Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Diderot said:
LittleBigPlanet said:
Diderot said:
I didn't think it needed a response as your closing sentence and the IPCC report conclusions you posted amply demonstrated the abject failure of the models and the predictions/projections based on them.
Please do explain with specific reference to the information that I posted and your interpretation of the IPCC's conclusions. I'm also interested to get your thoughts on the "abject failure" of the models, given the information that I presented; this is evidently not true. Still waiting on your interpretation of the "IPCC's report conclusions".
Diderot said:
LittleBigPlanet said:
Diderot said:
I didn't think it needed a response as your closing sentence and the IPCC report conclusions you posted amply demonstrated the abject failure of the models and the predictions/projections based on them.
Please do explain with specific reference to the information that I posted and your interpretation of the IPCC's conclusions. I'm also interested to get your thoughts on the "abject failure" of the models, given the information that I presented; this is evidently not true. Little Big Planet:
This is directly from that 'article' you cited and seem to be trumpeting the success of modelling ...
"Global surface air temperatures in CMIP5 models have warmed about 16% faster than observations since 1970. About 40% of this difference is due to air temperatures over the ocean warming faster than sea surface temperatures in the models; blended model fields only show warming 9% faster than observations.
A recent paper in Nature by Iselin Medhaug and colleagues suggests that the remainder of the divergence can be accounted for by a combination of short-term natural variability (mainly in the Pacific Ocean), small volcanoes and lower-than-expected solar output that was not included in models in their post-2005 projections.
Below is a summary of all the models Carbon Brief has looked at. The table below shows the difference in the rate of warming between each model or set of models and NASA’s temperature observations. All the observational temperature records are fairly similar, but NASA’s is among the group that includes more complete global coverage in recent years and is thus more directly comparable to climate model data.
"Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate."
This is directly from that 'article' you cited and seem to be trumpeting the success of modelling ...
"Global surface air temperatures in CMIP5 models have warmed about 16% faster than observations since 1970. About 40% of this difference is due to air temperatures over the ocean warming faster than sea surface temperatures in the models; blended model fields only show warming 9% faster than observations.
A recent paper in Nature by Iselin Medhaug and colleagues suggests that the remainder of the divergence can be accounted for by a combination of short-term natural variability (mainly in the Pacific Ocean), small volcanoes and lower-than-expected solar output that was not included in models in their post-2005 projections.
Below is a summary of all the models Carbon Brief has looked at. The table below shows the difference in the rate of warming between each model or set of models and NASA’s temperature observations. All the observational temperature records are fairly similar, but NASA’s is among the group that includes more complete global coverage in recent years and is thus more directly comparable to climate model data.
"Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate."
CMIP5 models fell out of the reality envelope around the turn of the century against both balloon and satellite measures. That's it, bye bye and heat contaminated ship engine intakes don't alter reality. One toss of the 73-sided coin then falling the right way after natural El Nino warming wouldn't represent skill just chance.
GCM models fail badly. Anyone who knows will appreciate the (signposted) p-values from McKitrick & Christy 2018.
GCM models fail badly. Anyone who knows will appreciate the (signposted) p-values from McKitrick & Christy 2018.
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 21st January 14:34
hairykrishna said:
Ok, the full quote;
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"
I interpret this as saying that given a set of starting conditions and projected future forcings it's not possible to build a model to say, for example, what the average global temperature will be on a given day in 2050. It is however possible to produce a probability distribution of temperatures i.e. to predict how likely it is to be within a given temperature range.
In the context of CO2 and future temperatures we can predict the long term trend but the 'wiggles' in the trend from year to year are not currently predictable (and probably never will be).
this i can agree with. two points i think are important. what are the error bars on the probability distribution on the modelled future temps/states and how does it attribute the anthropogenic component of atmospheric co2 to these modelled states/temps. we have had several el ninos in recent decades, along with increased temps as a result comes an out gassing of co2 over and above that of la nina years and enso neutral years, also an increase in water vapour.what contribution have these effects had on recent global temps ?"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"
I interpret this as saying that given a set of starting conditions and projected future forcings it's not possible to build a model to say, for example, what the average global temperature will be on a given day in 2050. It is however possible to produce a probability distribution of temperatures i.e. to predict how likely it is to be within a given temperature range.
