User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 157

Thread: The great failure of the climate models

  1. #121
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahuyaman View Post
    It's funny when people use data generated fron a computer model to refute the fact that the only place global warming is occurring is in computer models.
    There is observational data: temperature records of the land and oceans, satellite images of sea ice decline and shrinking glaciers and satellite data of a warming troposhere.

  2. #122
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lummy View Post
    I find it very unsettling. The computer model becomes the reality. That's just scary.
    It's scary to me when someone's personal opinion based on no evidence becomes reality and science is discarded.

  3. #123
    Points: 432,028, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307951
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,397
    Points
    432,028
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,177
    Thanked 76,966x in 55,594 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lummy View Post
    I find it very unsettling. The computer model becomes the reality. That's just scary.
    There's a political agenda behind the hoax.

  4. #124
    Points: 445,362, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    Common's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    339112
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    66,765
    Points
    445,362
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    8,785
    Thanked 18,315x in 10,924 Posts
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    Time to trigger Chris again and post the actual comparison. That's great fun to watch. You see, the models were rerun with the inputs of the higher-than-expected volcanic activity and lower than expected solar activity, and Chris calls that a foul. Apparently, he thinks climate models should have correctly predicted future volcanic eruptions and the exact future state of the sun.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-observations/



    This illustrates another reason why it's so good to be part of the reality-based community. To "win", we only need to point to reality, drop the mic and walk away. There's never any need for us to create paranoid conspiracy theories.

    As far as Christy goes, he's regarded as a joke. He cherrypicks the botched UAH temperature model. which is known to have a wild cooling bias. Honest people compare apples to apples. If you're going to compare to a model that predicts surface temperature, you compare it to observed surface temperature. At least any honest person would do that, which means most deniers won't do that.

    What's more, UAH isn't even a temperature measurement. It's a model output. Satellites don't measure temperature. They measure microwave output, which is converted through a very convoluted and fudgy model into a temperature. In contrast, the surface temperatures don't use models. They use these amazing things called "thermometers" to get temperature directly. The deniers rely on their own favorite botched model to prove another model is wrong, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

    The point is that the models have been excellent, everyone familiar with the science knows that. It's only the denier cult that still chants the "models bad!" mantra as a form of preaching to the choir. It's not meant to convince anyone outside the cult. It's just meant to reinforce the cult's fanatical beliefs.

    And speaking of fanatical beliefs, Chris's faith that a "hiatus" happened is especially endearing. Such a mistaken belief could have been justified by ignorance in years past, but it can't be justified now, given the mountains of evidence against it.

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...y-oreskes-mann
    notice

    Notice

    You have recieved a24hr infraction for intentional trolling another poster


    If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.
    Last edited by Common; 08-28-2019 at 04:52 PM.
    LETS GO BRANDON
    F Joe Biden

  5. #125
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Carbon brief has an article on how well climate models have projected global warming. The total warming from 1970 to 2019 has been 1.0 degrees C. or 0.2 degrees C./decade.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...global-warming


    Conclusion: (Credit carbonbrief.org)
    Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
    Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
    Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

  6. #126
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433313
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,902x in 54,719 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    There's a serious disconnect between this paper's conclusions and the datas the conclusions are based on: How well have climate models projected global warming?



    And the data:



    30% difference, 16%? Not even close in horseshoes.

    They do admit:
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    Carbon brief has an article on how well climate models have projected global warming. The total warming from 1970 to 2019 has been 1.0 degrees C. or 0.2 degrees C./decade.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...global-warming


    Conclusion: (Credit carbonbrief.org)
    Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
    Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
    Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

    Already posted that. While they claim close, they're not.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  7. #127
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Already posted that. While they claim close, they're not.
    I disagree that they are not close, especially the last 3. IPCC 4 was very close. You have to read the article to understand why it is close.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-d...te-models-work (very long article but it explains models well)

    There is a graph of the projected climate out to the year 2100 based on the RCP 4.5 scenario which may be the most likely, shown in the above carbonbrief article. The shaded are represents the 95% confidence level. At the year 2100 the projected global mean temperature is 2.5 degrees C. above the 1880-1910 baseline with a 95% confidence that the GMT range will be between 1.5 and 3.4 degrees C. That is about as good of a projection as one could expect. Climate scientists could arrive at a similar estimate of 2.5 degrees C. without using computer models. The error band would be a little higher and we would not know as much about many other aspects of the climate.
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 08-28-2019 at 07:07 PM.

  8. #128
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433313
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,902x in 54,719 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    I disagree that they are not close, especially the last 3. IPCC 4 was very close. You have to read the article to understand why it is close.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-d...te-models-work (very long article but it explains models well)

    There is a graph of the projected climate out to the year 2100 based on the RCP 4.5 scenario which may be the most likely, shown in the above carbonbrief article. The shaded are represents the 95% confidence level. At the year 2100 the projected global mean temperature is 2.5 degrees C. above the 1880-1910 baseline with a 95% confidence that the GMT range will be between 1.5 and 3.4 degrees C. That is about as good of a projection as one could expect. Climate scientists could arrive at a similar estimate of 2.5 degrees C. without using computer models. The error band would be a little higher and we would not know as much about many other aspects of the climate.
    The last was 16% off. Over time, predicting into the future, the error rate, part of the input next calculation cycle, would only increase.

    They're getting better but have a ways to go.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  9. #129
    Points: 432,028, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307951
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,397
    Points
    432,028
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,177
    Thanked 76,966x in 55,594 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Let's use data from a computer model to support data from another computer model.

  10. #130
    Points: 11,596, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 11.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1079
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    3,513
    Points
    11,596
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    15
    Thanked 1,070x in 787 Posts
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahuyaman View Post
    Let's use data from a computer model to support data from another computer model.
    Why would you want to do that? Are you trying to invent new methods of fraud, to supplement the current denier fraud techniques?

    It's funny when people use data generated fron a computer model to refute the fact that the only place global warming is occurring is in computer models.
    Pure delusion, and flatly contradicted by reality. But then, how could you know otherwise? It's not like you're allowed to look at sources that don't confirm your political bias.

    In the real world, AGW theory is well-proven with no models at all. The success of the models is just icing on the cake. In the real world, people who know the science know with 100% certainty that deniers are lying about the models and the science. That's why the lies have no effect. It's like flat-earthers repeating that the earth is flat. It has no effect on people outside of the cult. You're not wrong because of your political affiliation. You're wrong because the hard data says that.

    There's a political agenda behind the hoax.
    That's correct. The science was totally non-political, until conservative fraudsters started pushing their fraud.

    Follow the money. All of the corrupting bribe money goes to the conservative side, so all of the corruption and fraud is on the conservative side. There are no anti-AGW scientists who aren't being paid to say what they say.

    In stark contrast, the real scientists get paid the same no matter what they publish, so they have no monetary motivation to lie. They could double their salaries by lying for the deniers, but they don't. They reject that bribe money, effectively taking a pay cult for stating the truth, giving them even more credibility.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts