Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (201299)	8/9/2017 1:05:41 PM
From: weatherguru	6 Recommendations Recommended By DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck Investor Clouseau locogringo rayrohn TideGlider and 1 more member Respond to of 224718

Wrong. It's a very important issue. Low-frequency variability is key to long-range forecasting (1 week to 1 year) , i.e., ENSO, Arctic Oscillation, Pacific-North American and other teleconnection patterns, persistent ridges of high pressure (Bermuda high, polar vortex, Pacific jet exit region), and the impacts these features have on storm tracks. Climate models can't properly mimic these low-frequency features. These features play a HUGE role in redistributing temperature and momentum across the globe. Even if there's no "CO2 forcing" programmed into a model, the models can't even mimic the climatological state of the atmosphere. In other words, if a model can't even redistribute energy properly in the absence of forcing, you are left with low-frequency features that are erroneous in magnitude and structure. Throw in forcing, and the errors just get amplified. Error gets compounded over time. If climate models are right, why is there no upper-tropospheric hot spot in the tropics?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (201299)	8/9/2017 1:16:20 PM
From: Jack of All Trades	4 Recommendations Recommended By DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck rayrohn TideGlider tonto Respond to of 224718

Only if you're Variables for long range Climate Forecasts are just CO2... <VBG> You don't have a clue, you have never studied Engineering or Statistical Modeling. You have absolutely no idea what it even takes to produce a simple model and how to determine if a model is even valid. But you can tell other people they are wrong about something you have no idea about.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (201299)	8/9/2017 3:19:06 PM
From: tonto	2 Recommendations Recommended By DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck Investor Clouseau Respond to of 224718

Then how come they are wrong so often? Predictions on global warming trends may not be as accurate as at first their studies suggest. A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, only three were accurate. The other 114 overestimated the amount by which the Earth's temperature rose. The predictions were roughly twice the amount of global warming than had actually occurred. A vision of the future? Or maybe not! As it would appear most climate change prediction models are way off Some scientists have suggested that such results require a major overhaul in climate modelling and say the study shows that climate modellers need to go back to the drawing board Read more: dailymail.co.uk Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter \| DailyMail on Facebook

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (201299)	8/9/2017 6:09:28 PM
From: TideGlider	4 Recommendations Recommended By Investor Clouseau locogringo Sedohr Nod weatherguru Respond to of 224718

Justice Dept. sides with Ohio purge of inactive voters in case headed to Supreme Court. washingtonpost.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (201299)	8/10/2017 11:29:26 AM
From: weatherguru	4 Recommendations Recommended By Investor Clouseau rayrohn TideGlider tonto Respond to of 224718

Use of the word "predictor" is completely wrong, even Dr. Kevin Trenberth says so (see quotes and link below). I am curious, if climate models are right, why is there no upper-tropospheric hot spot in the tropics? "In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. ... Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate." blogs.nature.com That's my point. If a model can't properly convert potential energy to kinetic energy via low-frequency regimes, then heat just builds up. Program energy into the system via CO2, and heat builds up even more. Duh? Error compounds upon error. If they even try to convect this energy (which is what happens naturally on so many low-frequency scales that we can't comprehend, especially with 30 and 60-year cycles in the ocean), then the heating goes away. That would ruin the money train. The only way to suppress convection over long-terms scales is to build an upper-tropospheric hot spot in the tropics in the models, but one does not exist in observations. Huge discrepancy! This shows that the heating of the last 30+ years is just surface related due to oceans warming plus urban heat island impacts.