Quote:

Reliable climate projections at the regional scale are needed in order to evaluate climate change impacts and inform policy. We develop an alternative method for projections based on the transient climate sensitivity (TCS), which relies on a linear relationship between the forced temperature response and the strongly increasing anthropogenic forcing. The TCS is evaluated at the regional scale (5° by 5°), and projections are made accordingly to 2100 using the high and low Representative Concentration Pathways emission scenarios. We find that there are large spatial discrepancies between the regional TCS from 5 historical data sets and 32 global climate model (GCM) historical runs and furthermore that the global mean GCM TCS is about 15% too high. Given that the GCM Representative Concentration Pathway scenario runs are mostly linear with respect to their (inadequate) TCS, we conclude that historical methods of regional projection are better suited given that they are directly calibrated on the real world (historical) climate.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL076649

Real World Data and not fudges...  that seems a much better idea.

Grendel wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 3:19pm:

Real World Data and not fudges...  that seems a much better idea.

Bingo!

and no one would be talking about global warming, shutting down power stations and sending billions of dollars to an unelected world government...  ::)

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 8:00pm:

Grendel wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 3:19pm: Real World Data and not fudges...  that seems a much better idea. Bingo! and no one would be talking about global warming, shutting down power stations and sending billions of dollars to an unelected world government...  ::)

That would be true if co2 was the only emission from a power plant  ;) ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 8:34pm:

That would be true if co2 was the only emission from a power plant

What are the other emissions of a modern power plant?

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 8:40pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 8:34pm: That would be true if co2 was the only emission from a power plant What are the other emissions of a modern power plant?

Lol how many power plants r modern  :) ;) ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 8:44pm:

Lol how many power plants r modern

You mean the Chinese ones, the Japanese ones? Others?

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 9:01pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 8:44pm: Lol how many power plants r modern  You mean the Chinese ones, the Japanese ones? Others?

How about Australian ?
http://www.news.com.au/news/report-finds-us-china-and-the-eu-have-higher-standards-for-air-pollution-caused-by-power-stations-than-australia/news-story/1836e563a3c1d251284dea414ccfdc97

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 10:05pm:

How about Australian ? http://www.news.com.au/news/report-finds-us-china-and-the-eu-have-higher-standar...

You really are a dick. No one said Australia HAS higher standards than China or anywhere else.

But you are straying a long way from the thread title.

Is that because you don't want the quality of the GCM's examined?

We've gotta do better than burning stinking coal -
we need more renewable energy & also research into the
power locked inside Thorium.

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 10:54pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 10:05pm: How about Australian ? http://www.news.com.au/news/report-finds-us-china-and-the-eu-have-higher-standar... You really are a dick. No one said Australia HAS higher standards than China or anywhere else. But you are straying a long way from the thread title. Is that because you don't want the quality of the GCM's examined?

There there lee it ok, I sense you’re frustration , I mean forgetting what was said a few posts before must suck....
if only u wouldn’t just quote one line from a post u could keep track.
I said that coal power plants produce other poisonous gases than co2 . If u can remember you have been questioning this and I’ve been answering,
Not my fault u need to resort to insults when u don’t get your way...
maybe try quoting even smaller bits of a post..... it might help ;) ;)

Bobby. wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 11:19pm:

We've gotta do better than burning stinking coal - we need more renewable energy & also research into the power locked inside Thorium.

Yeah gen4 nuke might be the answer in 20 -30 years ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 11:32pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 11:19pm: We've gotta do better than burning stinking coal - we need more renewable energy & also research into the power locked inside Thorium. Yeah gen4 nuke might be the answer in 20 -30 years ;)

Thorium is almost like a miracle -
ready to save the whole planet:
clean, cheap, safe, unlimited power -
enough to last forever as it's abundant.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 8:34pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 8:00pm: Grendel wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 3:19pm: Real World Data and not fudges...  that seems a much better idea. Bingo! and no one would be talking about global warming, shutting down power stations and sending billions of dollars to an unelected world government...  ::) That would be true if co2 was the only emission from a power plant  ;) ;)

Yeah that water vapour that's bad stuff...

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 11:30pm:

I said that coal power plants produce other poisonous gases than co2 . If u can remember you have been questioning this and I’ve been answering,

Nope. I asked what they were from a new plant and you went off on a tangent.

Perhaps you could start a thread and tell us all about it.

