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

#61    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 02 April 2013 - 07:14 PM

"It would be equally dishonest of me to point to the period of the 1990's and conclude that global warming had significantly accelerated. "
except that nobody has concluded that 'global warming has stopped', you are familiar with the strawman argument? - this is where you misrepresent an opponent's argument.
what is being pointed out is that there is a discrepancy between models and observations due to the fact that a 15 year interval has shown zero trend, something which the climate modelers have stated would falsify their predictions.


#62    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,375 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 02 April 2013 - 07:34 PM

View PostMerc14, on 02 April 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

...but that doesn't mean we should just ignore a 20 year divergence from the expected norm that will fall outside the lower boundary in just a couple of years.
If that happens, we can all breathe a sigh of relief, as long as warming doesn't pick up again.  But the last all-time yearly high temperature record was set in 2010.  Two years is not long enough for me to conclude that the danger has been averted.

In the meantime, this experiment we are conducting to see how much of our ecosystem we can break before it quits working, poses a significant threat, whether or not rising temperatures are part of it.

Quote

Obviously the economist running IPCC is worried because he can see the writing on the wall, presumably, so stand by for new ice age crisis in approximately 8 years.
Haven't talked to any experts on the subject lately?  The risk of an ice age is past.  There will never again be an ice age on earth as long as we are in charge of the climate.  We know how to make the world warmer.  Indeed, we are doing it without even trying.  And the output of one CFC plant is enough to offset any climate forcings.
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

#63    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,416 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 07:36 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 02 April 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

"It would be equally dishonest of me to point to the period of the 1990's and conclude that global warming had significantly accelerated. "
except that nobody has concluded that 'global warming has stopped', you are familiar with the strawman argument? - this is where you misrepresent an opponent's argument.
what is being pointed out is that there is a discrepancy between models and observations due to the fact that a 15 year interval has shown zero trend, something which the climate modelers have stated would falsify their predictions.
When it is shown statistically to happen we can start the discussion. Since it has not (on multiple levels) you are the one who is arguing a straw man.

Glad to see that you finally admit global warming is real and continues :tu:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 02 April 2013 - 07:37 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#64    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,416 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 07:38 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 02 April 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

what happens when you run it back to the 10,000 year trend, then take just the last 15 years, you'll get a significant cooling trend which demonstrates you can get any result you want with your method of "taking it back", and is thus flawed.
I'm looking at a 15 year period as instructed by the climate modelers - it's their test.
As I also pointed out a search for a simple linear trend is not the only choice and in most cases the wrong one. Straw men indeed.

I even supplied you with one carried out by NASA with an appropriate statistical analysis

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 02 April 2013 - 07:40 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#65    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,375 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 02 April 2013 - 07:59 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 02 April 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

here's what they said about their models 5 years ago:
"The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate."
You don't get to use one standard for yourself while holding your opposition to a higher standard.  If you are going to assert that there has been no warming in 15 years, then you need to do it to the same standard that your opposition is using:  95% confidence.  If you can't equal or beat that, you have nothing to argue with.  I have checked those numbers:  you can't get that level out of them.  You have nothing to support your contention.
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

#66    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,416 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 08:00 PM

What statisticians say about the data;

Quote

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

.....


"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

......

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

.......

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

.......

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

........

Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.


http://www.cbsnews.c...62-5423035.html

The significant thing to take from this is that when analyzed by statisticians who were unaware of the source of the data - they concluded that warming has not significantly changed.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#67    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 02 April 2013 - 08:18 PM

"they concluded that warming has not significantly changed"
you should read what they actually said.
my understanding of "warming" is an increasing temperature.
your understanding of "warming" seems to be "not declining".

Edited by Little Fish, 02 April 2013 - 08:19 PM.


#68    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,416 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:18 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 02 April 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

"they concluded that warming has not significantly changed"
you should read what they actually said.
my understanding of "warming" is an increasing temperature.
your understanding of "warming" seems to be "not declining".
Increase in heat content of the system is my understanding. That has happened consistently over the last 15 years.
My understanding also extends to simple statistical concepts which allow me to look at the data and understand it. Again I suggest you give it a try.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#69    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,278 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:52 PM

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

Read the article Doug and the links it cointains.  Cheers.
hmmm...wouldn't that be nice if people actually bothered to read an article before commenting?  Good luck with that.


