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

#16    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:33 PM

"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."

and yet the climate modelers themselves have stated that the recent time period of zero trend is absolutely adequate to determine whether their models are accurate or whether they are tits on a bull, since their climate models absolutely rule out the zero trend period that has occurred over the last 15-20 years. so now you have to pick a no-tantrum position - either the models are exaggerating warming, or the modelers are wrong about their own models.


#17    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:53 PM

"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."

this statement says nothing about whether temperature controls co2, or whether co2 controls temperature, and so you cannot determine what the temperature will be at a given level of co2. given that co2 has risen 10% over the last 15 years whilst temperatures have not risen proves it to be false.

"No models involved.  Why do you deniers make such a big issue over a minor part of climate science?"
if the models are exaggerating warming (due to their in built assumed amplifiers), then there is no climate crises, in which case the $100+ billion spent on climate "science" and the future trillions in taxation would be better spent elsewhere, maybe in the form of a tax rebate to those that have been ripped off by bankster charlatans and those that they fund who promote this junk.


#18    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,238 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:06 PM

View Postdanielost, on 01 April 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Doug 30% is no better than 10%.  Doesn't even come close to an educated guess.
Daniel, remember it is not a 30% error in temp that this number is referring to.  It is 30% of variation in the dataset.  We could be talking about a tenth of a degree here.

For example, in my part of the world you can predict missing data in one set of weather records by reference to a station 20 miles down the road.  By establishing a straight-line relationship between them, you can predict low daily temperatures plus or minus about 2.5 degrees F.  And that works out to about 90% accuracy.  That's plus or minus 2.5 degrees two-thirds of the time.  If you want to increase that accuracy, add more stations.

In short, I don't think you understand what "accuracy" means in a statistical or climate model.
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

#19    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,238 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:19 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 01 April 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

"No models involved.  Why do you deniers make such a big issue over a minor part of climate science?"
if the models are exaggerating warming (due to their in built assumed amplifiers), then there is no climate crises, in which case the $100+ billion spent on climate "science" and the future trillions in taxation would be better spent elsewhere, maybe in the form of a tax rebate to those that have been ripped off by bankster charlatans and those that they fund who promote this junk.
So ignore the climate models.  Go by other indicators.

What I am pushing is an energy surcharge that is returned in its entirety to consumers.  As I have tried to explain many times, cap-and-trade doesn't work.  This business of contributing to a "mitigation" fund doesn't work because the money doesn't get spent on mitigation.  Cap-and-trade requires an entire industry to make it run - an expensive industry.  And taxes don't work, because again, the money doesn't get spent on mitigation or pollution reduction.  If this is to work, we can't have exceptions.

Governments are actually in business:  the business of selling exceptions.  They make a law, then charge money to make exceptions.  Governments are so into that mindset they can't think outside the box.  And that's why the whole program needs to be run by an independent authority.  One that has no powers beyond the carbon surcharge and its distribution.
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

#20    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:38 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 01 April 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

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

dont have time tonight, will give a more in-depth reply tomorrow. Also to your comment about weather forcasting not being accurate. But yes, know about Cohen's kappa. We use it a lot in meteorology where its more commonly known as the HSS(Heidke's skill score)

Edited by BFB, 01 April 2013 - 10:42 PM.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#21    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:41 PM

phone mistake

Edited by BFB, 01 April 2013 - 10:42 PM.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#22    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,916 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:47 PM

Bad models, hacked data, cherry picked data, suppression of differing views, outright lies, billions of dollars transferred from one economy to others and frauds getting rich by fear mongering an idiot population (this would be Al Gore).  That pretty much sums up the science behind man-made global warming, oops, I mean climate change, I forgot they changed the name to avoid further embarrassment.

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

#23    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 01 April 2013 - 10:59 PM

"So ignore the climate models.  Go by other indicators."

I prefer science.

specifically, empirical evidence that shows human produced co2 controls temperature, quantified and shown to have significant net negative consequences.

if it existed, I would have heard about it by now. it doesn't exist.