Grendel wrote on May 18^th, 2018 at 9:54am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 8:34pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 8:00pm: Grendel wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 3:19pm: Real World Data and not fudges...  that seems a much better idea. Bingo! and no one would be talking about global warming, shutting down power stations and sending billions of dollars to an unelected world government...  ::) That would be true if co2 was the only emission from a power plant  ;) ;) Yeah that water vapour that's bad stuff...

http://www.news.com.au/news/report-finds-us-china-and-the-eu-have-higher-standards-for-air-pollution-caused-by-power-stations-than-australia/news-story/1836e563a3c1d251284dea414ccfdc97
The toxins produced by coal-fired power stations can have a deadly impact on those living nearby. People who live within 50km are about three to four times more likely to die a premature death as those living further away.
The report looked at four pollutants that are extremely harmful to health and have been linked to asthma, respiratory problems, stroke, angina, heart attack and cancer.
It found coal-fired power stations emitted more than 30 toxic substances and are the biggest sources of fine particles PM2.5, sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen.
“The mercury limits for some NSW power stations are 666 times higher than the US limits. This is unacceptable,” the report said.
Yeah water vapour........ ;) ;)

You saying water vapour is not a product of coal fired power stations? :D :D :D :D :D

You lot use photos of it often enough claiming its is pollution from them. :D :D :D :D :D

Oh and yes there are other outputs...

But it depends on the amounts produced and the location of the station regarding its effects on people and the environment.  I don't suggest you suck on an exhaust pipe or stand next to a grass-fire either.

As for power stations...


Quote:

One factor in improving air quality has been the pollution-control technologies used by coal-fired power plants. Today’s coal-fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NOx by 86 percent, SO2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls [xv]. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology. Today, coal-fired electricity generation produces nearly half of the electricity generation in America and provides many jobs. For example, Prairie State Energy Campus, a 1,600-megawatt coal plant under construction in southern Illinois, provides 1,200 people with jobs in around-the-clock construction. Between its power plant, coal mine, and other assets, the campus will inject some $2.8 billion into the Illinois economy, creating 2,300 to 2,500 temporary construction jobs and 500 permanent positions, while emitting 80 percent less in pollutants than most existing power plants.[iv] When completed, the power plant will deliver electricity to 2.4 million homes in at least nine states.

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 9:38am:

Oh and yes there are other outputs... But it depends on the amounts produced and the location of the station regarding its effects on people and the environment.  I don't suggest you suck on an exhaust pipe or stand next to a grass-fire either. As for power stations... Quote: One factor in improving air quality has been the pollution-control technologies used by coal-fired power plants. Today’s coal-fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NOx by 86 percent, SO2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls [xv]. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology. Today, coal-fired electricity generation produces nearly half of the electricity generation in America and provides many jobs. For example, Prairie State Energy Campus, a 1,600-megawatt coal plant under construction in southern Illinois, provides 1,200 people with jobs in around-the-clock construction. Between its power plant, coal mine, and other assets, the campus will inject some $2.8 billion into the Illinois economy, creating 2,300 to 2,500 temporary construction jobs and 500 permanent positions, while emitting 80 percent less in pollutants than most existing power plants.[iv] When completed, the power plant will deliver electricity to 2.4 million homes in at least nine states.

Oh and BTW, brown coal vs black coal...  the better quality coal the less emissions.

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 9:38am:

Oh and yes there are other outputs... But it depends on the amounts produced and the location of the station regarding its effects on people and the environment.  I don't suggest you suck on an exhaust pipe or stand next to a grass-fire either. As for power stations... Quote: One factor in improving air quality has been the pollution-control technologies used by coal-fired power plants. Today’s coal-fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NOx by 86 percent, SO2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls [xv]. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology. Today, coal-fired electricity generation produces nearly half of the electricity generation in America and provides many jobs. For example, Prairie State Energy Campus, a 1,600-megawatt coal plant under construction in southern Illinois, provides 1,200 people with jobs in around-the-clock construction. Between its power plant, coal mine, and other assets, the campus will inject some $2.8 billion into the Illinois economy, creating 2,300 to 2,500 temporary construction jobs and 500 permanent positions, while emitting 80 percent less in pollutants than most existing power plants.[iv] When completed, the power plant will deliver electricity to 2.4 million homes in at least nine states.

this is USA not Australia....  :D :D :D :D

http://www.news.com.au/news/report-finds-us-china-and-the-eu-have-higher-standards-for-air-pollution-caused-by-power-stations-than-australia/news-story/1836e563a3c1d251284dea414ccfdc97

Haha Implying coal power plants only emit Water vapour then trying to turn it around with some crap about me posting pictures of a cooling tower.... Really :D :D :P

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 10:18am:

Grendel wrote on May 22nd, 2018 at 9:38am: Oh and yes there are other outputs... But it depends on the amounts produced and the location of the station regarding its effects on people and the environment.  I don't suggest you suck on an exhaust pipe or stand next to a grass-fire either. As for power stations... Quote: One factor in improving air quality has been the pollution-control technologies used by coal-fired power plants. Today’s coal-fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NOx by 86 percent, SO2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls [xv]. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology. Today, coal-fired electricity generation produces nearly half of the electricity generation in America and provides many jobs. For example, Prairie State Energy Campus, a 1,600-megawatt coal plant under construction in southern Illinois, provides 1,200 people with jobs in around-the-clock construction. Between its power plant, coal mine, and other assets, the campus will inject some $2.8 billion into the Illinois economy, creating 2,300 to 2,500 temporary construction jobs and 500 permanent positions, while emitting 80 percent less in pollutants than most existing power plants.[iv] When completed, the power plant will deliver electricity to 2.4 million homes in at least nine states. this is USA not Australia....  :D :D :D :D http://www.news.com.au/news/report-finds-us-china-and-the-eu-have-higher-standards-for-air-pollution-caused-by-power-stations-than-australia/news-story/1836e563a3c1d251284dea414ccfdc97 Haha Implying coal power plants only emit Water vapour then trying to turn it around with some crap about me posting pictures of a cooling tower.... Really :D :D :P

Really?  I never would have guessed. :D :D :D :D

I never implied  your lie at all... 
You made a statement, I commented on  it.

