26/27 April – Sharp frost across the south

A mild night in the cloudier windier north, but inland and further south where winds fell light, a moderate frost in places.

About xmetman

An ex-metman passionate about all things to do with weather, climate and clouds
Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to 26/27 April – Sharp frost across the south

  1. 1saveenergy says:

    Bruce,
    “I would have thought a good test for any model used to predict the climate in the next 50 years or more, would be to run 20th century observational data through it, maybe from the 1960’s, and see what kind of projection’s that their model would make for the early 21st century i.e. now? I’ve never seen anything written about this simple diagnostic that they could run on any climate model to verify just how well it performs.”

    Here’s one that was run using 1960-2000 data-
    “The results show that climate models give a poor reflection of the actual changes in extreme precipitation events that took place in China between 1961 and 2000,” he says. “Only half of the 21 analysed climate models analysed were able to reproduce the changes in some regions of China. Few models can well reproduce the nationwide change.”
    https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/31816

    The climate models’ predictions are unreliable….because they don’t model the climate; they mainly look for the CO2 signal & hey-presto they find it.

    Good simple description by Mike Jonas https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/ & technical discussion (skip the posts on semantics) .

  2. 1saveenergy says:

    Hello Peter,
    It’s been ~ 6 weeks since we had intercourse; have you now had sufficient time to dig through your physics, math’s & chemistry textbooks to reply to my http://xmetman.com/wp/2017/03/05/latest-polar-sea-ice-extent-4-march-2017/#comment-463 challenge that –

    YOU supply some empirical evidence of man-made carbon dioxide induced global warming, explain the actual mechanism that produces that unique effect & quote the particular laws of physics that allows 1 molecule in 2,500 to increase the temperature of something hotter than it’s self.

    BUT…Do not include any –
    Computer model predictions.
    Theory’s that ignore the basic laws of math’s, physics & chemistry.
    Falsified data.
    News paper & TV claims.
    Quotations by politicians.
    Any thing that contains words like – Could, May, Indicate…

    …… Or would you like more time ?

    And please, don’t try changing the subject as you normally do.

    2. Regarding your comments on the science café meeting.

    “the good Dr”, for some reason, was unable or unwilling to answer many questions from the audience (including from the ‘warmist side’), just referring people to his simple graph with NO backup data, in-fact he showed no evidence, data or observations [except CO2 at 400ppm (it’s actually ~410ppm) ] & refused to discus observational data that someone had brought

    He kept saying “it’s just simple physics & chemistry” but couldn’t say which bits & he seemed totally flummoxed when someone asked about the effect of latent heat energy transfer.

    Not a good example of ‘a fine academic’!

    I do hope he continues to give lectures like this, as several (previously lukewarm) students from Environmental studies, Math’s & Physics, whom I spoke with after the session, have now become more skeptical.

  3. PeterH says:

    I am appalled that climate science has been reduced to this level of snake oil salesmanship & unquestioning belief; HH Lamb must be turning in his grave.

    And I’m appalled that your insults continue….A fine academic like the good Dr goes to a meeting and finds in the audience someone simply out to insult him; not to learn, not to question, just to insult him – and quite clearly for political reasons. Shame on you for your close mined disrespect.

    As to HH Lamb, its clear from his writings he accepted that additional greenhouse gas will cause significant warming.

    Listen, get this: science isn’t about insults – though you seem to think it is. Stick to studying the evidence, data and observations and you might (just) gain some credibility – because if you are right it’s all you need to do! Instead you repeatedly use this fine blog as an outlet for your extreme views.

  4. xmetman says:

    I can see what you mean.

    I would have thought a good test for any model used to predict the climate in the next 50 years or more, would be to run 20th century observational data through it, maybe from the 1960’s, and see what kind of projection’s that their model would make for the early 21st century i.e. now? I’ve never seen anything written about this simple diagnostic that they could run on any climate model to verify just how well it performs.

    Changing the subject slightly…

    I got a Tweet from Mark McCarthy at the Met Office defending the criticism that I made of them in the blog “A little white lie from the Met Office” about temperature and rainfall records only extending back to 1910. He said in the tweet that they had “recently digitised ~2.5million obs from daily climate returns spanning 1870-1958”. I asked when they would be made available and he replied “Not yet sorry, work in progress“. I did feel like replying that the Met Office have been around since 1854 why are we only digitising records all these years later? Climate data is invaluable, but the Met Office who hold the monopoly in it in this country treat it very shabbily indeed. It’s almost like they don’t want to make public the extremes of climate that they know occurred in the past, and I can see why people are mistrustful of them.

  5. 1saveenergy says:

    Hi Bruce, Off topic…again
    Last night I attended my local science café meeting entitled:
    “Why we should trust projections of global warming by climate models”
    by Prof Tom Anderson from the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.

    The speaker started with pictures of backlit cooling towers, an emaciated cow on dried mud, flooded streets & the ubiquitous polar bear on melting ice.

    He referenced works of Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, but ‘forgot’ to say the Arrhenius greenhouse theory was disproved by Robert Wood in 1909. He went on to describe the 1930s work of Guy Stewart Callendar but also ‘forgot’ to say that just before his death in 1964 Callendar realised he’d made a mistake on CO2; (sadly Callendars book was never published).

    The speaker showed some very crude graphs with distorted axis as ‘proof’ the models were correct but wouldn’t discuss the fact that observed satellite & balloon data didn’t agree.

    He refused to look at data someone had brought showing the divergence of the models from observation.

    He wouldn’t discuss the fact that similar temperature changes had occurred without CO2 (as he “wasn’t an expert in historical temperatures”)

    He wouldn’t discuss the fact that Ice Ages had occurred without a CO2 signal (as he “wasn’t an expert”).

    He wouldn’t accept the Medieval, Roman & Minoan Warm periods were hotter than present (as he “wasn’t an expert in historical temperatures”)

    Even though he’s from the National Oceanography Centre he was unable to discus hydrates, ‘acid seas’ or methane. He did mention the seas had a high heat capacity & that the balance could be affected by a rise in atmospheric temperature, but couldn’t explain how or why…. (“Not his field” !! )

    When asked about feedbacks & latent heat energy transfer being a negative feedback, he said “its all in the model & that comes out as a positive feedback”

    I‘m saddened at the lack of scientific rigour applied to these ‘models’– no hind casting, no real validation, no comparison with observations; & as the only signal looked for was CO2….the answer was CO2 !!

    When asked several times, where we could obtain the model assumptions/parameters, he failed to answer.

    When asked what the temperature would be in 2100, he suggested 4-5 C warmer than present,
    (so a 0.8C rise over 137yrs will suddenly accelerate to ~ 4.5C over 83yrs !!….right).

    The other great howler of the night was his belief that the current population of the earth was only 2.5 billion! & that would increase to 10 or 12 billion in the next 83 yrs.

    If he can’t check his data on a simple fact like population, it’s probable that his climate model data is also incorrect. GIGO, garbage in garbage out !
    [But as he repeated many times in his presentation he’s “not an expert” ]

    I am appalled that climate science has been reduced to this level of snake oil salesmanship & unquestioning belief; HH Lamb must be turning in his grave.