tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post2262806290113975477..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Water vapor feedback is negative, not positive as assumed by IPCC alarmistsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-62858996409595979502013-09-14T07:53:26.069-07:002013-09-14T07:53:26.069-07:00Rud Istvan says:
September 13, 2013 at 4:46 pm
Thr...Rud Istvan says:<br />September 13, 2013 at 4:46 pm<br />Throwing good money after bad is never wise.<br />All GCMs fail because the grid scale resolution you post (same image used in my book) is far too coarse to resolve things like tropical thunderstorm convection cells (which is why GCMs cannot resolve Lindzens adaptive iris, and therefore why CMIP5 still gets the water vapor feedback wrong, therefore why they still predict an equatorial troposphere hot spot when there isn’t one), or clouds.<br />This is inherent in the most powerful supercomputers, which are a couple of orders of magnitude not powerful enough to be able to adequately model these necessary phenomena on suitable small gridscales. Leaked AR5 WG1 SOD Chapter 7 (clouds) even said they may never be powerful enought to do so, before concluding that cloud feedback was significantly positive based on (and this is a direct quote) “unknown contributions by processes yet to be accounted for.”<br />IPCC cargo cult science.<br />So this formal appeal for GCM consolidation has very little real appeal. First rule of holes if you are in one and want out: stop digging.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-26379194597573031622011-03-10T02:05:14.632-08:002011-03-10T02:05:14.632-08:00If the graph above was started from 1997 or 1999 i...If the graph above was started from 1997 or 1999 it would shown a warming trend.<br /><br />It might also be worth noting that the journal this study appears in is not peer reviewed. <br /><br />For a more balanced view of the peer reviewed science on the subject I'd suggest reading Andrew E. Dessler and Steven C. Sherwood<br />http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler09.pdfLazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com