Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
Jinx said:
zygalski said:
I'm not the one attempting to refute every scientific organisation & seat of learning on the planet.
All you've got are a few rogue individual scientists & right wing blogs.
I would say the onus on disproving an overwhelming consensus lies with the deniers.
Well that bit I agree with (only the bold) smile

If the models embody the consensus proof of AGW then their failure is disproof is it not?
No it's not.

Do you think that almost all of the climate scientists and all of the scientific institutions have somehow overlooked this glaring flaw?

Do you think they are relying solely on the computer models of future temperature change?

Do you think that because one model might show 2 degrees of warming in the next century and another show 4 degrees of warming that they should deduce that there will in fact be zero degrees of warming?

Where are the studies showing cooling to offset this avalanche of studies showing warming?

To believe what you believe the only logical conclusion you can come to is that it's a global conspiracy. And that's flat-earth territory.


turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
Earlier I said:
No PhD cert available but Dr Alan Carlin said:
In the last few years the literature has blossomed with more and more seriously damning studies from a climate alarmist viewpoint. Two weeks ago I outlined the nature of the costs being incurred to meet the desires of climate alarmists to reduce human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide. It is becoming increasingly evident that increases in emissions of CO2 have had no significant effect on temperatures, and that assumptions made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in related issues fail tests based on the scientific method and sophisticated econometric tests.
Don't take his word for it, check out credible empirical data rotate

Carbon dioxide holiday snaps will not suffice wink
Yep, he has a PhD, it's in economics
Was there not mention of econometric analysis of nonsensical agw-based policy, in the context of McKitrick and Christy 2018? See below.

zygalski said:
I'm not the one attempting to refute every scientific organisation & seat of learning on the planet.

I would say the onus on disproving an overwhelming consensus lies with the deniers.
Already been done with Oreskes, Cook and Doran. Then again science doesn't operate via consensus so having knocked your non-point about the non-consensus into the long grass, the non-point wasn't a point anyway.

The non-consensus has to demonstrate causality to humans in visible measurable permanent dangerous warming which the junkscience predicts. So far it's zilch and a laugh a minute.

jinx said:
If the models embody the consensus proof of AGW then their failure is disproof is it not?
Indeed and that has also been taken care of already in the peer reviewed scientific literaturre by McKitrick & Christy 2018.

Playing along with the notion of 'GCM average gigo' as meaningul, the authors compared this with empirical data.

In a sophisticated scientific/statistical analysis accounting for the Pacific climate shift (see Seidel & Lanzante 2004; Tsonis et al 2007; Powell & Xu 2011) comparison of the average GCM model output temperature trend with the measured trend rejects the agw hypothosis in GCM models with the probability of false rejection at 0.0001 (and this is valid statistical analysis not mere conjecture from vested interests disguised using %s).

gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
Are you talking about Naomi Oreskes?

The woman who said this just last year...

‘"We’re on a path that is going to lead to tremendous destruction and yet most of us are going about our lives as if nothing particularly special is happening.’ The science of climate change is incontrovertible but deniers persist and political and economic solutions continue to be – systematically – frustrated. Time is running out."

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-clima...

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for the denier side to me. hehe

Diderot

7,264 posts

191 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
Are you talking about Naomi Oreskes?

The woman who said this just last year...

‘"We’re on a path that is going to lead to tremendous destruction and yet most of us are going about our lives as if nothing particularly special is happening.’ The science of climate change is incontrovertible but deniers persist and political and economic solutions continue to be – systematically – frustrated. Time is running out."

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-clima...

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for the denier side to me. hehe
l

Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.



gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Are you talking about Naomi Oreskes?

The woman who said this just last year...

‘"We’re on a path that is going to lead to tremendous destruction and yet most of us are going about our lives as if nothing particularly special is happening.’ The science of climate change is incontrovertible but deniers persist and political and economic solutions continue to be – systematically – frustrated. Time is running out."

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-clima...

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for the denier side to me. hehe
l

Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.
Wrong.

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
Diderot said:
Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing.
Well, apart from global warming obviously.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Are you talking about Naomi Oreskes?

The woman who said this just last year...

‘"We’re on a path that is going to lead to tremendous destruction and yet most of us are going about our lives as if nothing particularly special is happening.’ The science of climate change is incontrovertible but deniers persist and political and economic solutions continue to be – systematically – frustrated. Time is running out."

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-clima...

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for the denier side to me. hehe
l

Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.
Wrong.
Is that your best effort? "Wrong" . When there's nothing else left to respond with, I suppose there's always "wrong".

gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
Is that your best effort? "Wrong" . When there's nothing else left to respond with, I suppose there's always "wrong".
When the same question was asked and answered just one hour and 8 minutes earlier then yes, "wrong" is my best effort.

So in answer to your boring question "right" is my reply.

LittleBigPlanet

1,115 posts

140 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
Diderot said:
Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.
I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or not but this is simply untrue. Carbon Brief wrote an article about this last year (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming):
- Sawyer's (1973) model projected an increase in global average temperature of 0.6 C between 1969-2000 and atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25% (to 375-400 ppm). The reality was an observed warming between 0.51 C and 0.56 C and 370 ppm.
- The first IPCC report (1990) used a BAU scenario of C02 emissions hitting 418 ppm in 2016, the observed rate was 404 ppm. The model overestimated warming between 1976 and 2016 by 17% in the BAU scenario (equivalent to a warming of 1 C with observed warming at 0.85 C)
- The second IPCC report (2001) A2 projection predicted an atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 406 ppm (observed was 404 ppm). The rate of warming projected was 14% lower than observations.
- The fourth IPCC report (2007) (A1B scenario) projections were close to observations, at 8% higher
- The first IPCC report (2013) projections showed warming ~9 to 16% faster than observations since 1970.

I take your point though, the models have not been bang on. I guess we need Robinessex's understanding of chaos theory to fine tune things.

dickymint

24,101 posts

257 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Are you talking about Naomi Oreskes?

The woman who said this just last year...

‘"We’re on a path that is going to lead to tremendous destruction and yet most of us are going about our lives as if nothing particularly special is happening.’ The science of climate change is incontrovertible but deniers persist and political and economic solutions continue to be – systematically – frustrated. Time is running out."

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-clima...

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for the denier side to me. hehe
l

Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.
Wrong.
Is that your best effort? "Wrong" . When there's nothing else left to respond with, I suppose there's always "wrong".
I was expecting his latest best effort .... “I don’t believe you” rofl

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
LittleBigPlanet said:
I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or not but this is simply untrue. Carbon Brief wrote an article about this last year (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming):
- Sawyer's (1973) model projected an increase in global average temperature of 0.6 C between 1969-2000 and atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25% (to 375-400 ppm). The reality was an observed warming between 0.51 C and 0.56 C and 370 ppm.
- The first IPCC report (1990) used a BAU scenario of C02 emissions hitting 418 ppm in 2016, the observed rate was 404 ppm. The model overestimated warming between 1976 and 2016 by 17% in the BAU scenario (equivalent to a warming of 1 C with observed warming at 0.85 C)
- The second IPCC report (2001) A2 projection predicted an atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 406 ppm (observed was 404 ppm). The rate of warming projected was 14% lower than observations.
- The fourth IPCC report (2007) (A1B scenario) projections were close to observations, at 8% higher
- The first IPCC report (2013) projections showed warming ~9 to 16% faster than observations since 1970.

I take your point though, the models have not been bang on. I guess we need Robinessex's understanding of chaos theory to fine tune things.
i thought no one took the models seriously anymore, hence projections not predictions or will they be renamed predictions if one happens to be correct ? if sawyer was correctly modelling climate in 1973 with the knowledge and tech available then, why the fk are they spending billions running modern models instead of using his method ?

i remember many years ago reading claims of 1c per 10ppm increase in atmospheric co2 somewhere , wonder if anyone else remembers that ? will have to have a dig around, see if it was one of the loony lot making them or a recognised member of the we're all gonna die if we don't go back to living in caves and eating grass lot.

gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
dickymint said:
V8 Fettler said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Are you talking about Naomi Oreskes?

The woman who said this just last year...

‘"We’re on a path that is going to lead to tremendous destruction and yet most of us are going about our lives as if nothing particularly special is happening.’ The science of climate change is incontrovertible but deniers persist and political and economic solutions continue to be – systematically – frustrated. Time is running out."

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-clima...