#24    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,172 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 08:38 AM

View PostMerc14, on 01 April 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

Bad models, hacked data, cherry picked data, suppression of differing views, outright lies, billions of dollars transferred from one economy to others and frauds getting rich by fear mongering an idiot population (this would be Al Gore).  That pretty much sums up the science behind man-made global warming, oops, I mean climate change, I forgot they changed the name to avoid further embarrassment.
Which totally ignores the actual warming, nice :tu:

The models have done a remarkably good job of tracking the long term trend - and are been refined all the time.

Your statement sums up where you get your information from and where your motivation lies.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 02 April 2013 - 09:05 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#25    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,172 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 08:40 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 01 April 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

"So ignore the climate models.  Go by other indicators."

I prefer science.

specifically, empirical evidence that shows human produced co2 controls temperature, quantified and shown to have significant net negative consequences.

if it existed, I would have heard about it by now. it doesn't exist.
Climate science is tracked by multiple indicators - biological and habitat shift been one of the main ones. You may say you prefer science but you never actually refer to any.

The negative consequences are already stacking up in the form of extreme weather events and the costs to society. You must be deaf or dumb since this fact has been pointed out to you before.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 02 April 2013 - 09:06 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#26    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,172 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 08:45 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 01 April 2013 - 09:33 PM, said:

"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."

and yet the climate modelers themselves have stated that the recent time period of zero trend is absolutely adequate to determine whether their models are accurate or whether they are tits on a bull, since their climate models absolutely rule out the zero trend period that has occurred over the last 15-20 years. so now you have to pick a no-tantrum position - either the models are exaggerating warming, or the modelers are wrong about their own models.
Only if you abuse the stats. Analyzed correctly, and accounting for all heat content, there is no pause and the trend is clearly upwards. Your statement is also based on cherry picking the data set which doesn't cover the Arctic(Hadley), where recent warming has been strongest, rather than the dataset with total global coverage(GISS).
It shows a poor understanding of data analysis/outright fraud among the skeptics. Cherry picking and faulty anaysis on multiple levels.

The warming trend;

Posted Image
An even more informative graph showing that warming has been strongest in the last 15 years in the areas with the highest emissions;
Posted Image
This is exactly what you should expect to see when natural forcings are at an ebb and Greenhouse gas forcings are dominant.

This argument is a none argument but you will persist in it all the same :yes: Sad.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 02 April 2013 - 09:24 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#27    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,609 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 02 April 2013 - 10:46 AM

Did you note that your chart shows the temp started to drp in 2000.

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. Thank for careing and if you don't peace be with you.

#28    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,172 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 10:53 AM

View Postdanielost, on 02 April 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Did you note that your chart shows the temp started to drp in 2000.
It dips many times along the way. Dips on such short time scales are not significant. If the dip continued for another decade then it would become significant.
I predict that that dip will have disappeared by next year as temps will rebound slightly this year.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#29    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,172 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 11:03 AM

Do any of the skeptics here understands that climate models are run thousands of times and the published results are a mean or average of the results of all of those runs. Do you think that each individual run follows the track of the average or do you think they diverage by decades at times.

The difference between the average results of the climate models and the real earth is that the real earth only performs one run and there is no averaging to smooth out the peaks and troughs.

I don't suppose you ever did.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#30    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,916 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 02 April 2013 - 11:29 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 02 April 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

Which totally ignores the actual warming, nice :tu:

The models have done a remarkably good job of tracking the long term trend - and are been refined all the time.

Just not the last twenty years huh?  CArbon levels go up and warming goes down but I am the idiot for questioning what the warmers are telling us.  LOL

View PostBr Cornelius, on 02 April 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:


Your statement sums up where you get your information from and where your motivation lies.

Br Cornelius

So does your's.  I love how climate-gate has been completely forgotten or worse, nodded off as a big nothing by you folks.   It was actually a heinous scandal that discredits ALL their work, maybe you should read up on it.

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users