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 2
Merc14

Climate models wrong

156 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

This is no surprise and these folks are on the warmers side.   You'd think warmers would be celebrating but .....nahh.  Launch the alert Doug to squash it

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/18/another-major-study-confirms-the-ipccs-climate-models-were-wrong/

Another group of prominent climate scientists have published research claiming humanity may have a couple extra decades before pushing the world past what the U.N. calls “dangerous” levels of global warming.

However, the importance of the study isn’t in future projections — which always have high amounts of uncertainty — but rather in its endorsement of the new “consensus” on global warming.

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, provides more confirmation the climate models are running too hot and could not predict the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming.

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations,” Myles Allen, a geosystem scientist at the University of Oxford, told The Times on Monday.

 

“The models end up with a warming which is larger than the observed warming for the current emissions. … So, therefore, they derive a budget which is much lower,” study co-author Pierre Friedlingstein of the University of Exeter said, according to The Washington Post.

Edit:  linked to a non-subscription paper.

 

Edited by Merc14
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link.  A model is only good until a better one comes along, though some folks invest so much weight in one they like they think that makes it truth with a capital T.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Thanks for the link.  A model is only good until a better one comes along, though some folks invest so much weight in one they like they think that makes it truth with a capital T.

Yes, agreed and the fact that they were defended for so long despite the lack of predicted warming shows that this particular branch of science has become irrevocably politicized.   The problem with that is when you have flawed models and doctored data the real world will show the lie as time marches on.   Climate change is part of earth's cycle and will always be here long after we are gone but the man made global warming hand was overplayed and reality has caught up with that.

Does man's activities play some pat?  Probably but not nearly to the extent the hysterics of the last twenty years has dictated.   This study will be viscously attacked just like the rest were but another will follow and more after that until maybe this field purges itself of ths religious zealotry.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modeling is hard, we use metal solidification at work, and simplify that as much as possible.  Setting boundary conditions  often determines the model  of solidification and whether it reflects reality.  Not much politics or sexy causes in a casting but if the model isn't right, the casting can be ruined.  

Climate models have to be a whole lot more difficult.  Nate Silver wrote a pretty good book about predictions and modeling in general called  The  Signal and the Noise.

There may be some links to human activity, but regardless,  a good model will help with urban planning along the coast and in flood planes, and maybe levee heights etc.  I hope they keep working on it.  But it may be akin to earthquake prediction which has stumped all efforts so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Modeling is hard, we use metal solidification at work, and simplify that as much as possible.  Setting boundary conditions  often determines the model  of solidification and whether it reflects reality.  Not much politics or sexy causes in a casting but if the model isn't right, the casting can be ruined.  

Climate models have to be a whole lot more difficult.  Nate Silver wrote a pretty good book about predictions and modeling in general called  The  Signal and the Noise.

There may be some links to human activity, but regardless,  a good model will help with urban planning along the coast and in flood planes, and maybe levee heights etc.  I hope they keep working on it.  But it may be akin to earthquake prediction which has stumped all efforts so far.

Agreed and we need to get this right, but if your models are not predicting reality correctly then the worst thing you can do is fail to admit it and strive to find the error(s).   Regardless of man's influence on the climate we need to move to fusion reactors sooner rather than later but destroying our economies, while that technology matures, because a model that is now missing the mark by a large measure says a crisis is at hand is stupid. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "warmers?" Lol. You like to think of yourself as scientific. You're a walking contradiction.

It's one study. And yeah, it would be great if it was right. But it doesn't discount the fact of climate change...being caused by us...and that we need to act. And while a whole lot of us are trying to recover from all the hurricanes, choking on wildfire smoke, and watching the water rise, forgive me if I fail to celebrate. 

There are plenty of studies that tell us things are actually worse...way worse...than they predicted. And looking around, I know who I'm thinking has it right. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DeGrasse Tyson comments: “I worry that we might not be able to recover from this because all our greatest cities are on the oceans and water’s edges, historically for commerce and transportation.”

“And as storms kick in, as water levels rise, they are the first to go,” he stated. “And we don’t have a system — we don’t have a civilization with the capacity to pick up a city and move it inland 20 miles. That’s — this is happening faster than our ability to respond.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjTjtbOpbPWAhWD2SYKHVO5CK0QFgg6MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcleantechnica.com%2F2017%2F09%2F19%2Fneil-degrasse-tyson-climate-change-happening-faster-ability-respond%2F&usg=AFQjCNGxrAeqh2Y1DkbTdYmzjkwd0Mc1YA

“‘The day two politicians are arguing about whether science is true, it means nothing gets done. Nothing,’ he said. ‘It’s the beginning of the end of an informed democracy, as I’ve said many times. What I’d rather happen is you recognize what is scientifically truth, then you have your political debate.'”

