JAMTAM
@whpaad.bsky.social
who's paying for all this work and for what purpose? what is the correct number of global warming papers per day?
November 12, 2025 at 11:49 AM
who's paying for all this work and for what purpose? what is the correct number of global warming papers per day?
considering the observationally screened (based on transient T response) CMIP models have zero mean SW cloud radiative feedback, which folks do you consider to be the ones who ARE on good footing?
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
November 3, 2025 at 7:01 PM
considering the observationally screened (based on transient T response) CMIP models have zero mean SW cloud radiative feedback, which folks do you consider to be the ones who ARE on good footing?
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
Here we should separate advocacy from science. In general for science i recommend greater humility, and for advocacy anything goes.
November 1, 2025 at 9:21 PM
Here we should separate advocacy from science. In general for science i recommend greater humility, and for advocacy anything goes.
A hypothesis is generally not considered fully valid if it only explains some observations while being contradicted by others. In science, validity requires consistency with the totality of relevant evidence, not just selective confirmation.
October 19, 2025 at 3:33 PM
A hypothesis is generally not considered fully valid if it only explains some observations while being contradicted by others. In science, validity requires consistency with the totality of relevant evidence, not just selective confirmation.
It is striking to see models with zero or even negative SW contribution to EEI, including the GISS suite. In normal science this should invalidate whatever mechanistic hypothesis is driving these coupled models, but we know they will simply be re-parameterized to save it.
October 19, 2025 at 1:39 PM
It is striking to see models with zero or even negative SW contribution to EEI, including the GISS suite. In normal science this should invalidate whatever mechanistic hypothesis is driving these coupled models, but we know they will simply be re-parameterized to save it.
Models of any sensitivity can intersect the EEI, including members 25, 24, 4, 32, 2, and 28. And so the freedom in calibrating to transient temperature response comes from freedom in the ocean heat uptake parameter.
October 19, 2025 at 1:25 PM
Models of any sensitivity can intersect the EEI, including members 25, 24, 4, 32, 2, and 28. And so the freedom in calibrating to transient temperature response comes from freedom in the ocean heat uptake parameter.
How does *attribution* fit with the about page, which states "an increase in extremes at a rate faster than current models predicted", while the mission-like statement suggests foreknowledge about "rapid climate change" without model support. Is the attribution to identify new physics, new forcing?
October 16, 2025 at 7:28 PM
How does *attribution* fit with the about page, which states "an increase in extremes at a rate faster than current models predicted", while the mission-like statement suggests foreknowledge about "rapid climate change" without model support. Is the attribution to identify new physics, new forcing?
CMIP specifically excludes that exact area for significant change - so are we just making stuff up?
October 16, 2025 at 2:23 PM
CMIP specifically excludes that exact area for significant change - so are we just making stuff up?
Schmidt is obviously demonstrating an almost exact match on purpose, what are people supposed to think?
October 14, 2025 at 10:25 PM
Schmidt is obviously demonstrating an almost exact match on purpose, what are people supposed to think?
That'll make for 3 years in a row that a simple model is biased low, that's new. cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_ful...
October 5, 2025 at 11:59 AM
That'll make for 3 years in a row that a simple model is biased low, that's new. cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_ful...
KACE is the only model that intersects TOA energy balance observations. Considering KACE doesn't intersect with T change (at all) it suggests many large inconsistencies. This should give pause to using models for policy advice. Models are science tools, and models teach where ideas are going wrong.
September 30, 2025 at 12:36 AM
KACE is the only model that intersects TOA energy balance observations. Considering KACE doesn't intersect with T change (at all) it suggests many large inconsistencies. This should give pause to using models for policy advice. Models are science tools, and models teach where ideas are going wrong.
When the game is to produce a simple upward trend, disparities matter. What matters more is if models generating simple upward trends are doing so for the right reasons. The overwhelming majority are not (at all), and the ones that kinda-sorta-do don't match other lines of evidence for sensitivity.
September 19, 2025 at 10:59 AM
When the game is to produce a simple upward trend, disparities matter. What matters more is if models generating simple upward trends are doing so for the right reasons. The overwhelming majority are not (at all), and the ones that kinda-sorta-do don't match other lines of evidence for sensitivity.
+10 ASR anomaly and - 9 OLR anomaly produces only 1 W/m2 imbalance. And so these CERES baselines can be misleading.
Here is a concept sketch, with OLR compensating imbalances -1.8 W/m2 per K GMST. Perhaps ASR was up around 2.2 W/m2 during the same period, generating a 0.4 W/m2 EEI by 2000s.
Here is a concept sketch, with OLR compensating imbalances -1.8 W/m2 per K GMST. Perhaps ASR was up around 2.2 W/m2 during the same period, generating a 0.4 W/m2 EEI by 2000s.
September 18, 2025 at 12:43 AM
+10 ASR anomaly and - 9 OLR anomaly produces only 1 W/m2 imbalance. And so these CERES baselines can be misleading.
Here is a concept sketch, with OLR compensating imbalances -1.8 W/m2 per K GMST. Perhaps ASR was up around 2.2 W/m2 during the same period, generating a 0.4 W/m2 EEI by 2000s.
Here is a concept sketch, with OLR compensating imbalances -1.8 W/m2 per K GMST. Perhaps ASR was up around 2.2 W/m2 during the same period, generating a 0.4 W/m2 EEI by 2000s.
Do you believe science has any meaning at all as a reliable foundation for decision-making if interpretations of the same datasets can be 180° apart? not 90°, not 160°, but diametrically opposed? Do you consider this to be healthy rhetoric? www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-mercha...
September 2, 2025 at 5:56 PM
Do you believe science has any meaning at all as a reliable foundation for decision-making if interpretations of the same datasets can be 180° apart? not 90°, not 160°, but diametrically opposed? Do you consider this to be healthy rhetoric? www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-mercha...
Relative humidities have been steeply declining across southern europe for decades. This provides a limiting factor on cloud condensation and duration.
September 1, 2025 at 3:28 PM
Relative humidities have been steeply declining across southern europe for decades. This provides a limiting factor on cloud condensation and duration.
Superimposed on internal dynamic variation is immense human pressure on soil properties and its capacity to retain moisture.
August 26, 2025 at 12:51 PM
Superimposed on internal dynamic variation is immense human pressure on soil properties and its capacity to retain moisture.
Soil moisture anomalies might give it a run for its money. What controls the wind, circulation, and cloud regime anomalies if not dynamics associated with moisture cycling?
August 26, 2025 at 12:39 PM
Soil moisture anomalies might give it a run for its money. What controls the wind, circulation, and cloud regime anomalies if not dynamics associated with moisture cycling?
what are those hot things?
August 18, 2025 at 4:17 PM
what are those hot things?
Best I've ever found is this, which has model consensus SWCRF ~ 0 (except for the "wolf pack" in CMIP6 which Hausfather and Schmidt have vetoed). agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
August 14, 2025 at 1:48 PM
Best I've ever found is this, which has model consensus SWCRF ~ 0 (except for the "wolf pack" in CMIP6 which Hausfather and Schmidt have vetoed). agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
It resembles the hockey stick of terrestrial change (no uncertainty). And so we're back to cloud controlling processes as usual, including biophysical parameters ranging from ET volumes to natural aerosol production. What happened after BASF & DuPont's chemical agriculture "green revolution"? NoData
July 20, 2025 at 3:52 PM
It resembles the hockey stick of terrestrial change (no uncertainty). And so we're back to cloud controlling processes as usual, including biophysical parameters ranging from ET volumes to natural aerosol production. What happened after BASF & DuPont's chemical agriculture "green revolution"? NoData
Communities mobilized in the wake of Hurricane Hazel with "only" 81 fatalities (1954). The shock and horror spawned a total overhaul of governance structures. This included prohibition of dwellings in flood zones. Insurance rates must NOT be the instrument.
conservationontario.ca/conservation...
conservationontario.ca/conservation...
July 13, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Communities mobilized in the wake of Hurricane Hazel with "only" 81 fatalities (1954). The shock and horror spawned a total overhaul of governance structures. This included prohibition of dwellings in flood zones. Insurance rates must NOT be the instrument.
conservationontario.ca/conservation...
conservationontario.ca/conservation...
The odd bit is that models up there don't seem to pass the transient climate response screening (e.g. HadGEM family). This suggests something wrong with ocean heat uptake parameter, and/or the general mechanisms leading to EEI. That is really fundamental. www.realclimate.org/images/cmp_c...
July 11, 2025 at 11:16 PM
The odd bit is that models up there don't seem to pass the transient climate response screening (e.g. HadGEM family). This suggests something wrong with ocean heat uptake parameter, and/or the general mechanisms leading to EEI. That is really fundamental. www.realclimate.org/images/cmp_c...
Thanks! Problem is that observationally maximum intensity precip might be trending downward in that part of country. Lots of mixed signals between models & obs. Plenty of conflicting info if deciding to modify IDF curves, which also includes frequency! www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
July 8, 2025 at 8:09 PM
Thanks! Problem is that observationally maximum intensity precip might be trending downward in that part of country. Lots of mixed signals between models & obs. Plenty of conflicting info if deciding to modify IDF curves, which also includes frequency! www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Hmm. I don't read it like that.
E.g. model "5" is off by like 2 Wm-2K-1 in the LW, and 3 in the SW. So LW errors are compensating SW errors for the most part. That must result from tuning.
No?
E.g. model "5" is off by like 2 Wm-2K-1 in the LW, and 3 in the SW. So LW errors are compensating SW errors for the most part. That must result from tuning.
No?
June 28, 2025 at 5:53 PM
Hmm. I don't read it like that.
E.g. model "5" is off by like 2 Wm-2K-1 in the LW, and 3 in the SW. So LW errors are compensating SW errors for the most part. That must result from tuning.
No?
E.g. model "5" is off by like 2 Wm-2K-1 in the LW, and 3 in the SW. So LW errors are compensating SW errors for the most part. That must result from tuning.
No?
Fig 3 simply shows that SW and LW trends are totally wrong, not really that they are not properly tuned to energy accumulation (although there is a cluster in lower left quadrant). Isn't that right? It's sort of a "right answers for the wrong reasons" thing, no?
June 28, 2025 at 5:33 PM
Fig 3 simply shows that SW and LW trends are totally wrong, not really that they are not properly tuned to energy accumulation (although there is a cluster in lower left quadrant). Isn't that right? It's sort of a "right answers for the wrong reasons" thing, no?