Did I accuse you falsely of implying anything like you just did me?  NO...  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 10:38am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22nd, 2018 at 10:18am: Grendel wrote on May 22nd, 2018 at 9:38am: Oh and yes there are other outputs... But it depends on the amounts produced and the location of the station regarding its effects on people and the environment.  I don't suggest you suck on an exhaust pipe or stand next to a grass-fire either. As for power stations... Quote: One factor in improving air quality has been the pollution-control technologies used by coal-fired power plants. Today’s coal-fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NOx by 86 percent, SO2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls [xv]. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology. Today, coal-fired electricity generation produces nearly half of the electricity generation in America and provides many jobs. For example, Prairie State Energy Campus, a 1,600-megawatt coal plant under construction in southern Illinois, provides 1,200 people with jobs in around-the-clock construction. Between its power plant, coal mine, and other assets, the campus will inject some $2.8 billion into the Illinois economy, creating 2,300 to 2,500 temporary construction jobs and 500 permanent positions, while emitting 80 percent less in pollutants than most existing power plants.[iv] When completed, the power plant will deliver electricity to 2.4 million homes in at least nine states. this is USA not Australia....  :D :D :D :D http://www.news.com.au/news/report-finds-us-china-and-the-eu-have-higher-standards-for-air-pollution-caused-by-power-stations-than-australia/news-story/1836e563a3c1d251284dea414ccfdc97 Haha Implying coal power plants only emit Water vapour then trying to turn it around with some crap about me posting pictures of a cooling tower.... Really :D :D :P Really?  I never would have guessed. :D :D :D :D I never implied  your lie at all...  You made a statement, I commented on  it. Did I accuse you falsely of implying anything like you just did me?  NO...  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 9:30am:

You saying water vapour is not a product of coal fired power stations? :D :D :D :D :D You lot use photos of it often enough claiming its is pollution from them. :D :D :D :D :D

show me where I posted a pic of a cooling tower ? Little on said it was pollution  :P


Grendel wrote on May 18^th, 2018 at 9:54am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 8:34pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 8:00pm: Grendel wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 3:19pm: Real World Data and not fudges...  that seems a much better idea. Bingo! and no one would be talking about global warming, shutting down power stations and sending billions of dollars to an unelected world government...  ::) That would be true if co2 was the only emission from a power plant  ;) ;) Yeah that water vapour that's bad stuff...

reply 13
yes you only said water vapour  ;)
it was mechanic that's  in denial, I was wrong. ;) ;) ;)

Grendel wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 3:19pm:

Real World Data and not fudges...  that seems a much better idea.

The problem with that is how can you then judge what to do to plan for the future, if you have no idea what the future holds.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 12:44pm:

Grendel wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 3:19pm: Real World Data and not fudges...  that seems a much better idea. The problem with that is how can you then judge what to do to plan for the future, if you have no idea what the future holds.

Got me through High School :D

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 10:18am:

his is USA not Australia....  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy http://www.news.com.au/news/report-finds-us-china-and-the-eu-have-higher-standar...

Show me where Beijing met or exceeded those exalted Chinese air standards.


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 1:00pm:

Got me through High School

But don't understand the difference between air quality standards and actual air quality.

https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/86000/86075/sedac_gis_2010_2012.jpg

lee wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 2:10pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22nd, 2018 at 10:18am: his is USA not Australia....  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy http://www.news.com.au/news/report-finds-us-china-and-the-eu-have-higher-standar... Show me where Beijing met or exceeded those exalted Chinese air standards. DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22nd, 2018 at 1:00pm: Got me through High School But don't understand the difference between air quality standards and actual air quality. https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/86000/86075/sedac_gis_2010_2012.jpg

what has this to do with carbon dioxide modelling lee.. please keep on topic so we can follow  ;) ;) ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 12:32pm:

what has this to do with carbon dioxide modelling lee.. please keep on topic so we can follow

Yes. We know you are quite the hypocrite.  No need to enhance your reputation.

lee wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 12:45pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 12:32pm: what has this to do with carbon dioxide modelling lee.. please keep on topic so we can follow Yes. We know you are quite the hypocrite.  No need to enhance your reputation.

ok so does your paper says that doubling the C02 is only .85 degree increase instead of the normal thought of 1 degree increase. What is the difference between historical simulations and Historical methods.
They don't mention the time used but isn't TCR over a twenty year period and the formula for doubling CO2 is set in formula, are they saying it changes with location ? ;) ;)

Where did I accuse you personally of posting any images let alone one of a power station Dippy.
You need to stop lying about what I say and think eh.