In the context of CO2 and future temperatures we can predict the long term trend but the 'wiggles' in the trend from year to year are not currently predictable (and probably never will be).
the problem with the models for me is largely claims made by people that interpret them to their own ends, are there any climate modellers out there willing to bet the house on modelled possible future states.
turbobloke said:
PS on Tuvalu: as it turns out, climate scientists were already surprised back in 2010 (below) so they must have been completely astonished by 2014.
you mean western tax payers won't have to send them billions of their money along with the supplies of fossil fuel on fossil fuel powered boats and ships that allow them to live in such a lovely place in relative comfort with their modern day lifestyle ? hairykrishna said:
I interpret this as saying that given a set of starting conditions and projected future forcings it's not possible to build a model to say, for example, what the average global temperature will be on a given day in 2050. It is however possible to produce a probability distribution of temperatures i.e. to predict how likely it is to be within a given temperature range.
It's not a meaningful or helpful distribution because a) the models don't include all climate forcings including major omissions therefore useless, and b) with 70+ parts-missing models in the air the distribution is insufficiently representative. How many of those 70+ models take the data as their lead and have no visible carbon dioxide effect? There are systematic type errors that everaging cannot manage - assuming from info in your own previous posts that your academic education is sufficient to allow you to distinguish between random and systematic errors and their treatment (or not).As mentioned several times including recently but ignored (again). Your repetition of errors - not sure whether systematic
- won't change things.wc98 said:
you mean western tax payers won't have to send them billions of their money along with the supplies of fossil fuel on fossil fuel powered boats and ships that allow them to live in such a lovely place in relative comfort with their modern day lifestyle ?
Several gov'ts are already spotting the implications and walking away. Here's hoping more will follow but ours isn't likely to be one of the early converts.Only a few posts ago and another loop but it's needed here . . . this shows that the model averaging process within a meaningless probability distribution effort is fubarred - by using the only test that can tell i.e. valid statistical testing to provide a comparison with empirical data.
Diderot said:
Little Big Planet:
This is directly from that 'article' you cited and seem to be trumpeting the success of modelling ...
"Global surface air temperatures in CMIP5 models have warmed about 16% faster than observations since 1970. About 40% of this difference is due to air temperatures over the ocean warming faster than sea surface temperatures in the models; blended model fields only show warming 9% faster than observations.
A recent paper in Nature by Iselin Medhaug and colleagues suggests that the remainder of the divergence can be accounted for by a combination of short-term natural variability (mainly in the Pacific Ocean), small volcanoes and lower-than-expected solar output that was not included in models in their post-2005 projections.
Below is a summary of all the models Carbon Brief has looked at. The table below shows the difference in the rate of warming between each model or set of models and NASA’s temperature observations. All the observational temperature records are fairly similar, but NASA’s is among the group that includes more complete global coverage in recent years and is thus more directly comparable to climate model data.
"Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate."
why didn't they just use sawyers model lbp posted earlier. it was spot on between 1969 and 2000 apparently ,surely that is the only model required when all the rest are wrong ? i wonder how it would have done using the same parameters post 2000 til now ? i am surprised it isn't at the forefront of the science.This is directly from that 'article' you cited and seem to be trumpeting the success of modelling ...
"Global surface air temperatures in CMIP5 models have warmed about 16% faster than observations since 1970. About 40% of this difference is due to air temperatures over the ocean warming faster than sea surface temperatures in the models; blended model fields only show warming 9% faster than observations.
A recent paper in Nature by Iselin Medhaug and colleagues suggests that the remainder of the divergence can be accounted for by a combination of short-term natural variability (mainly in the Pacific Ocean), small volcanoes and lower-than-expected solar output that was not included in models in their post-2005 projections.
Below is a summary of all the models Carbon Brief has looked at. The table below shows the difference in the rate of warming between each model or set of models and NASA’s temperature observations. All the observational temperature records are fairly similar, but NASA’s is among the group that includes more complete global coverage in recent years and is thus more directly comparable to climate model data.
"Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate."
turbobloke said:
Several gov'ts are already spotting the implications and walking away. Here's hoping more will follow but ours isn't likely to be one of the early converts.
couldn't we just return it to british ownership ? i don't remember any climate related issues before they gained independence ? if not, maybe they could join the eu instead ,they seem to have plenty funding for climate related problems Nature said:
In four pages Sawyer summarized what was known about the role of carbon dioxide in enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, and made a remarkable prediction of the warming expected at the end of the twentieth century. He concluded that the 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide predicted to occur by 2000 corresponded to an increase of 0.6 °C in world temperature. In fact the global surface temperature rose about 0.5 °C between the early 1970s and 2000.
Firstly, consider the input error: the carbon dioxide level didn't increase by the predicted 25% between 1970 and 2000 or indeed any time in the 1970s compared to 2000.Secondly, consider the output error: within the armwaving lack of accuracy of the above statement, there's a warming bias error of 20%.
This is not skill at work.
turbobloke said:
Firstly, consider the input error: the carbon dioxide level didn't increase by the predicted 25% between 1970 and 2000 or indeed any time in the 1970s compared to 2000.
Secondly, consider the output error: within the armwaving lack of accuracy of the above statement, there's a warming bias error of 20%.
This is not skill at work.
i don't know about that, seems close enough for government work and climate science Secondly, consider the output error: within the armwaving lack of accuracy of the above statement, there's a warming bias error of 20%.
This is not skill at work.
zygalski said:
Looks like PH may be playing host to several Nobel Prize winners!
Off you go to collect lads....
You've just slam-dunked the biggest global intergovernmental & scientific community scam in the history of our planet.
All courtesy of a few right wing blog copy/pastes.
Are you on the mushrooms today Zygalski? Off you go to collect lads....
You've just slam-dunked the biggest global intergovernmental & scientific community scam in the history of our planet.
All courtesy of a few right wing blog copy/pastes.
I think if you explore the stats posted in the Carbon Brief article (used by Little Big Planet to trumpet how accurate models were) you'll find that models sew the seeds of their own ineptitude. And the last time I looked, Carbon Brief was not a right wing blog ... Heigh ho.
turbobloke said:
CMIP5 models fell out of the reality envelope around the turn of the century against both balloon and satellite measures. That's it, bye bye and heat contaminated ship engine intakes don't alter reality. One toss of the 73-sided coin then falling the right way after natural El Nino warming wouldn't represent skill just chance.
Blimey, still flogging this one eh. Surely you can find some more recent data to misrepresent? 
wc98 said:
...are there any climate modellers out there willing to bet the house on modelled possible future states.
I doubt that. Climate modellers seem entirely realistic about the difficulty of modelling such a complex environment, and are therefore open about the limitations.As far as I've seen, the only people who demand or expect climate models to be 100% accurate are those who use that impossibility as ballast for their agenda, like Diderot.
Diderot said:
zygalski said:
Looks like PH may be playing host to several Nobel Prize winners!
Off you go to collect lads....
You've just slam-dunked the biggest global intergovernmental & scientific community scam in the history of our planet.
All courtesy of a few right wing blog copy/pastes.
Are you on the mushrooms today Zygalski? Off you go to collect lads....
You've just slam-dunked the biggest global intergovernmental & scientific community scam in the history of our planet.
All courtesy of a few right wing blog copy/pastes.
I think if you explore the stats posted in the Carbon Brief article (used by Little Big Planet to trumpet how accurate models were) you'll find that models sew the seeds of their own ineptitude. And the last time I looked, Carbon Brief was not a right wing blog ... Heigh ho.
First and second sentences - strawman personal attacks, off-topic, irrelevant
Third sentence - same as the first two in essence, with added hyperbole
Final sentence - erroneous, peer-reviewed science is mistaken for blog content, possibly deliberately, possibly due to ongoing confusion over primary and secondary sources.
Then (elsewhere) it looks as though somebody was absent from the stats/maths/physics lecture where it was pointed out that the everage of garbage is garbage.
Mildly entertaining, but still...back on topic...
durbster said:
wc98 said:
...are there any climate modellers out there willing to bet the house on modelled possible future states.
I doubt that. Climate modellers seem entirely realistic about the difficulty of modelling such a complex environment, and are therefore open about the limitations.As far as I've seen, the only people who demand or expect climate models to be 100% accurate are those who use that impossibility as ballast for their agenda, like Diderot.
. If it were only true that modellers were entirely realistic about the impossibility of modelling the climate. Sadly the only truth here is that trillions of dollars of tax payer's money would not have been, and continue to be, spunked up the wall on a completely absurd enterprise. The entire edifice of MMGW has been elaborated on, as a millennial would probably put it, a whole heap of 'wrong'.
A serious question to you: how many more failed predictions will it take before you begin to ask some searching questions of the underlying premise and the processes that lead to little more than a game of pinning a tail on a donkey?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff