The great failure of the climate models

[Chris]

The intent is to convince readers that they don't have to worry about extreme events, the melting of Arctic ice, or future temperature rises. Everything will be fine. He is doing more
than trying to question extreme predictions. I don't trust that man.

I tell you what my intent is. For you to tell me my intent is pure straw man.

And then your response to an article about the old statistic used by climatologists is to engage in ad hom?

Such logical fallacies are predicted in How to Debate a Science Denier.

[skepticalmike]

I tell you what my intent is. For you to tell me my intent is pure straw man.

And then your response to an article about the old statistic used by climatologists is to engage in ad hom?

Such logical fallacies are predicted in How to Debate a Science Denier.

You are misinterpreting what I said. "the intent' meant the intent of the article, not your intent. I know that this is a propaganda article. It is to meant to promote doubt about climate models and climate scientists.

There is also a suggestion that scientists are dishonest and manipulating data. This sort of thing has been going on for a couple of decades and Pat Michaels is one of the worst offenders.

[jet57]

Well, that only proves you fall for the alarmism and are not very well versed in the science.

No, what it means is that I read and pay attention to those who know what they're talking about.

[Chris]

You are misinterpreting what I said. "the intent' meant the intent of the article, not your intent. I know that this is a propaganda article. It is to meant to promote doubt about climate models and climate scientists.

There is also a suggestion that scientists are dishonest and manipulating data. This sort of thing has been going on for a couple of decades and Pat Michaels is one of the worst offenders.

Nor was the intent of the linked article to question climate change for man's part in it but just to question the extremes predicted by models. You continue your strawman ad hom.

Here's the conclusion of the linked article: "All this is to say that the weather balloon and satellite temperatures used in Christy’s testimony are the best data we have, and they show that the U.N.’s climate models just aren’t ready for prime time." It says nothing that you accuse.

[Chris]

No, what it means is that I read and pay attention to those who know what they're talking about.

Demonstrate that by presenting an argument how CO2 drive temps.

[Hoosier8]

No, what it means is that I read and pay attention to those who know what they're talking about.

Like Al Gore? Bwahahahaha!

[skepticalmike]

Let's take just your first point and point out how you missed the point of the article.



The article speaks to extreme weather climate changes. You counter that with non-extreme weather changes.

You're talking about something altogether different than the article.

I counter with extreme weather changes according to the chart, SPM.1 page 28, Chapter 5, in the summary for policy makers AR5 report. I know that they don't sound extreme but they can be extreme.

Assessment that changes occurred since 1950 - this is about what has happened, not what might happen in the future.

warm spells/heat waves inc. in frequency and/or duration over most land areas - likely with medium confidence on a global scale, likely in large parts of Europe, Asia, and Australia

Heavy precipitation events inc. in frequency, intensity or amount - likely more land areas with increases than decreases, medium confidence

Increases incidence and/or magnitude of extreme high sea level - likely since 1970

Increases in intense tropical cyclone activity - virtually certain in N. Atlantic since 1970, low confidence in centennial changes

[Chris]

I counter with extreme weather changes according to the chart, SPM.1 page 28, Chapter 5, in the summary for policy makers AR5 report. I know that they don't sound extreme but they can be extreme.

Assessment that changes occurred since 1950 - this is about what has happened, not what might happen in the future.

warm spells/heat waves inc. in frequency and/or duration over most land areas - likely with medium confidence on a global scale, likely in large parts of Europe, Asia, and Australia

Heavy precipitation events inc. in frequency, intensity or amount - likely more land areas with increases than decreases, medium confidence

Increases incidence and/or magnitude of extreme high sea level - likely since 1970

Increases in intense tropical cyclone activity - virtually certain in N. Atlantic since 1970, low confidence in centennial changes

You're still talking changes in weather not long-term climate change.

And "SPM.1 page 28, Chapter 5, in the summary for policy makers AR5 report....this is about what has happened, not what might happen in the future" is indeed about what happened and not what is predicted by models. The OP article is concerned with climate MODELS. And from the same paper we can see how what the models do predict is all over the map:

[skepticalmike]

Long term climate change (global warming) causes an increase in extreme weather events. I am attacking Pat Michaels for lying to the public. He states that, "there has been no systematic increase in

the frequency of extreme weather events". That is refuted by the IPCC AR5 report.

[Chris]

Long term climate change (global warming) causes an increase in extreme weather events. I am attacking Pat Michaels for lying to the public. He states that, "there has been no systematic increase in

the frequency of extreme weather events". That is refuted by the IPCC AR5 report.

"Long term climate change (global warming) causes an increase in extreme weather events."

Which causation you have nowhere even attempted to demonstrate. You assume its true then go looking for extremes while ignoring nonextremes. Several people have report those nonextremes in the thread, I'll add to that. Temps where I am have changed little in the last 30 years, nor rainfall nor storms nor tornadoes. I already posted an article on the problem with global models predicting local change.

The topic is climate models and their failure to predict climate change.


Where in the OP article does Michaels lie?