That only shows how desperate you are to be right when clearly you are wrong.  Otherwise there is no need to lie and you've done that to me several times now.

I suggest you stop it and stop wasting my time correcting your lies. :D :D :D :D :D

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 1:54pm:

What is the difference between historical simulations and Historical methods.

What do you regard as Historical? Climate models going back to 1880? Poor land data and even worse ocean data.


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 1:54pm:

They don't mention the time used but isn't TCR over a twenty year period and the formula for doubling CO2 is set in formula, are they saying it changes with location ?

Oh good. You are starting to ask questions.

"For instance, the sensitivity only including the fast feedbacks (e.g. ignoring land ice and vegetation), or the sensitivity of a particular class of climate model (e.g. the ‘Charney sensitivity’), or the sensitivity of the whole system except the carbon cycle (the Earth System Sensitivity), or the transient sensitivity tied to a specific date or period of time (i.e. the Transient Climate Response (TCR) to 1% increasing CO2 after 70 years). As you might expect, these are all different and care needs to be taken to define terms before comparing things (there is a good discussion of the various definitions and their scope in the Palaeosens paper).

Each of these numbers is an ’emergent’ property of the climate system – i.e. something that is affected by many different processes and interactions, and isn’t simply derived just based on knowledge of a small-scale process. It is generally assumed that these are well-defined and single-valued properties of the system (and in current GCMs they clearly are), and while the paleo-climate record (for instance the glacial cycles) is supportive of this, it is not absolutely guaranteed. "

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/

It is any period you want, basically.

And of course you have to know all  "that is affected by (the) many different processes and interactions"

Grendel wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Where did I accuse you personally of posting any images let alone one of a power station Dippy. You need to stop lying about what I say and think eh. That only shows how desperate you are to be right when clearly you are wrong.  Otherwise there is no need to lie and you've done that to me several times now. I suggest you stop it and stop wasting my time correcting your lies. :D :D :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2018 at 9:30am:

You saying water vapour is not a product of coal fired power stations? :D :D :D :D :D You lot use photos of it often enough claiming its is pollution from them. :D :D :D :D :D

ohh this isn't you ????? :D :D :D :P ;)
ahhh r u really going to say u said lot instead of my name... :o :o :D
its ok u lot just need to read what is said and get over that feeling everyone is lying to you.....

lee wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 3:22pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 1:54pm: What is the difference between historical simulations and Historical methods. What do you regard as Historical? Climate models going back to 1880? Poor land data and even worse ocean data. DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 1:54pm: They don't mention the time used but isn't TCR over a twenty year period and the formula for doubling CO2 is set in formula, are they saying it changes with location ? Oh good. You are starting to ask questions. "For instance, the sensitivity only including the fast feedbacks (e.g. ignoring land ice and vegetation), or the sensitivity of a particular class of climate model (e.g. the ‘Charney sensitivity’), or the sensitivity of the whole system except the carbon cycle (the Earth System Sensitivity), or the transient sensitivity tied to a specific date or period of time (i.e. the Transient Climate Response (TCR) to 1% increasing CO2 after 70 years). As you might expect, these are all different and care needs to be taken to define terms before comparing things (there is a good discussion of the various definitions and their scope in the Palaeosens paper). Each of these numbers is an ’emergent’ property of the climate system – i.e. something that is affected by many different processes and interactions, and isn’t simply derived just based on knowledge of a small-scale process. It is generally assumed that these are well-defined and single-valued properties of the system (and in current GCMs they clearly are), and while the paleo-climate record (for instance the glacial cycles) is supportive of this, it is not absolutely guaranteed. " http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/ It is any period you want, basically. And of course you have to know all  "that is affected by (the) many different processes and interactions"

so what r the 2 methods they used to figure their one was 15% less than the other, and are they saying the formula is wrong or that in different area's it is variable. ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2018 at 3:24pm:

Grendel wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 3:09pm: Where did I accuse you personally of posting any images let alone one of a power station Dippy. You need to stop lying about what I say and think eh. That only shows how desperate you are to be right when clearly you are wrong.  Otherwise there is no need to lie and you've done that to me several times now. I suggest you stop it and stop wasting my time correcting your lies. :D :D :D :D :D Grendel wrote on May 22nd, 2018 at 9:30am: You saying water vapour is not a product of coal fired power stations? :D :D :D :D :D You lot use photos of it often enough claiming its is pollution from them. :D :D :D :D :D ohh this isn't you ????? :D :D :D :P ;) ahhh r u really going to say u said lot instead of my name... :o :o :D its ok u lot just need to read what is said and get over that feeling everyone is lying to you.....

