User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 61213141516
Results 151 to 157 of 157

Thread: The great failure of the climate models

  1. #151
    Points: 1,089, Level: 7
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 161
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registeredTagger Second Class1000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Member
    Karma
    34
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    171
    Points
    1,089
    Level
    7
    Thanks Given
    7
    Thanked 24x in 19 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Be it 10 or 100 times inaccurate, "NASA has conceded that climate models lack the precision required to make climate projections due to the inability to accurately model clouds."
    One person at NASA made that claim. Most of the uncertainty has to do with how much of a positive feedback clouds are. If the climate sensitivity is 3.0 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2, then

    the RCP4.5scenario would give us about 3.0 degrees C. of warming by 2100, which is very dangerous. Paleoclimate studies (not involving computer climate models) of the temperature,

    greenhouse gas changes, and albedo changes during the past 400,000 years arrive at a climate sensitivity of around 3.0 degrees C.

  2. #152
    Points: 458,288, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 63.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397075
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    149,139
    Points
    458,288
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,398
    Thanked 44,649x in 32,855 Posts
    Mentioned
    1718 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    One person at NASA made that claim. Most of the uncertainty has to do with how much of a positive feedback clouds are. If the climate sensitivity is 3.0 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2, then

    the RCP4.5scenario would give us about 3.0 degrees C. of warming by 2100, which is very dangerous. Paleoclimate studies (not involving computer climate models) of the temperature,

    greenhouse gas changes, and albedo changes during the past 400,000 years arrive at a climate sensitivity of around 3.0 degrees C.

    I understand what the uncertainty is about.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  3. #153
    Points: 1,089, Level: 7
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 161
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registeredTagger Second Class1000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Member
    Karma
    34
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    171
    Points
    1,089
    Level
    7
    Thanks Given
    7
    Thanked 24x in 19 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I left out the last sentence of the paragraph preceding the paragraph I previously posted. That sentence makes the models appear useful and reasonably accurate. If the models can forecast the radiation balance at the
    surface to within +/- 15% ,then that would correspond to a radiation balance between 1.7 and 2.3 watts/square meter for a doubling of carbon dioxide. Also, the computer climate model results don't change as a result of
    this NASA science brief. They are just as useful today as they were before this brief was written because the lack of precision in the projections was already known. I don't understand the justification for the statement that
    today's models need to be improved more than 10 fold in accuracy.

    "They can forecast winds, rain, temperature, cloud cover and radiation balance to within 10 to 15 percent of the magnitude of their real-world counterparts." NASA GISS science briefs cloud climatology computer models

    Unfortunately, that margin of error is too large for making a reliable forecast about global warming. A doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), predicted to take place in the next 50 to 100 years, is expected to change the radiation balance at the surface by only about 2 percent. Yet according to current climate models, even such a small change could raise global temperatures between 2-5C (4-9F), with potentially dramatic consequences. If a 2 percent change makes that much difference, a climate model must be accurate to within at least half a percent to be useful. Thus today's models must be improved more than tenfold in accuracy, requiring much more and much better data for developing a better understanding of clouds.
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 09-03-2019 at 05:47 PM.

  4. #154
    Points: 458,288, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 63.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397075
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    149,139
    Points
    458,288
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,398
    Thanked 44,649x in 32,855 Posts
    Mentioned
    1718 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    I left out the last sentence of the paragraph preceding the paragraph I previously posted. That sentence makes the models appear useful and reasonably accurate. If the models can forecast the radiation balance at the
    surface to within +/- 15% ,then that would correspond to a radiation balance between 1.7 and 2.3 watts/square meter for a doubling of carbon dioxide. Also, the computer climate model results don't change as a result of
    this NASA science brief. They are just as useful today as they were before this brief was written because the lack of precision in the projections was already known. I don't understand the justification for the statement that
    today's models need to be improved more than 10 fold in accuracy.

    "They can forecast winds, rain, temperature, cloud cover and radiation balance to within 10 to 15 percent of the magnitude of their real-world counterparts." NASA GISS science briefs cloud climatology computer models

    Unfortunately, that margin of error is too large for making a reliable forecast about global warming. A doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), predicted to take place in the next 50 to 100 years, is expected to change the radiation balance at the surface by only about 2 percent. Yet according to current climate models, even such a small change could raise global temperatures between 2-5C (4-9F), with potentially dramatic consequences. If a 2 percent change makes that much difference, a climate model must be accurate to within at least half a percent to be useful. Thus today's models must be improved more than tenfold in accuracy, requiring much more and much better data for developing a better understanding of clouds.
    "Unfortunately, that margin of error is too large for making a reliable forecast about global warming."

    Yes.

    Doesn't imply no climate change, just implies climatologists have work to do.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  5. #155
    Points: 2,539, Level: 11
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 111
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    226
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    881
    Points
    2,539
    Level
    11
    Thanks Given
    2
    Thanked 216x in 163 Posts
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    You cannot just make stuff up and expect to be believed
    Which is why nobody believes a word your cult says.

    Dooms day has be predicted often yet it has never arrived.
    Which is why you should stop with your icy doomsday predictions. You don't see us on the rational side acting like that.

    The AGW side has gotten everything right for 40 years running, hence they have credibility.

    Your side has faceplanted with every prediction for those past 40 years, so you have no credibility.

    Science does not give participation trophies. If you want credibility, you need to stop failing.

  6. #156
    Points: 2,539, Level: 11
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 111
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    226
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    881
    Points
    2,539
    Level
    11
    Thanks Given
    2
    Thanked 216x in 163 Posts
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier8 View Post
    Accurate as in running too hot?
    The models come out a bit too cold, actually, once you factor in the higher-than-expected vulcanism, lower-than-expected solar output, and the fact that climate models are for the whole globe, while temp measurements leave out the poles, where warming is stronger.

  7. #157
    Points: 16,118, Level: 30
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 332
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3679
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,893
    Points
    16,118
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    320
    Thanked 3,670x in 2,448 Posts
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    The models come out a bit too cold, actually, once you factor in the higher-than-expected vulcanism, lower-than-expected solar output, and the fact that climate models are for the whole globe, while temp measurements leave out the poles, where warming is stronger.
    Man, you are a hoot. You know so little about this.
    I was going to sell my guns to the government but you wouldnt believe what came up during the background check

+ 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


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO