Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Climate models used by GWers suck


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#1    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 5,137 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 31 March 2013 - 02:38 PM

The last 20 years of temperature readings in no way match what the sacred models the GWers use, so what are we to think?   We aren't even close to their predicted temperatures yet we are within a 20 year window!  Why should any rational person believe these charlatans can predict 100 years out?

Rajendra Pachauri, the economist (yep, he is an economist) in charge of the alarmist and corrupt International Panel on Climate Change doesn't have a clue why the temperatures are so far below the predicted levels but he isn't happy you can bet.  So the models are seriously flawed but we should spend trillions anyways? Man Made Global Warming is the biggest scam in mankind's history.

http://www.theaustra...6-1226609140980

More ridiculousness.  He actually calculated a delay of 37 hours.  LMAO.  How and when questions come to mind like when is global warming starting so that it can be delayed 37 hours and just how did he calculate this absurd number?
http://www.weeklysta...urs_712223.html

Edited by Merc14, 31 March 2013 - 02:49 PM.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#2    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,401 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 31 March 2013 - 06:46 PM

This has been discussed in depth in another recent threat.

It is the skeptics who are fixated on the "Sacred Climate models" and their ability to show short term trends :tu:

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#3    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,969 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 31 March 2013 - 07:11 PM

What is not normal about our climate is the last 10,000 years the climate has been stable.  Giving us a window to nuild our cultures.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#4    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,372 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 01 April 2013 - 12:52 PM

View PostMerc14, on 31 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

The last 20 years of temperature readings in no way match what the sacred models the GWers use, so what are we to think?   We aren't even close to their predicted temperatures yet we are within a 20 year window!  Why should any rational person believe these charlatans can predict 100 years out?
There are about 300 different climate models.  Some were discarded long ago as inaccurate.  Some are limited to particular areas.

So let's get specific.  Which ones are you talking about?  Do you even know which ones you're talking about.?

Exactly what problems do you see with them?  What is it they do or don't do that you think they should?

And last, but most important:  put some numbers on them.  How accurate are the different models?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#5    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 5,137 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 01 April 2013 - 01:35 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 01 April 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

There are about 300 different climate models.  Some were discarded long ago as inaccurate.  Some are limited to particular areas.

So let's get specific.  Which ones are you talking about?  Do you even know which ones you're talking about.?

Exactly what problems do you see with them?  What is it they do or don't do that you think they should?

And last, but most important:  put some numbers on them.  How accurate are the different models?
Doug

Read the article Doug and the links it cointains.  Cheers.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#6    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,372 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:33 PM

View PostMerc14, on 01 April 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Read the article Doug and the links it cointains.  Cheers.
Like I thought:  they haven't got a clue, either.  They don't even know which models they're talking about.  Or that there are more than one.

BTW:  There was a recent article (an actual research article) by Trenbeth et al. points out that most of the heat energy over the last decade is going into the deep oceans.  The total energy in the system is still increasing.  The question is why isn't it expressed as rising surface air temps?

I suggest you go back to the ORIGINAL ARTICLES, not something washed through a denier's deliberately-distorted website.

Another question is why post something like that if you're not prepared to discuss it?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#7    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 5,137 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:44 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 01 April 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

Like I thought:  they haven't got a clue, either.  They don't even know which models they're talking about.  Or that there are more than one.

BTW:  There was a recent article (an actual research article) by Trenbeth et al. points out that most of the heat energy over the last decade is going into the deep oceans.  The total energy in the system is still increasing.  The question is why isn't it expressed as rising surface air temps?

I suggest you go back to the ORIGINAL ARTICLES, not something washed through a denier's deliberately-distorted website.

Another question is why post something like that if you're not prepared to discuss it?
Doug

I read a report that the main models all underestimated the amount of heat leaked from the atmosphere over the oceans.  The point is the models, all of them that the current hysterics are based on (name your favoites and I will talk to them), badly understimated the last 20 years.  The chairman of IPCC admits this is the case so please explain to me how they are accurate 100 years out while being unable to accurately predict the current temperature?

I started this thread because the models you are so adamantly defending can not even model temperatures we are currently seeing yet the IPCC wants us to destroy what little is left of the economy to fix what they are predicting will be reality 100 years from now.  If you, as a modeler, can't even get next year right, why in teh world would I trust your results for 100 years from now?

The head of the IPCC doesn't have an answer but apparenty you do so we are all waiting to be enlightened sir.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#8    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,372 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 01 April 2013 - 03:38 PM

View PostMerc14, on 01 April 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

I read a report that the main models all underestimated the amount of heat leaked from the atmosphere over the oceans.  The point is the models, all of them that the current hysterics are based on (name your favoites and I will talk to them), badly understimated the last 20 years.  The chairman of IPCC admits this is the case so please explain to me how they are accurate 100 years out while being unable to accurately predict the current temperature?
The chief criticism of CURRENT climate models is that they do not adequately consider convection.  This is a problem over continental areas, hence the reason for the land-ocean discrepancies.  I solve this problem in my own work by averaging temps, usually over several years (I am studying droughts in the central US.).  This means that over a decade, I'll probably be pretty close, but for next year, the reults are going to be off.  Please note that this does not involve climate models, but rather climate signals from the past.  Eventually I may want to make some estimates for the future and may need climate models to do that.  But all I really need to know is that droughts here are periodic, have a period between 20 and 53 years and that the worst three we know of occurred back in the 1400s and 1500s, well before warming was even known.

Quote

I started this thread because the models you are so adamantly defending can not even model temperatures we are currently seeing yet the IPCC wants us to destroy what little is left of the economy to fix what they are predicting will be reality 100 years from now.  If you, as a modeler, can't even get next year right, why in teh world would I trust your results for 100 years from now?
First, I am not defending climate models, but you need to know that most climate forecasts are not based on climate models.  If you want to know how hot it will be when CO2 levels reach 450 ppmbv, just look at the geologic record and find out how hot it was last time that happened.  No models involved.  Why do you deniers make such a big issue over a minor part of climate science?

As for "wrecking the economy:"  the US' electrical grid is aging and breaking down more-and-more frequently, as are our coal-fired plants.  It needs to be replaced, regardless of how the power it carries was generated.  And that's going to be expensive, no matter what, but not nearly as expensive as doing nothing.

Wind power is cheaper than gas, oil and coal.  The US currently generates 3.2% of its power from wind and that number is projected to increase to 20% by 2030 - and that is and will be cheaper than any other fuel.  And energy conservation is cheaper than not conserving:  nothing dramatic here, just weather stripping, turning down the thermostat (or up in the summer), replacing dark rooves with light ones, more-efficient wood stoves, etc.

About the accuracy of the models:  all 300 predict that western Oklahoma will be a desert in another hundred years.  That's remarkable argreement, no matter what you think of them.  I think we'd better look at what they're telling us.  Especially as most of the towns around here depend on rainfall for their water supplies.

And this is where those accuarcy numbers come in.  A watch that doesn't work is right twice a day.  One that gains two minutes a day is right about once a year.  By the same token, a climate model that forecasts annual rainfall plus or minus two inches is pretty accurate, though it may never be right on.  Same with temps.

Quote

The head of the IPCC doesn't have an answer but apparenty you do so we are all waiting to be enlightened sir.
As you pointed out, the head of the IPCC is an economist.  What he knows about climate is up for grabs.

I am no defender of the IPCC.  They have altogether too many politicians involved.  The deniers seem to think that scientists worship them or something.  Maybe deniers do, but I don't.

In science, you may publish an article today, only to have another article come out tomorrow explaining the mystery you just spent your life working on.  In this case, the article in question is:

Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen.  Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global coean heat data.  2013.  Geophysical Research Letters, DOI:  10.1002/grl.50382.  In Press.

This hasn't even been printed yet, so I doubt that your sources were even aware of it.

And now you are enlightened.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#9    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,969 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 01 April 2013 - 03:41 PM

Newsmax, has in article out on environmentalist mag.( I erased and am getting the name wrong).,  but it says they have problem with their models on GW.  CO2 levels are lower than they expected.  That's the mags. Statement.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#10    MysticStrummer

MysticStrummer

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 890 posts
  • Joined:15 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central Texas

  • The great path has no gates. Thousands of roads enter it. When one passes through this gateless gate, he walks freely between heaven and earth.

Posted 01 April 2013 - 03:54 PM

http://www.guardian....-global-warming

Ummon asked : "The world is such a wide world, why do you answer a bell and don ceremonial robes?" ~ Zen Flesh Zen Bones

#11    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,372 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:10 PM

View Postdanielost, on 01 April 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

Newsmax, has in article out on environmentalist mag.( I erased and am getting the name wrong).,  but it says they have problem with their models on GW.  CO2 levels are lower than they expected.  That's the mags. Statement.
No model is 100% accurate.  And most climate models are less than 30% accurate, some down around 10%.

But what does that mean?  A given variable, like atmospheric CO2 concentration, can "explain" 12% of the variation in the dataset, let's say temperatures.  Add another one, like solar irradiance and you "explain" another 5%.  Add in another, like albedo and you "explain" another 3%.  That's 20% of the variation "explained."  That doesn't sound like much, but it's as accurate as most science gets.

ALL those climate models that Merc14's sources are moaning about are over 20 years old.  They're obsolete - ALL of them.  Why not check out what the newer models are saying?

Merc14 is complaining about weather forecasting not being very accurate, and it isn't, but it's not climate science, either.  In weather, you talk about whether it's raining today or not.  But in climate, you talk about the probability of rain ten years from now.  The weather changes, but climate changes only if the probability changes.

It would be easy to check that CO2 number.  I may even have the dataset around here somewhere.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#12    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,401 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:13 PM

View PostMysticStrummer, on 01 April 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

As this article points out, it is only by focusing on the anomalously warm years around 1998 which allows the assertion that the models have been wrong. Such short term fluctuations are indeed not well modelled, but they are not significant when studying the statistically meaningful long term trend. This is simple misapplication of statistics to support a conclusion which the data fails to show. Its more cherry picking - plain and simple.

The question I have is when do the conservatively minded people who dominate the climate denial sphere start to wonder why the weather across the whole planet is behaving so out of character and so changeably that things that made sense just a few years ago no longer offer any predictive power to say what might be coming next year. When does denial of the evidence of your own eyes become untenable ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 01 April 2013 - 04:21 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#13    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,969 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:12 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 01 April 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:


No model is 100% accurate.  And most climate models are less than 30% accurate, some down around 10%.

But what does that mean?  A given variable, like atmospheric CO2 concentration, can "explain" 12% of the variation in the dataset, let's say temperatures.  Add another one, like solar irradiance and you "explain" another 5%.  Add in another, like albedo and you "explain" another 3%.  That's 20% of the variation "explained."  That doesn't sound like much, but it's as accurate as most science gets.

ALL those climate models that Merc14's sources are moaning about are over 20 years old.  They're obsolete - ALL of them.  Why not check out what the newer models are saying?

Merc14 is complaining about weather forecasting not being very accurate, and it isn't, but it's not climate science, either.  In weather, you talk about whether it's raining today or not.  But in climate, you talk about the probability of rain ten years from now.  The weather changes, but climate changes only if the probability changes.

It would be easy to check that CO2 number.  I may even have the dataset around here somewhere.
Doug

10%?  That makes not only a guess but a bad one.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#14    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,372 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:43 PM

View Postdanielost, on 01 April 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

10%?  That makes not only a guess but a bad one.
Those 10%ers have mostly fallen out of favor.  But remember, that's the amount of variation that correlates with a particular model (or variable).  It's not the total in the dataset.

A problem I recently ran into in predicting ice storms:  suppose I had a system that could correctly predict the absence of 46 ice storms in a 50-year period.  It also correctly predicts the occurrence of one ice storm, but misses three others.  That model is 94% accurate, but misses 75% of the ice storms.  What is the problem?  It is that a large number of correct results are produced purely by random chance.  If I predict that no storm will occur, then I have a 92% chance of being right, even if I don't know anything at all about predicting storms.

So if I take a model that predicts storms (like the convection models do) and from the correct predictions, I subtract out those that happen purely by chance, the result could be a very low, but very significant number.  And whenever you have a climate model that predicts discreet events, like storms, that is the situation you are up against.  10% could be a highly significant number, indicating substantial, or even near-perfect agreement in the two sets.

The second part of the problem is that the historical period you are using to test your model has some serious limitations, namely what, exactly, constitutes a storm?  In most statistical modeling you have an error-free dataset to test against, but in weather and climate, you don't.  In the Arkansas and Oklahoma storm records, there are quite a few missing pages when no station sent in a report.  Then there's the problem of knowing IF a particular storm hit a particular location.  The result:  the test dataset may have mistakes in it, sometimes a lot of mistakes.  And these have to be dealt with in assessing the accuracy of your model.

For Br. Corneius and BFB (Is that from Big Foot Buster?):  check out Cohen's Kappa.  It deals with the problem of two datasets, neither of which can be assumed to be error-free.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 01 April 2013 - 07:45 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#15    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,969 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:46 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 01 April 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:


As this article points out, it is only by focusing on the anomalously warm years around 1998 which allows the assertion that the models have been wrong. Such short term fluctuations are indeed not well modelled, but they are not significant when studying the statistically meaningful long term trend. This is simple misapplication of statistics to support a conclusion which the data fails to show. Its more cherry picking - plain and simple. predictive predictive

The question I have is when do the conservatively minded people who dominate the climate de predictive nial sphere start to wonder why the weather across the whole planet is behaving so out of character and so changeably that things that made sense just a few years aey power to say what might be coming next year. When does denial of the evidence of your own eyes become untenable ?

Br Cornelius

Read post 3 again.


Doug 30% is no better than 10%.  Doesn't even come close to an educated guess.

Edited by danielost, 01 April 2013 - 08:48 PM.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users