Yes glad you finally noticed and admitted the truth YOU LOT refers to a group not you personally :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Still cant face the truth eh? ::) ::) ::)
Keep digging that hole Dippy. ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 6:29am:

so what r the 2 methods they used to figure their one was 15% less than the other, and are they saying the formula is wrong or that in different area's it is variable.

What 15% was that petal?

Grendel wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 9:18am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 3:24pm: Grendel wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 3:09pm: Where did I accuse you personally of posting any images let alone one of a power station Dippy. You need to stop lying about what I say and think eh. That only shows how desperate you are to be right when clearly you are wrong.  Otherwise there is no need to lie and you've done that to me several times now. I suggest you stop it and stop wasting my time correcting your lies. :D :D :D :D :D Grendel wrote on May 22nd, 2018 at 9:30am: You saying water vapour is not a product of coal fired power stations? :D :D :D :D :D You lot use photos of it often enough claiming its is pollution from them. :D :D :D :D :D ohh this isn't you ????? :D :D :D :P ;) ahhh r u really going to say u said lot instead of my name... :o :o :D its ok u lot just need to read what is said and get over that feeling everyone is lying to you..... Yes glad you finally noticed and admitted the truth YOU LOT refers to a group not you personally :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Still cant face the truth eh? ::) ::) ::) Keep digging that hole Dippy. ;)

wow I'm back in third grade all the sudden :P :P
so who else where u talking too ? ;) ;)

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 2:10pm:

Quote: Reliable climate projections at the regional scale are needed in order to evaluate climate change impacts and inform policy. We develop an alternative method for projections based on the transient climate sensitivity (TCS), which relies on a linear relationship between the forced temperature response and the strongly increasing anthropogenic forcing. The TCS is evaluated at the regional scale (5° by 5°), and projections are made accordingly to 2100 using the high and low Representative Concentration Pathways emission scenarios. We find that there are large spatial discrepancies between the regional TCS from 5 historical data sets and 32 global climate model (GCM) historical runs and furthermore that the global mean GCM TCS is about 15% too high. Given that the GCM Representative Concentration Pathway scenario runs are mostly linear with respect to their (inadequate) TCS, we conclude that historical methods of regional projection are better suited given that they are directly calibrated on the real world (historical) climate. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL076649

that 15% u know from the original post Lee  ;) ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 11:53am:

that 15% u know from the original post Lee

Sorry. I only went back one page.

Perhaps you should read the paper. And try to comprehend it.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 11:53am:

lee wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 2:10pm: Quote: Reliable climate projections at the regional scale are needed in order to evaluate climate change impacts and inform policy. We develop an alternative method for projections based on the transient climate sensitivity (TCS), which relies on a linear relationship between the forced temperature response and the strongly increasing anthropogenic forcing. The TCS is evaluated at the regional scale (5° by 5°), and projections are made accordingly to 2100 using the high and low Representative Concentration Pathways emission scenarios. We find that there are large spatial discrepancies between the regional TCS from 5 historical data sets and 32 global climate model (GCM) historical runs and furthermore that the global mean GCM TCS is about 15% too high. Given that the GCM Representative Concentration Pathway scenario runs are mostly linear with respect to their (inadequate) TCS, we conclude that historical methods of regional projection are better suited given that they are directly calibrated on the real world (historical) climate. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL076649 that 15% u know from the original post Lee  ;) ;)

so what r the 2 methods they used to figure their one was 15% less than the other, and are they saying the formula is wrong or that in different area's it is variable.

Perhaps you should read the paper. And try to comprehend it.
good advice so what do u think its saying ?

you posted it, surely u understand what u posted Lee ?
;) ;) ;) ;)

do your own work.

lee wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 1:57pm:

do your own work.

Ohhh you have no idea what it is do you, you saw 15% and though ohh global warming is out and I’ll post it. No idea what u posted, really how did u even know I had changed subject.
Next time u post something maybe know what it is. :D :D :D ;)
U can’t even answer a simple question about the artical.... :D :D

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 4:43pm:

Ohhh you have no idea what it is do you, you saw 15% and though ohh global warming is out and I’ll post it. No idea what u posted, really how did u even know I had changed subject. Next time u post something maybe know what it is. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Wink U can’t even answer a simple question about the artical....

And so; not having read the article, you know this?  Such a mind. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 6:29am:

lee wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 3:22pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 1:54pm: What is the difference between historical simulations and Historical methods. What do you regard as Historical? Climate models going back to 1880? Poor land data and even worse ocean data. [quote author=DonDeeHippy link=1526530211/27#27 date=1527047642]They don't mention the time used but isn't TCR over a twenty year period and the formula for doubling CO2 is set in formula, are they saying it changes with location ? Oh good. You are starting to ask questions. "For instance, the sensitivity only including the fast feedbacks (e.g. ignoring land ice and vegetation), or the sensitivity of a particular class of climate model (e.g. the ‘Charney sensitivity’), or the sensitivity of the whole system except the carbon cycle (the Earth System Sensitivity), or the transient sensitivity tied to a specific date or period of time (i.e. the Transient Climate Response (TCR) to 1% increasing CO2 after 70 years). As you might expect, these are all different and care needs to be taken to define terms before comparing things (there is a good discussion of the various definitions and their scope in the Palaeosens paper). Each of these numbers is an ’emergent’ property of the climate system – i.e. something that is affected by many different processes and interactions, and isn’t simply derived just based on knowledge of a small-scale process. It is generally assumed that these are well-defined and single-valued properties of the system (and in current GCMs they clearly are), and while the paleo-climate record (for instance the glacial cycles) is supportive of this, it is not absolutely guaranteed. " http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/ It is any period you want, basically. And of course you have to know all  "that is affected by (the) many different processes and interactions"

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 2:10pm:

Quote: Reliable climate projections at the regional scale are needed in order to evaluate climate change impacts and inform policy. We develop an alternative method for projections based on the transient climate sensitivity (TCS), which relies on a linear relationship between the forced temperature response and the strongly increasing anthropogenic forcing. The TCS is evaluated at the regional scale (5° by 5°), and projections are made accordingly to 2100 using the high and low Representative Concentration Pathways emission scenarios. We find that there are large spatial discrepancies between the regional TCS from 5 historical data sets and 32 global climate model (GCM) historical runs and furthermore that the global mean GCM TCS is about 15% too high. Given that the GCM Representative Concentration Pathway scenario runs are mostly linear with respect to their (inadequate) TCS, we conclude that historical methods of regional projection are better suited given that they are directly calibrated on the real world (historical) climate. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL076649

Ok so having read this I was wondering
what r the 2 methods they used to figure their one was 15% less than the other, and are they saying the formula is wrong or that in different area's it is variable. ;) ;) ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 5:17pm:

Ok so having read this I was wondering

Try reading the rest of the paper. ;)

lee wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 5:24pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24th, 2018 at 5:17pm: Ok so having read this I was wondering Try reading the rest of the paper. ;)

I have Lee that’s why I was asking you what u thought it all meant, the rest is a easy summary and I thought since you posted it, u would know what the variation was  ;) ;) ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 5:52pm:

I have Lee that’s why I was asking you what u thought it all meant,

very good.

It is behind a paywall and I can't get access.

Seeing as you have access; perhaps you can tell us.


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 5:52pm:

he rest is a easy summary and I thought since you posted it, u would know what the variation was

So tell us. ;)

lee wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 6:22pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24th, 2018 at 5:52pm: I have Lee that’s why I was asking you what u thought it all meant, very good. It is behind a paywall and I can't get access. Seeing as you have access; perhaps you can tell us. DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24th, 2018 at 5:52pm: he rest is a easy summary and I thought since you posted it, u would know what the variation was So tell us. ;)

Plain Language Summary
In this paper, we estimate the transient climate sensitivity, that is, the expected short‐term increase in temperature for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, for historical regional series of temperature. We compare our results with historical simulations made using global climate models and find that there are significant regional discrepancies between the two. We argue that historical methods can be more reliable, especially for the more policy‐relevant short‐term projections, given that the discrepancies of the global climate models directly bias their projections.

that's the other bit of it ,no pay wall, so now please tell us what this confusing thing u posted actually means,
what did they use to get their results ?
or did u just see 15% less and decided it was anti AGW ? ;) ;) ;) :D

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 7:41am:

or did u just see 15% less and decided it was anti AGW ?

Nope. I leave that to you.

You do understand the difference between a Summary and the actual paper?

We have no idea what level of confidence. Al we know is waht they wrote in that Summary.


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 7:41am:

We argue that historical methods can be more reliable

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 7:41am:

given that the discrepancies of the global climate models directly bias their projections.

You do understand BIAS?

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2018 at 11:53am:

Grendel wrote on May 24th, 2018 at 9:18am: DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 3:24pm: Grendel wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 3:09pm: Where did I accuse you personally of posting any images let alone one of a power station Dippy. You need to stop lying about what I say and think eh. That only shows how desperate you are to be right when clearly you are wrong.  Otherwise there is no need to lie and you've done that to me several times now. I suggest you stop it and stop wasting my time correcting your lies. :D :D :D :D :D Grendel wrote on May 22nd, 2018 at 9:30am: You saying water vapour is not a product of coal fired power stations? :D :D :D :D :D You lot use photos of it often enough claiming its is pollution from them. :D :D :D :D :D ohh this isn't you ????? :D :D :D :P ;) ahhh r u really going to say u said lot instead of my name... :o :o :D its ok u lot just need to read what is said and get over that feeling everyone is lying to you..... Yes glad you finally noticed and admitted the truth YOU LOT refers to a group not you personally :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Still cant face the truth eh? ::) ::) ::) Keep digging that hole Dippy. ;) wow I'm back in third grade all the sudden :P :P so who else where u talking too ? ;) ;)

oh dear...  here we go again.
I'd have to go back further than 3rd grade for you....  and talk really slow or type really big.

I  w a s  r e f e r r i n g  t o  a  g r o u p...

It aint rocket science Dippy :D :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 12:26pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 25th, 2018 at 7:41am: or did u just see 15% less and decided it was anti AGW ? Nope. I leave that to you. You do understand the difference between a Summary and the actual paper? We have no idea what level of confidence. Al we know is waht they wrote in that Summary. DonDeeHippy wrote on May 25th, 2018 at 7:41am: We argue that historical methods can be more reliable DonDeeHippy wrote on May 25th, 2018 at 7:41am: given that the discrepancies of the global climate models directly bias their projections. You do understand BIAS?

Ha Ha Bias, well what exactly is it about ?
15% less carbon or 15% less temp raise, 15% accuracy, why post something u don't even know what it is ?
Or if u do please be my guest let us know . ;) ;)

Grendel wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 5:08pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24th, 2018 at 11:53am: Grendel wrote on May 24th, 2018 at 9:18am: DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 3:24pm: Grendel wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 3:09pm: Where did I accuse you personally of posting any images let alone one of a power station Dippy. You need to stop lying about what I say and think eh. That only shows how desperate you are to be right when clearly you are wrong.  Otherwise there is no need to lie and you've done that to me several times now. I suggest you stop it and stop wasting my time correcting your lies. :D :D :D :D :D Grendel wrote on May 22nd, 2018 at 9:30am: You saying water vapour is not a product of coal fired power stations? :D :D :D :D :D You lot use photos of it often enough claiming its is pollution from them. :D :D :D :D :D ohh this isn't you ????? :D :D :D :P ;) ahhh r u really going to say u said lot instead of my name... :o :o :D its ok u lot just need to read what is said and get over that feeling everyone is lying to you..... Yes glad you finally noticed and admitted the truth YOU LOT refers to a group not you personally :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Still cant face the truth eh? ::) ::) ::) Keep digging that hole Dippy. ;) wow I'm back in third grade all the sudden :P :P so who else where u talking too ? ;) ;) oh dear...  here we go again. I'd have to go back further than 3rd grade for you....  and talk really slow or type really big. I  w a s  r e f e r r i n g  t o  a  g r o u p... It aint rocket science Dippy :D :D :D :D :D

what group is that ?
while replying to my post...... Ok so it wasn't directed at me ?
ohh why did u write it, just a random thought ? :D :P
;) ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 5:15pm:

Ha Ha Bias, well what exactly is it about ? 15% less carbon or 15% less temp raise, 15% accuracy, why post something u don't even know what it is ? Or if u do please be my guest let us know .

If you have access as you intimated you should be full bottle by now.

However it is an interesting paper; if only because Lovejoy is considered to be somewhat of an alarmist.

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 5:31pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 25th, 2018 at 5:15pm: Ha Ha Bias, well what exactly is it about ? 15% less carbon or 15% less temp raise, 15% accuracy, why post something u don't even know what it is ? Or if u do please be my guest let us know . If you have access as you intimated you should be full bottle by now. However it is an interesting paper; if only because Lovejoy is considered to be somewhat of an alarmist.

what access ? you mean the other half that I pasted up here before that u didn't, still no idea what this article means though do u ?
Why did u post this up if u have no idea what it means,
then u had a little hissy fit because u blamed me for changing subject even stalked me about it in another board
Now it turns out u don't even know what it is.
The only thread I've seen u start and u don't know what its saying  :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D
just keep to playing devil's advocate Lee ;) ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 26^th, 2018 at 7:18am:

what access ?

The access to the complete paper. Sorry, I thought you understood that.

All that is listed is the Abstract and a plain language summary. The full paper is behind a paywall. You need to login to see it.

So what is an Abstract?

"An abstract is a brief summary of the most important points in a scientific paper. Abstracts enable professionals to stay current with the huge volume of scientific literature. Students have misconceptions about the nature of abstracts that may be described as the “table of contents” or “introduction” syndromes. There are several ways to tell if you’ve written an abstract or not."

http://employees.oneonta.edu/ebertjr/what_is_an_abstract.htm

So as the authors did not include the any detail of their methodology; they can't have considered it too important.

But since you are so interested I have taken the liberty of getting the corresponding authors details so you can ask him.

raphael.hebert@mail.mcgill.ca

Do keep us informed on how you get on.

lee wrote on May 26^th, 2018 at 11:43am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 26th, 2018 at 7:18am: what access ? The access to the complete paper. Sorry, I thought you understood that. All that is listed is the Abstract and a plain language summary. The full paper is behind a paywall. You need to login to see it. So what is an Abstract? "An abstract is a brief summary of the most important points in a scientific paper. Abstracts enable professionals to stay current with the huge volume of scientific literature. Students have misconceptions about the nature of abstracts that may be described as the “table of contents” or “introduction” syndromes. There are several ways to tell if you’ve written an abstract or not." http://employees.oneonta.edu/ebertjr/what_is_an_abstract.htm So as the authors did not include the any detail of their methodology; they can't have considered it too important. But since you are so interested I have taken the liberty of getting the corresponding authors details so you can ask him. raphael.hebert@mail.mcgill.ca Do keep us informed on how you get on.