There are probably a lot of people who would prefer that, but to truly do so would mean to acknowledge that the lifestyles of the last hundred or so years aren’t going to last much longer. The reality is that effective action to prevent extreme anthropogenic climate change would require a fundamental restructuring of the world’s cultural, economic, political, and agricultural systems. For that to happen, there is a vast amount of inertia in the aforementioned systems that will have to be overcome first.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always, we should ignore how the media and bloggers reinterpret the study and look at what the study itself says ;) 

Here is the Abstract:

The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers, increasing to 240 GtC with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.

Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible



(my emphasis)

So, if we massively cut our CO2 emissions yesterday, then there is a chance, we may only see warming up to 2.0c and could limit it to 1.5c - rather than it hitting 3c as some models suggest.   But it will take a massive commitment to do so. 

Based on this particular model ;) 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Essan said:

So, if we massively cut our CO2 emissions yesterday, then there is a chance, we may only see warming up to 2.0c and could limit it to 1.5c - rather than it hitting 3c as some models suggest.   But it will take a massive commitment to do so. 

Based on this particular model ;) 

No. See more CO2 doesn't actually mean more warming. This is what the Models actually have wrong. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Merc14 Er....breaking news....did you not get the memo?   There is a reason why it is now called climate change and not global warming!

Edited by sees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

No. See more CO2 doesn't actually mean more warming. This is what the Models actually have wrong. 

And you're in Texas.

See, this is why we are truly doomed. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

And you're in Texas.

Yeah. Probably just lived through the coolest August in recorded History here too. What is your point?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Yeah. Probably just lived through the coolest August in recorded History here too. What is your point?

With better knowledge the situation is now called climate change (not global warming).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Merc14 said:

“The models end up with a warming which is larger than the observed warming for the current emissions. … So, therefore, they derive a budget which is much lower,” study co-author Pierre Friedlingstein of the University of Exeter said,

From the same article:

Quote

Still, some scientists have criticized the new study. Potsdam Institute scientist Stefan Rahmstorf told WaPo the new study “adjusted the budget upward based on the idea that there has been less observed warming than suggested by the climate models, but that is not actually true if you do the comparison properly.”

So the mentioned study might show that the numbers from the early predictions are too high, means wrong, but they also confirm an increase of the global temperature. If its fact that the increase dont match the (early) predictions it would be of interest if the difference might be a result of greenhouse gases reduction actions taken within the timeframe of the predictions. Anyway, even if the numbers where wrong, the problem still exist and we should not feel comfortable now based on that fact as the process will continue and its effects might be shifted a little into the deeper future which does not mean that our todays responsibility is at a lower level.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Yeah. Probably just lived through the coolest August in recorded History here too. What is your point?

Climate change means temperature fluctuations in both directions and just a butt on the balcony cant be an indicator for the global situation.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Yes, agreed and the fact that they were defended for so long despite the lack of predicted warming shows that this particular branch of science has become irrevocably politicized.  The problem with that is when you have flawed models and doctored data the real world will show the lie as time marches on.   Climate change is part of earth's cycle and will always be here long after we are gone but the man made global warming hand was overplayed and reality has caught up with that.

Does man's activities play some pat?  Probably but not nearly to the extent the hysterics of the last twenty years has dictated.   This study will be viscously attacked just like the rest were but another will follow and more after that until maybe this field purges itself of ths religious zealotry.

 

I agree --

and re the bolded - this is true and Climate Change / Warming is now the foundation stone for Globalism and One World Government -

so they are NOT going to let it go ... ever... no matter what data is presented to the contrary -
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=underwater+cities+of+the+world&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWneGTtbPWAhXmA8AKHXEgAX8QsAQIMg&biw=1280&bih=685

 

I wonder if the former inhabitants of the now underwater places burnt too much coal or didn't have environmentally friendly light bulbs.. 

look what they did to themselves !!!! ... :whistle:

cutting down on air pollution has to be a good idea for the micro climate in various locations - but I think the effects of humans
on the macro climate is exaggerated - 

although, all the nuclear tests especially the atmospheric ones probably didn't do the earth much of a favour but I expect even the
affects from them will be naturally ironed out over time - ?
 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

The "warmers?" Lol. You like to think of yourself as scientific. You're a walking contradiction.

It's one study. And yeah, it would be great if it was right. But it doesn't discount the fact of climate change...being caused by us...and that we need to act. And while a whole lot of us are trying to recover from all the hurricanes, choking on wildfire smoke, and watching the water rise, forgive me if I fail to celebrate. 