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for the denier side to me. hehe
l

Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.
Wrong.
Is that your best effort? "Wrong" . When there's nothing else left to respond with, I suppose there's always "wrong".
I was expecting his latest best effort .... “I don’t believe you” rofl
I didn’t oblige eh. Report me. rofl

gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
LittleBigPlanet said:
Diderot said:
Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.
I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or not but this is simply untrue. Carbon Brief wrote an article about this last year (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming):
- Sawyer's (1973) model projected an increase in global average temperature of 0.6 C between 1969-2000 and atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25% (to 375-400 ppm). The reality was an observed warming between 0.51 C and 0.56 C and 370 ppm.
- The first IPCC report (1990) used a BAU scenario of C02 emissions hitting 418 ppm in 2016, the observed rate was 404 ppm. The model overestimated warming between 1976 and 2016 by 17% in the BAU scenario (equivalent to a warming of 1 C with observed warming at 0.85 C)
- The second IPCC report (2001) A2 projection predicted an atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 406 ppm (observed was 404 ppm). The rate of warming projected was 14% lower than observations.
- The fourth IPCC report (2007) (A1B scenario) projections were close to observations, at 8% higher
- The first IPCC report (2013) projections showed warming ~9 to 16% faster than observations since 1970.

I take your point though, the models have not been bang on. I guess we need Robinessex's understanding of chaos theory to fine tune things.
You can’t get the models bang on, nobody is suggesting you can. But when all of the models are pointing towards the same thing...

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
LittleBigPlanet said:
Diderot said:
Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.
I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or not but this is simply untrue. Carbon Brief wrote an article about this last year (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming):
- Sawyer's (1973) model projected an increase in global average temperature of 0.6 C between 1969-2000 and atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25% (to 375-400 ppm). The reality was an observed warming between 0.51 C and 0.56 C and 370 ppm.
- The first IPCC report (1990) used a BAU scenario of C02 emissions hitting 418 ppm in 2016, the observed rate was 404 ppm. The model overestimated warming between 1976 and 2016 by 17% in the BAU scenario (equivalent to a warming of 1 C with observed warming at 0.85 C)
- The second IPCC report (2001) A2 projection predicted an atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 406 ppm (observed was 404 ppm). The rate of warming projected was 14% lower than observations.
- The fourth IPCC report (2007) (A1B scenario) projections were close to observations, at 8% higher
- The first IPCC report (2013) projections showed warming ~9 to 16% faster than observations since 1970.

I take your point though, the models have not been bang on. I guess we need Robinessex's understanding of chaos theory to fine tune things.
Best to be accurate with your quotes. I never said I understood Chaos Theory. I said Chaotic system can't be predicted.

JustALooseScrew

1,154 posts

66 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
You can’t get the models bang on, nobody is suggesting you can. But when all of the models are pointing towards the same thing...
Seriously? Really? You actually trust these models?
"You can’t get the models bang on, nobody is suggesting you can"
So essentially you are advocating spending trillions of $ on something made up?

gadgetmac said:
But when all of the models are pointing towards the same thing...
Ask yourself why are the models all pointing towards the same thing - it isn't science, or fact, it's because all the models are programmed to point towards the same 'thing'.

It's hard to believe that you haven't figured this out yet.

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
JustALooseScrew said:
gadgetmac said:
You can’t get the models bang on, nobody is suggesting you can. But when all of the models are pointing towards the same thing...
Seriously? Really? You actually trust these models?
"You can’t get the models bang on, nobody is suggesting you can"
So essentially you are advocating spending trillions of $ on something made up?

gadgetmac said:
But when all of the models are pointing towards the same thing...
Ask yourself why are the models all pointing towards the same thing - it isn't science, or fact, it's because all the models are programmed to point towards the same 'thing'.

It's hard to believe that you haven't figured this out yet.
yes

It sure is, especially when they get the 'thing' so badly wrong even with a 40 to 70 sided coin. See post earlier today on McKitrick and Michaels (2018).

Now the Dems are starting to see the light rather than the missing heat.

On 15 January a Vermont Radio Presenter said:
A growing number of climate advocates say increasing the price of fossil fuels is the surest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but leaders in the House and Senate are resisting calls for a carbon tax in Vermont. The Democratic leaders in the House and Senate say they are skeptical of a carbon tax bill. And even if lawmakers introduce one this year, it’s hard to imagine it’ll make it very far.
Ben Geman on the same date said:
The posture of ascendant progressives is another reason why it’s unclear if carbon taxes will ever emerge as a central federal climate policy. It’s a stark contrast from a decade ago, when Democrats put a different pricing method i.e. a cap-and-trade plan at the centre of a climate bill that passed the House but collapsed in the Senate.

On 16 January Lawrence Zupan said:
The carbon tax has a punishing effect on those who have no money left at the end of the month, which would include at least half of all Vermonters. It would be a symbol lifted up on the backs of the poorest among us, on working-class Vermonters living paycheck-to-paycheck, retirees living on fixed incomes, those who can’t use any less gasoline for their cars or fuel for their homes than they already are using. For the wealthy, a carbon tax would be an inconvenience. For the rest of us, a carbon tax is a catastrophe.
Gilets jaunes not for sale in Vermont?!

Diderot

7,264 posts

191 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Are you talking about Naomi Oreskes?

The woman who said this just last year...

‘"We’re on a path that is going to lead to tremendous destruction and yet most of us are going about our lives as if nothing particularly special is happening.’ The science of climate change is incontrovertible but deniers persist and political and economic solutions continue to be – systematically – frustrated. Time is running out."

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-clima...

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for the denier side to me. hehe
l

Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.
Wrong.
Glad to see you have all the arguments at your fingertips and can deploy them at will.

Where is Loony with his lists when you need him? The list of abject failures of Climate alarmist BS predictions is as long as it is entertaining. It would be funny save for the trillions of dollars already wasted on such fantastical nonsense and countless lives lost because of gullible politicians and their reckless policies.

Do let us know when one model predicts something that resembles the real world, and when one climate alarmist soothsayer gets something/anything right about the climate.

In the meantime, continue believing in fairies at the end of the garden.

dickymint

24,101 posts

257 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
V8 Fettler said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Are you talking about Naomi Oreskes?

The woman who said this just last year...

‘"We’re on a path that is going to lead to tremendous destruction and yet most of us are going about our lives as if nothing particularly special is happening.’ The science of climate change is incontrovertible but deniers persist and political and economic solutions continue to be – systematically – frustrated. Time is running out."

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/politics-of-clima...

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for the denier side to me. hehe
l

Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.
Wrong.
Is that your best effort? "Wrong" . When there's nothing else left to respond with, I suppose there's always "wrong".
I was expecting his latest best effort .... “I don’t believe you” rofl
I didn’t oblige eh. Report me. rofl
why report? You amuse me! confused

LittleBigPlanet

1,115 posts

140 months

Friday 18th January 2019
quotequote all
robinessex said:
LittleBigPlanet said:
Diderot said:
Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.
I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or not but this is simply untrue. Carbon Brief wrote an article about this last year (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming):
- Sawyer's (1973) model projected an increase in global average temperature of 0.6 C between 1969-2000 and atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25% (to 375-400 ppm). The reality was an observed warming between 0.51 C and 0.56 C and 370 ppm.
- The first IPCC report (1990) used a BAU scenario of C02 emissions hitting 418 ppm in 2016, the observed rate was 404 ppm. The model overestimated warming between 1976 and 2016 by 17% in the BAU scenario (equivalent to a warming of 1 C with observed warming at 0.85 C)
- The second IPCC report (2001) A2 projection predicted an atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 406 ppm (observed was 404 ppm). The rate of warming projected was 14% lower than observations.
- The fourth IPCC report (2007) (A1B scenario) projections were close to observations, at 8% higher
- The first IPCC report (2013) projections showed warming ~9 to 16% faster than observations since 1970.

I take your point though, the models have not been bang on. I guess we need Robinessex's understanding of chaos theory to fine tune things.
Best to be accurate with your quotes. I never said I understood Chaos Theory. I said Chaotic system can't be predicted.
To be accurate, I never quoted you in the above.

In any case, one of your concerns with climate models is their application to chaotic systems, like climate. It has been pointed out to you that, whilst being chaotic (there are macro- and micro-scale drivers at play - the models of which are sometimes good and/or bad at replicating, or do not consider at all in some cases), for the majority, these models show good 'skill' (a modelling term) at replicating ocean-atmosphere interactions. They are not perfect, nor do they pretend to be.

The point is, in light of the above demonstration of some models' skill (and as noted, not all are good at replicating climate), they are often accurate enough to replicate observed data without demonstrating atomic levels of precision (i.e. through an exhaustive understanding and replication of Earth's systems, and their interactions, in their entirety). Therefore, your point that climate modelling is a fruitless exercise in the absence of such understanding is irrelevant and/or disingenuous, or both.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 18th January 2019
quotequote all
Diderot said:
Where is Loony with his lists when you need him?
Dickymint got him banned.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED