The point of climate modelling in the context of GHG emissions is to predict the impact on global temperature. Contrary to the crap that Lee has been furiously spewing, they have been remarkably accurate.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-fut
ure-warming-projections-right/



Why does this look so different from the crap that Lee has been posting? Two reasons:

1) Lee's crap tends to leave out a lot of the temperature data. A recent example left out temperature data after 2013.

2) Lee's crap leaves out the global temperature, for example only giving the sea surface temperature in certain parts of the ocean. This would be entirely relevant if the argument over GHG emissions was based only on the sea surface temperature in certain parts of the ocean, but in the context of GHG emissions it is a classic case of cherry picking in order to promote a lie.

I have no idea what that is even a plot of. I doubt you do either. And why does it have a watermark from photobucket on it?

You left out the link Lee. Are you trying to make this look as dodgy as possible?

Quote:


You are full of crap Lee. I'm not going to figure out its flavour for you.

I see now why you were so embarrassed to post the link - it is based on measured troposphere data, ie up to 18km high. It is comparing that to predictions of surface temperature.

Pretty stupid, eh?

Quote:


The plot I provided above is from NASA, slow one. I even included the link so you could figure this out for yourself

Here is another one from NASA. It shows about twice as much warming as your measured data. It is measured surface temperature, which matches the predicted surface temperature, spot on.



https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

You are full of crap Lee. Were you really incapable of figuring that one out for yourself, or do you just no care how full of crap you are?

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 6:50pm:

One degree in 50 years.

Cause?


(Careful - nobody knows, everyone is guessing. The more politically motivated the guess, the more likely it is BS).

BTW - here is the underlying data -
Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C)
--------------------------------

Year No_Smoothing  Lowess(5)
----------------------------
1880     -0.16     -0.08
1881     -0.08     -0.12
1882     -0.10     -0.16
1883     -0.16     -0.20
1884     -0.28     -0.23
1885     -0.33     -0.26
1886     -0.31     -0.27
1887     -0.36     -0.27
1888     -0.17     -0.26
1889     -0.10     -0.25
1890     -0.35     -0.25
1891     -0.22     -0.25
1892     -0.27     -0.26
1893     -0.31     -0.26
1894     -0.30     -0.24
1895     -0.23     -0.22
1896     -0.11     -0.20
1897     -0.11     -0.18
1898     -0.27     -0.16
1899     -0.17     -0.17
1900     -0.08     -0.20
1901     -0.15     -0.23
1902     -0.27     -0.25
1903     -0.37     -0.28
1904     -0.47     -0.31
1905     -0.26     -0.33
1906     -0.22     -0.36
1907     -0.38     -0.37
1908     -0.43     -0.39
1909     -0.48     -0.41
1910     -0.43     -0.41
1911     -0.44     -0.39
1912     -0.36     -0.35
1913     -0.34     -0.32
1914     -0.15     -0.31
1915     -0.14     -0.30
1916     -0.35     -0.29
1917     -0.46     -0.29
1918     -0.30     -0.30
1919     -0.28     -0.29
1920     -0.27     -0.28
1921     -0.19     -0.26
1922     -0.28     -0.25
1923     -0.26     -0.24
1924     -0.27     -0.23
1925     -0.22     -0.22
1926     -0.11     -0.22
1927     -0.22     -0.21
1928     -0.20     -0.20
1929     -0.36     -0.19
1930     -0.16     -0.19
1931     -0.10     -0.19
1932     -0.16     -0.18
1933     -0.29     -0.17
1934     -0.13     -0.16
1935     -0.20     -0.14
1936     -0.15     -0.11
1937     -0.03     -0.07
1938     -0.01     -0.02
1939     -0.02      0.03
1940      0.12      0.06
1941      0.18      0.09
1942      0.06      0.10
1943      0.09      0.10
1944      0.20      0.07
1945      0.09      0.04
1946     -0.07      0.00
1947     -0.03     -0.04
1948     -0.11     -0.07
1949     -0.11     -0.08
1950     -0.18     -0.08
1951     -0.07     -0.07
1952      0.01     -0.07
1953      0.08     -0.07
1954     -0.13     -0.07
1955     -0.14     -0.06
1956     -0.19     -0.05
1957      0.05     -0.04
1958      0.06     -0.01
1959      0.03      0.01
1960     -0.03      0.03
1961      0.06      0.01
1962      0.03     -0.01
1963      0.05     -0.03
1964     -0.20     -0.04
1965     -0.11     -0.05
1966     -0.06     -0.06
1967     -0.02     -0.05
1968     -0.08     -0.03
1969      0.05     -0.02
1970      0.03     -0.00
1971     -0.08      0.00
1972      0.01      0.00
1973      0.16     -0.00
1974     -0.07      0.00
1975     -0.01      0.02
1976     -0.10      0.04
1977      0.18      0.07
1978      0.07      0.12
1979      0.16      0.16
1980      0.26      0.20
1981      0.32      0.21
1982      0.14      0.21
1983      0.31      0.21
1984      0.16      0.21
1985      0.12      0.22
1986      0.18      0.24
1987      0.32      0.27
1988      0.39      0.31
1989      0.27      0.33
1990      0.45      0.33
1991      0.41      0.33
1992      0.22      0.33
1993      0.23      0.33
1994      0.32      0.34
1995      0.45      0.37
1996      0.33      0.40
1997      0.46      0.42
1998      0.61      0.44
1999      0.38      0.47
2000      0.39      0.50
2001      0.54      0.52
2002      0.63      0.55
2003      0.62      0.59
2004      0.54      0.61
2005      0.68      0.62
2006      0.64      0.63
2007      0.67      0.64
2008      0.55      0.64
2009      0.66      0.65
2010      0.72      0.65
2011      0.61      0.67
2012      0.65      0.70
2013      0.68      0.74
2014      0.75      0.79
2015      0.90      0.83
2016      1.02      0.88
2017      0.93      0.91
2018      0.85      0.95
2019      0.98      0.98
2020      1.02      1.01

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based...

Have a look at the no smoothing column; that's the one shown on your graph..

You are such a schmuck.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 11:25pm:



New coal fired plant already have scrubbers. Gas fired ones don't have that pollution. Renewables need more copper ( mining and manufacture) than large stationary plant because they need the generators to be either on the top of masts (iron ore and steel manufacturing), and in there silicon manufacture. Also there are large concrete bases gor wind generators and concrete emits CO2.

Just a few for consideration.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 11:25pm:



You haven't got back on where this 4 billion is going to come from. Not a newspaper report but a study. The WorldBank one uses RPC8.5 which is not really an option. I quoted a part of that the other day.

Also the source of the quote for costs. Is that the UN's want of $100 billion per year?

More -

"Happily — and that’s a word we climatologists rarely get to use — the world imagined in RCP8.5 is one that, in our view, becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year5. Emission pathways to get to RCP8.5 generally require an unprecedented fivefold increase in coal use by the end of the century, an amount larger than some estimates of recoverable coal reserves6. It is thought that global coal use peaked in 2013, and although increases are still possible, many energy forecasts expect it to flatline over the next few decades7."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3

So tell us this study with 4 billion dead and not using RPC8.5.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 9:55pm:


The cause is GHG emissions. That's why, contrary to the constant stream of crap coming out of Lee, the changes to the measured temperature data match so closely the changes that were predicted base on GHG emissions.

Based on the fact that these climate models cannot tell us what is down the track in five years time it would be stupid for policy makers to spend trillions of dollars trying to mitigate AGW according to these climate models.

Absolute stupidity for the stupid.

For model information look here...!

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1619599142

"Eruptions from deep-sea volcanoes were long-thought to be relatively uninteresting compared with those on land. While terrestrial volcanoes often produce spectacular eruptions, dispersing volcanic ash into the environment, it was thought that deep marine eruptions only produced slow moving lava flows.

But data gathered by remotely operated vehicles deep in the North East Pacific and analysed by scientists at the University of Leeds, has revealed a link between the way ash is dispersed during submarine eruptions and the creation of large and powerful columns of heated water rising from the ocean floor, known as megaplumes.

These megaplumes contain hot chemical-rich water and act in the same way as the atmospheric plumes seen from land-based volcanoes, spreading first upwards and then outwards, carrying volcanic ash with them. The size of megaplumes is immense, with the volumes of water equivalent to forty million Olympic-sized swimming pools. They have been detected above various submarine volcanoes but their origin has remained unknown. The results of this new research show that they form rapidly during the eruption of lava.

The research was carried out by Sam Pegler, from the School of Mathematics and David Ferguson, from the School of Earth and Environment and is being published today in the journal Nature Communications.

Together they developed a mathematical model which shows how ash from these submarine eruptions spreads several kilometres from the volcano. They used the ash pattern deposited by a historic submarine eruption to reconstruct its dynamics. This showed that the rate of energy released and required to carry ash to the observed distances is extremely high – equivalent to the power used by the whole of the USA.

David Ferguson said: “The majority of Earth’s volcanic activity occurs underwater, mostly at depths of several kilometres in the deep ocean but, in contrast to terrestrial volcanoes, even detecting that an eruption has occurred on the seafloor is extremely challenging. Consequently, there remains much for scientists to learn about submarine volcanism and its effects on the marine environment.”

The research shows that submarine eruptions cause megaplumes to form but the release of energy is so rapid that it cannot be supplied from the erupted molten lava alone. Instead, the research concludes that submarine volcanic eruptions lead to the rapid emptying of reservoirs of hot fluids within the earth’s crust. As the magma forces its way upwards towards the seafloor, it drives this hot fluid with it.

Sam Pegler added: “Our work provides evidence that megaplumes are directly linked to the eruption of lava and are responsible for transporting volcanic ash in the deep ocean. It also shows that plumes must have formed in a matter of hours, creating an immense rate of energy release.

David Ferguson adds: “Observing a submarine eruption in person remains extremely difficult but the development of instruments based on the seafloor means data can be streamed live as the activity occurs.

Efforts like these, in concert with continued mapping and sampling of the ocean floor means the volcanic character of our oceans is slowly being revealed.” "

"Rapid heat discharge during deep-sea eruptions generates megaplumes and disperses tephra"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22439-y

Ajax wrote on May 2^nd, 2021 at 11:35am:


You want me to learn about every turd that Lee drops on this forum?

He's got diarrhea.

lee wrote on May 1^st, 2021 at 2:53pm:



There's  a known unknown that the doom goblins dont want to talk about - they cant model it so they ignore it.


Cuppa?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2021 at 6:15pm:



Smart man Ajax.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2021 at 8:46am:


The models are wrong FD observations (empirical data) of nature has proven them wrong over many decades now, enough time for climate observations (30 year period).



http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-sate...

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2021 at 10:03am:


Study the graphs and learn something.

I suppose you go around saying there was no LIA or MWP.....

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2021 at 5:49pm:



Of course you with about a quarter of a brain believe in the models.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2021 at 5:49pm:



The models

The models

Satellites measure temperature 18km up. (they don't but you say it so authoritatively)

The models

The models


Too funny. And you deny Data from NASA to boot.

lee wrote on May 11^th, 2021 at 6:56pm:


You are full of crap Lee. I have pointed out your idiotic lies several times already. All you do is repeat them.

You are full of crap Lee.

Quote:


It is bleeding obvious to anyone with half a brain that I was talking about the fitted curve. You know this is a lie, which is why you went to the trouble of digging out the numbers rather than posting the graph we were discussing at the time.

Quote:


Again, anyone with half a brain could see through this BS. It is clearly based on temperature data from a different location to the predictions. You tell the same idiotic lie over and over again. You are using lower troposphere data from around the equator to prove that the predictions for global surface temperature were wrong. Your efforts paint climate skeptics as morons who will believe anything.

You are full of crap Lee.

lee wrote on May 16^th, 2021 at 12:56pm:


You posted some of the data. Like I said, to anyone with half a brain, it is obvious from looking at the graph.

Quote:


Earth to Lee: the lower troposphere temperature is different from the surface temperature. Only a complete idiot would try to use one to discredit the other. A true moron. You have even posted evidence before  that provided different measured data for the surface and lower troposphere.

But please, continue.

I also just saw a previous post from you comparing
* the mid troposphere  temperature to the predicted surface temperature
* the temperature of the ocean surface with predicted air temnperatures
How stupid are the skeptics to go to the trouble of plotting and disseminating this crap without realising they are not comparing the same thing?

https://mobile.twitter.com/Semiogogue/status/1394533117046706178/photo/1