Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Merc14

Climate models used by GWers suck

101 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

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.weeklystandard.com/blogs/claim-germany-spends-110-billion-delay-global-warming-37-hours_712223.html

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

phone mistake

Edited by BFB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.