Your the one that made this thread Lee , pasted the article and Highlighted 15% wrong. If u have no idea what it means why did u post it ? What is 15% about?
I don't really care what its about, But then I didn't make a new tread about it, u did.
To make things worse u had a hissy fit we changed the subject and u don't even know what the subject is.
Now I've asked a question about it.... I'm still waiting on a answer ?
Maybe just keep quoting one line from a post and distorting it... that's what your best at Lee  ;) ;)

quote author=DonDeeHippy link=1526530211/54#54 date=1527459066]Your the one that made this thread Lee , pasted the article and Highlighted 15% wrong. If u have no idea what it means why did u post it ? What is 15% about?[/quote]


So you can't read? can't comprehend?

"We (the authors) find that there are large spatial discrepancies between the regional TCS from 5 historical data sets and 32 global climate model (GCM) historical runs and furthermore that the global mean GCM TCS is about 15% too high"

So they find the Transient Climate Sensitivity is too high. That means that the Global Climate Models overestimate AGW/Climate Change. AKA "run too hot".


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 28^th, 2018 at 8:11am:

To make things worse u had a hissy fit we changed the subject and u don't even know what the subject is.

The point I highlighted was that the GCM's run too hot. Jeez are you really that  challenged.


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 28^th, 2018 at 8:11am:

Maybe just keep quoting one line from a post and distorting it... that's what your best at Lee  Wink

Then perhaps you can "undistort' it it and give us your exceptionally clear, concise view. You are free to debunk what I posted. But that would mean you are debunking climate scientists. ;)

lee wrote on May 28^th, 2018 at 11:32am:

quote author=DonDeeHippy link=1526530211/54#54 date=1527459066]Your the one that made this thread Lee , pasted the article and Highlighted 15% wrong. If u have no idea what it means why did u post it ? What is 15% about?

So you can't read? can't comprehend?

"We (the authors) find that there are large spatial discrepancies between the regional TCS from 5 historical data sets and 32 global climate model (GCM) historical runs and furthermore that the global mean GCM TCS is about 15% too high"

So they find the Transient Climate Sensitivity is too high. That means that the Global Climate Models overestimate AGW/Climate Change. AKA "run too hot".


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 28^th, 2018 at 8:11am:

To make things worse u had a hissy fit we changed the subject and u don't even know what the subject is.

The point I highlighted was that the GCM's run too hot. Jeez are you really that  challenged.


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 28^th, 2018 at 8:11am:

Maybe just keep quoting one line from a post and distorting it... that's what your best at Lee  Wink

Then perhaps you can "undistort' it it and give us your exceptionally clear, concise view. You are free to debunk what I posted. But that would mean you are debunking climate scientists. ;)[/quote]


But in the case of the temperature record, it actually means only 135 years. Accurate, systematic, global thermometer measurements of surface temperatures go back only to 1880
so with what 135years of real world data they have determined that a simulation of the same time span to double the CO2 is 15% off ? sounds silly to me no wonder they want u to pay to read the rest of the dribble. ;) ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 25^th, 2018 at 5:17pm:

Grendel wrote on May 25th, 2018 at 5:08pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24th, 2018 at 11:53am: Grendel wrote on May 24th, 2018 at 9:18am: DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 3:24pm: Grendel wrote on May 23rd, 2018 at 3:09pm: Where did I accuse you personally of posting any images let alone one of a power station Dippy. You need to stop lying about what I say and think eh. That only shows how desperate you are to be right when clearly you are wrong.  Otherwise there is no need to lie and you've done that to me several times now. I suggest you stop it and stop wasting my time correcting your lies. :D :D :D :D :D Grendel wrote on May 22nd, 2018 at 9:30am: You saying water vapour is not a product of coal fired power stations? :D :D :D :D :D You lot use photos of it often enough claiming its is pollution from them. :D :D :D :D :D ohh this isn't you ????? :D :D :D :P ;) ahhh r u really going to say u said lot instead of my name... :o :o :D its ok u lot just need to read what is said and get over that feeling everyone is lying to you..... Yes glad you finally noticed and admitted the truth YOU LOT refers to a group not you personally :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Still cant face the truth eh? ::) ::) ::) Keep digging that hole Dippy. ;) wow I'm back in third grade all the sudden :P :P so who else where u talking too ? ;) ;) oh dear...  here we go again. I'd have to go back further than 3rd grade for you....  and talk really slow or type really big. I  w a s  r e f e r r i n g  t o  a  g r o u p... It aint rocket science Dippy :D :D :D :D :D what group is that ? while replying to my post...... Ok so it wasn't directed at me ? ohh why did u write it, just a random thought ? :D :P ;) ;)

Stop wasting MY time whilst making an ass of yourself...   :D