There are plenty of studies that tell us things are actually worse...way worse...than they predicted. And looking around, I know who I'm thinking has it right. 

There have been several studies that have show  the models to be flawed and the fact remains that the temperatures have not risen anywhere near what the models have predicted so who is blind here?  The term denier is far worse in science than the term warmer that describes an hysteric who blames every severe storm on man made global warming and BTW, the IPCC itself has admitted the real numbers don't match those predicted by the models..  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

No. See more CO2 doesn't actually mean more warming. This is what the Models actually have wrong. 

That not what this study - using a climate model says - nor is it that conclusion of any scientist who has studied the subject in the past 150 years ;) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sees said:

@Merc14 Er....breaking news....did you not get the memo?   There is a reason why it is now called climate change and not global warming!

It has always been called climate change.  Global warming is just one aspect thereof ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

There have been several studies that have show  the models to be flawed and the fact remains that the temperatures have not risen anywhere near what the models have predicted so who is blind here?  The term denier is far worse in science than the term warmer that describes an hysteric who blames every severe storm on man made global warming and BTW, the IPCC itself has admitted the real numbers don't match those predicted by the models..  

The models are not flawed.  They are just models ;)      What's flawed is the public understanding of what models are, what they do and how they are used.

Anyway,, does this you mean you don't trust this new study?   Given it's based on a model :P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst possible scale for a map is 1:1.  At that scale, the map simplifies nothing.

By the same token, a climate model that EXACTLY reproduces the climate record tells us nothing, except that we understand what the climate is doing.  It is not a tool with practical applications because of its complexity.

There are over 300 climate models, all with specific uses and applications, mostly serving as learning tools.  Most would not give good results when used in an inappropriate context (Like a climate model applicable to the southern Great Plains being used to predict global temps.).  Merc complains that there have been several studies that show the models to be flawed.  This is true.  No model is ever perfect, especially with a subject as complex as weather/climate and especially when the models are used out of their proper context.

But global warming theory does not rest on climate models.  One can demonstrate that temperatures are increasing without using climate models.  How?

1.  calculate monthly average temperatures going back as far as you have reliable data.

2.  For the period 1 January 1951 to 31 December 1980, calculate the average monthly temperature for each month of the calendar year.

3.  Subtract the average monthly temperature from each observation.  The result is the temperature anomaly for that month.  Then just display the result by month.

 

OR:  Just calculate the average annual temperature going back as far as you have the data.  Then just look and see how the most-recent years compare with the earliest years.

Result:  climate changes are confirmed without reference to a climate model.

Most climate research does not use climate models.

Doug

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This study IS important, because computer models HAVE been used in the past to push a political agenda, and to influence government action on "climate change". So we NOW learn (ha ! ) that the models have not predicted ACTUAL observed trends.

That is not new news, and it is also the reason why agenda-led scientists tend NOT to rely so heavily on computer models when recommending policy. Because they know the public are now distrustful of them. (the models, that is, not the scientists.. although.... ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

The "warmers?" Lol. You like to think of yourself as scientific. You're a walking contradiction.

It's one study. And yeah, it would be great if it was right. But it doesn't discount the fact of climate change...being caused by us.......

There is no such "fact". :)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

The worst possible scale for a map is 1:1.  At that scale, the map simplifies nothing.

By the same token, a climate model that EXACTLY reproduces the climate record tells us nothing, except that we understand what the climate is doing.  It is not a tool with practical applications because of its complexity.

There are over 300 climate models, all with specific uses and applications, mostly serving as learning tools.  Most would not give good results when used in an inappropriate context (Like a climate model applicable to the southern Great Plains being used to predict global temps.).  Merc complains that there have been several studies that show the models to be flawed.  This is true.  No model is ever perfect, especially with a subject as complex as weather/climate and especially when the models are used out of their proper context.

But global warming theory does not rest on climate models.  One can demonstrate that temperatures are increasing without using climate models.  How?

1.  calculate monthly average temperatures going back as far as you have reliable data.

2.  For the period 1 January 1951 to 31 December 1980, calculate the average monthly temperature for each month of the calendar year.

3.  Subtract the average monthly temperature from each observation.  The result is the temperature anomaly for that month.  Then just display the result by month.

 

OR:  Just calculate the average annual temperature going back as far as you have the data.  Then just look and see how the most-recent years compare with the earliest years.

Result:  climate changes are confirmed without reference to a climate model.

Most climate research does not use climate models.

Doug

Doug, we have not warmed like the models predicted over the last twenty plus years according to the IPCC.  If we are going to destroy our economy because of what the models say then shouldn't the models be accurate., all of them?  Are we not in a normal warming cycle of the earth's climate, still climbing out of the last ice age?  

2 people like this

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.