW = world
socialist control, not control of C02.

Revisionist mythology. The climate models 30 years ago did not predict
an ice age. No climate model has predicted an upcoming ice age.

Pity. Ice Ages appear to be part of our long term climatic patterns.

Does this mean that all climate models are wrong?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

On Jul 19, 1:11*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:20:26 -0500, Rich wrote:
So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. *AGW = world
socialist control, not control of C02.

Revisionist mythology. The climate models 30 years ago did not predict
an ice age. No climate model has predicted an upcoming ice age.

Something supposedly was coming. The climate-change loons were dead-
wrong last time (as this time too), which was no surprise.

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

www.denisdutton.com



Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward
global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world
temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979
that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had
begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A
PDF of the original is available here. A fine short history of warming
and cooling scares has recently been produced. It is available here.

We invite readers interested in finding out about both sides of
the debate over global warming to visit our website: Climate Debate
Daily — Denis Dutton



There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have
begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
drastic decline in food production – with serious political
implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food
output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The
regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing
lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of
marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is
dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to
accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep
up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline
by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain
production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same
time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a
fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought
and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of
tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and
caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the
advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The
central fact is that after three quarters of a century of
extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be
cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of
the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local
weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the
trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the
century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the
pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major
climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a
worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of
Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and
population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate
of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half
a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere
between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia
University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in
Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study
released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of
sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by
1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and
sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of
Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the
great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its
warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about
a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the
cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought
bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and
1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners
roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River
almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a
mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at
least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of
Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely
unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the
key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results
of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting
the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth
flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced
in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as
droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons
and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct
impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of
NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more
sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”
Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new
national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate
from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take
any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to
allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it
with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far
greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that
government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple
measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of
climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food
supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they
find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim
reality.

—PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports

[end]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:05:44 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

ROFL.

Your ignorance doesn't change the fact the climate science has
established beyond doubt that the world is warming as the result of
the human caused rise in atmospheric CO2, and is increasingly
sophisticated in its ability to analyze the effect of this undisputed
forcer on climate at smaller and smaller scales, both temporally and
spatially.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:09:44 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Pity. Ice Ages appear to be part of our long term climatic patterns.

Does this mean that all climate models are wrong?

No, it's just further evidence of your own ignorance and stupidity. As
if we actually needed more!