#70    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

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

Posted 02 April 2013 - 11:37 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 02 April 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Haven't talked to any experts on the subject lately?  The risk of an ice age is past.  There will never again be an ice age on earth as long as we are in charge of the climate.  We know how to make the world warmer.  Indeed, we are doing it without even trying.  And the output of one CFC plant is enough to offset any climate forcings.
Doug

Doug, I am sorry but this is seriously underestimating the forces you are dealing with.  We are nothing compared to the power of this planet and our resident star and we most definitely do not have the power, at this time, to stop another ice age.  The fact you believe this speaks volumes but I respect your studies and efforts and with the above statement I rest my case.

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

#71    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 03 April 2013 - 09:42 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 02 April 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

Increase in heat content of the system is my understanding.
the modelers are not referring to "heat content", they are referring to their predicted surface air temperature where we all live, and there has been no statistically significant warming in surface air temperatures for more than 16 years which creates a discrepancy between their predictions and the actual observations according to the test set out by the modelers themselves.

so either you disagree with the modelers or you have to accept that the models are exaggerating the surface air temperature predictions. you cannot have it both ways.


#72    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,416 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 03 April 2013 - 10:31 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 03 April 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

the modelers are not referring to "heat content", they are referring to their predicted surface air temperature where we all live, and there has been no statistically significant warming in surface air temperatures for more than 16 years which creates a discrepancy between their predictions and the actual observations according to the test set out by the modelers themselves.

so either you disagree with the modelers or you have to accept that the models are exaggerating the surface air temperature predictions. you cannot have it both ways.
Which just goes to show that you have no actual interest in Climate science. You want to focus in on one aspect which supports your belief that there is no significant global warming and ignore all the data which shows otherwise. You will use any form of dubious analysis to hold onto your one tiny piece of certainty. You will claim to use sound statistical analysis when infact you deny all sound statistical analysis which refutes your narrow point.

I don't think you actually understand the concept of modelling and what the models sets out to achieve. Do you think that models can anticipate ENSO, volcanic activity, sulphur emissions and actual solar output. Do you think that without these pieces of data you can predict into the future the precise rise and fall of temperature, or do you think that given this information you can hindcast accurately what is in the instrumental record. You put entirely more faith in models ability to predict "weather" than I would ever credit them with. They are good at predicting climate, ie trends of more than 30year period. You only put such confidence in models because you think its a way of discrediting the general field of climate science.

Climate science is not just about surface temperature - its about the energy budget of the planetary system. Neither is it about short term variability - its about long term trends. Neither is it all about models, its about using every bit of historic data to anticipate what will happen in the future based on what happened in the past.

What climate denial meme will you be championing tomorrow Little Fish ? You are so deep in denial I think your very life depends on it.

Show us you understand science and the tools of science.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 03 April 2013 - 10:44 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#73    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,416 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 03 April 2013 - 10:58 AM

Lets face it Little Fish we both know what its all about for you.



Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#74    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 03 April 2013 - 11:26 AM

a little experiment for everyone - highlight/search the word "you"
see who is talking about the science, and who is talking about the poster.
I count 21 "you"s in cornelius's last post.

@cornelius - what is the thread subject about?
and which one of us is on the rails?


#75    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,416 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:59 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 03 April 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

a little experiment for everyone - highlight/search the word "you"
see who is talking about the science, and who is talking about the poster.
I count 21 "you"s in cornelius's last post.

@cornelius - what is the thread subject about?
and which one of us is on the rails?
There's no point discussing the facts when your incapable of acknowledging that your factually wrong on anything.

Care to answer that question about what happens if you move the start date to 1996 and what it says about data noise?

Stonewalling reasonable points kills a discussion of facts.

You see, you won't engage with the actual facts of the discussion so we are reduced to taking about your reasons for not doing so.

How did you like Monkton ? i like a clown myself.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 03 April 2013 - 12:00 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users