Site: Science of Doom

Slant: Sceptic

Active: yes

Recent Articles

Science of Doom: Opinions and Perspectives – 7 – Global Temperature Change from Doubling CO2

How much will global temperature rise if we double CO2 from pre-industrial levels? Based on current behaviour that’s roughly what we are on course to do by the end of the century (see 3 – How much CO2 will there be? And Activists in Disguise and 3.5 – Follow up to “How much CO2 will there be?”). For this […]

2019-01-10 04:40   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Opinions and Perspectives – 6 – Climate Models, Consensus Myths and Fudge Factors

In Opinions and Perspectives – 5 – Climate Models and Consensus Myths we looked at (and I critiqued) a typical example of the storytime edition – why we can trust climate models. On that same web page they outlined a “Climate Myth”: Models are unreliable “[Models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, […]

2019-01-08 07:10   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Opinions and Perspectives – 5 – Climate Models and Consensus Myths

In the last article – Opinions and Perspectives – 4 – Climate Models and Contrarian Myths – we looked at a few ideas that are common in many blogs but have no basis in reality. The title of this article “Consensus Myths” doesn’t refer to what you will find if you read a broad range of papers in […]

2019-01-06 03:51   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Opinions and Perspectives – 4 – Climate Models and Contrarian Myths

Climate models are the best tools we have for estimating the future climate state. What will the world be like if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? For a non-technical person, and this series is written for non-technical people, it’s hard to understand climate models. Should we trust them because climate scientists […]

2019-01-03 08:22   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Opinions and Perspectives – 3.5 – Follow up to “How much CO2 will there be?”

In the last article – Opinions and Perspectives – 3 – How much CO2 will there be? And Activists in Disguise – one commenter suggested that RCP8.5 was actually “business as usual” and put forward some comments. So I’m posting this followup to identify some key points in that scenario, before going onto the next topic. I’m trying […]

2019-01-01 01:38   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Opinions and Perspectives – 3 – How much CO2 will there be? And Activists in Disguise

If you pay attention to the media reporting on “climate change” (note 1) you will often read/hear something like this: Under a business as usual scenario.. And then some very worrying future outcomes. Less misleading, but still very misleading, you might read: Under a high emissions scenario.. Every time I have checked the papers that […]

2018-12-29 03:41   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Opinions and Perspectives – 2 – There is More than One Proposition in Climate Science

Continuing from Opinions and Perspectives – 1 – The Consensus a friend said to me a little while back, “Oh, you don’t believe in climate change do you?” Ye gods, where to start? At some exhibition which included a questionnaire that visitors were encouraged to take, one of the later questions was “Do you believe in climate change?”. […]

2018-12-28 04:12   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Opinions and Perspectives – 1 – The Consensus

When I started this blog I said: Opinions are often interesting and sometimes entertaining. But what do we learn from opinions? It’s more useful to understand the science behind the subject. Of late I’ve been caught up with work, other intellectual interests and (luckily) some fun stuff and haven’t spent any time on climate. So […]

2018-12-27 02:11   Click to comment

Science of Doom: #CaliforniaKnew

Recent reports have shown that California knew about the threat of climate change decades ago. No one could have missed the testimony of James Hansen in 1988 and many excellent papers were published prior to that time (and, of course, subsequently). Californian policymakers cannot claim ignorance. I’m not a resident of California but I often

2018-03-26 05:01   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Models, On – and Off – the Catwalk – Part Eight – Time-Step and Noise Impact on Results

In Part Seven – Resolution & Convection we looked at some examples of how model resolution and domain size had big effects on modeled convection. One commenter highlighted some presentations on issues in GCMs. As there were already a lot of comments on that article the relevant points appear a long way down. The issue

2018-01-29 08:50   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Clouds and Water Vapor – Part Eleven – Ceppi et al & Zelinka et al

A couple of recent articles covered ground related to clouds, but under Models –Models, On – and Off – the Catwalk – Part Seven – Resolution & Convection & Part Five – More on Tuning & the Magic Behind the Scenes. In the first article Andrew Dessler, day job climate scientist, made a few comments and in one comment

2017-12-24 23:35   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Models, On – and Off – the Catwalk – Part Seven – Resolution & Convection

In the comments on Part Five there was some discussion on Mauritsen & Stevens 2015 which looked at the “iris effect”: A controversial hypothesis suggests that the dry and clear regions of the tropical atmosphere expand in a warming climate and thereby allow more infrared radiation to escape to space One of the big challenges in

2017-11-26 00:58   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Climate Sensitivity – Stevens et al 2016

I was re-reading Missing iris effect as a possible cause of muted hydrological change and high climate sensitivity in models, Thorsten Mauritsen and Bjorn Stevens from 2015 (because I referenced it in a recent comment) and then looked up other recent papers citing it. One interesting review paper is by Stevens et al from 2016.

2017-11-23 23:48   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Models, On – and Off – the Catwalk – Part Six – Tuning and Seasonal Contrasts

In Part Five – More on Tuning & the Magic Behind the Scenes and also in the earlier Part Four we looked at the challenge of selecting parameters in climate models. A recent 2017 paper on this topic by Frédéric Hourdin and colleagues is very illuminating. One of the co-authors is Thorsten Mauritsen, the principal author of the 2012 paper we

2017-11-20 09:03   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Renewables XX – Recent Renewable Statistics

I’ve been digging through some statistics for my own benefit. When you read or hear a statistic that country X is generating Y% of electricity via renewables it can sound wonderful, but the headline number can conceal or overstate useful progress. A few tips for readers new to the subject: Energy is not electricity. So

2017-11-17 23:26   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Water vapour feedback is simply written into climate models as parameters?

Over in another article, a commenter claims: ..Catastrophic predictions depend on accelerated forcings due to water vapour feedback. This water vapour feedback is simply written into climate models as parameters. It is not derived from any kind simulation of first principles in the General Circulation Model runs (GCMs).. [Emphasis added] I’ve seen this article of

2017-11-05 22:17   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Two Basic Foundations

This article will be a placeholder article to filter out a select group of people. The many people who arrive and confidently explain that atmospheric physics is fatally flawed (without the benefit of having read a textbook). They don’t think they are confused, in their minds they are helpfully explaining why the standard theory is

2017-11-05 05:20   Click to comment

Science of Doom: Impacts – XIV – Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change 1

In recent articles we have looked at rainfall and there is still more to discuss. This article changes tack to look at tropical cyclones, prompted by the recent US landfall of Harvey and Irma along with questions from readers about attribution and the future. It might be surprising to find the following statement from leading

2017-09-24 07:26   Click to comment


comments powered by Disqus
342