Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

a_unique_person said:
Models are tested against the existing temperature record, which goes back over a century now.
Click to expand...
Correction:
Models are adjusted to fit existing temperatrure records......then begin to fail miserably.

Or not ?''
hansencomparedrecent.jpg
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Who are you trying to convince that your famous "analysis" is simply a run of a model?????? Yourself?
Click to expand...

It's not my analysis. I don't know that it's famous.

Look, you're free to run on ignorance if you like, to ignore the validation of these models, but again, it amounts to a hill of beans.

You have absolutely no basis for critiquing these models, and absolutely no science to counter them, and nothing to offer in it's place.

You're arguing from "Damned if I know".

Hill o' beans.
 
A MODEL!

http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671
On the credibility of climate predictions / De la crédibilité des prévisions climatiques

Author(s): D. Koutsoyiannis 1 | A. Efstratiadis 2 | N. Mamassis 3 | A. Christofides 4 doi: 10.1623/hysj.53.4.671 | Table of contents | Next
nextArrow.gif

View PDF article (996 K)
View references

Email this link What is RSS? Trouble viewing articles as PDF?
Hydrological Sciences Journal/Journal des Sciences Hydrologiques
Print ISSN: 0262-6667 Volume: 53 | Issue: 4 Cover date: August 2008 Page(s): 671-684
Key words
climate models; general circulation models; falsifiability; climate change; Hurst-Kolmogorov climate
Mots clefs
modèles climatiques; modèles de circulation générale; falsifiabilité; changement climatique; climat de Hurst-Kolmogorov

Abstract
Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
the basis is that there isn't any validation on any real world observation.
It's the run of a model.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. Many years of it. Some of which is mentioned, with references, in the article itself.

But you don't know that because you choose to be ignorant of the science, to read nothing but your crank Web sites, and to shoot spitballs at legitimate science that you intentionally know nothing about.

Hill o' beans.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Abstract
Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.
Click to expand...

Nuh-huh. Two points to consider:

1: That paper uses TAR models which are by now almost a decade out of date. Models have come a long way since then, in particular regarding hydrology and climate on regional scales.
2: GCMs are designed to simulate global processes, not get all the point measurements right, so trying to unpick it on that basis is pushing their capabilities beyond what they are designed to do.

In a more general sense, you're confusing the purposes and applications of climate models. You could have a model tuned perfectly to existing data that wouldn't be used for any forecasts, but would still be useful for studying the processes, sensitivities and apportionment of climate forcing factors. Models being run in forecast mode depend on a lot of things in the future that we just don't know, such as how much carbon dioxide will be emitted, whether there'll be any big volcanic eruptions and so on. It is for this reason that all the forecasts are done under a variety of different scenarios and the results vary wildly depending on which one is used. Show me a climate scientist who claims they can tell with absolute certainty what the exact temperature will be in 10 years time and I'll tell you that they're lying.

In forecast mode, climate models give broad-brush predictions. What the Scripps folks did was take the most optimistic of these predictions, so in all likelihood, the future is going to be less rosy than what they wrote.
 
Basically what Bluefire said. The conclussions are implicit in the models. A run of the models gives no new information, so the study is a tautology.
Piggy said:
So what was your opinion of the article? Where exactly do you fault their methods? You have read the article and looked at their citations, haven't you?
Click to expand...
 
Amazingly, peer reviewed science who disagrees with models on test fields is simply disregarded by an anonimous poster (no problem, we all are doing this). But, as I showed in the graph analizing Hansen 88, others are trying to match models GLOBAL TEMPERATURE predictions with real results and found the models lacking predictive skills, in global temperature, in local anomalies and in thropospheric temperature predictions ( in this case, not only predictions but also past measures).


Spud1k said:
Nuh-huh. Two points to consider:

1: That paper uses TAR models which are by now almost a decade out of date. Models have come a long way since then, in particular regarding hydrology and climate on regional scales.
2: GCMs are designed to simulate global processes, not get all the point measurements right, so trying to unpick it on that basis is pushing their capabilities beyond what they are designed to do.

In a more general sense, you're confusing the purposes and applications of climate models. You could have a model tuned perfectly to existing data that wouldn't be used for any forecasts, but would still be useful for studying the processes, sensitivities and apportionment of climate forcing factors. Models being run in forecast mode depend on a lot of things in the future that we just don't know, such as how much carbon dioxide will be emitted, whether there'll be any big volcanic eruptions and so on. It is for this reason that all the forecasts are done under a variety of different scenarios and the results vary wildly depending on which one is used. Show me a climate scientist who claims they can tell with absolute certainty what the exact temperature will be in 10 years time and I'll tell you that they're lying.

In forecast mode, climate models give broad-brush predictions. What the Scripps folks did was take the most optimistic of these predictions, so in all likelihood, the future is going to be less rosy than what they wrote.
Click to expand...
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Basically what Bluefire said. The conclussions are implicit in the models. A run of the models gives no new information, so the study is a tautology.
Click to expand...

So now you're adding nonsense to ignorance.

More beans on the hill.
 
Spud1k said:
Go to www.pnas.org, type 'Ramanathan' into the search box and order the results by date. That was what, less than a minute of your life? If you can't be bothered to put that amount of effort in, you are obviously not in the slightest bit interested in the details of what they have to say.

Real research (as opposed to bloggosphere skimming) takes effort and following up on press releases like that is peanuts. Think what it would have been like before the luxury of online publication.
Click to expand...
Unnecessary. You speak of the obvious.

Curious while Warmer in this thread support Piggy's devious detours, in the other thread Rodale is criticized for giving no more or less link data than Piggy via Science Daily.

Bias noted.

Besides, Hansen happens to be a huge figure in this field.
 
Spud1k said:
...You could have a model tuned perfectly to existing data that wouldn't be used for any forecasts, but would still be useful for studying the processes, sensitivities and apportionment of climate forcing factors. Models being run in forecast mode depend on a lot of things in the future that we just don't know, such as how much carbon dioxide will be emitted, whether there'll be any big volcanic eruptions and so on. It is for this reason that all the forecasts are done under a variety of different scenarios and the results vary wildly ....
Click to expand...
You do realize, I hope, that this sort of talk in many fields of science and engineering using quite advanced and skillful models would get you fired?
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Amazingly, peer reviewed science who disagrees with models on test fields is simply disregarded by an anonimous poster (no problem, we all are doing this). But, as I showed in the graph analizing Hansen 88, others are trying to match models GLOBAL TEMPERATURE predictions with real results and found the models lacking predictive skills, in global temperature, in local anomalies and in thropospheric temperature predictions ( in this case, not only predictions but also past measures).
Click to expand...

Did you even read my post? Climate models can't be expected to predict specific measures of climate exactly, much less point measurements. And besides, the Hansen 88 predictions are based on a model a full 20 years out of date now. But even then, warming was predicted and warming has happened.

Global models are designed to address global issues. You will always be able to find some details that don't match up but it doesn't falsify the general gist of it. The earth is warming up. Man-made increases in CO2 concentrations are mainly responsible and will cause further warming in the future. Nothing you have said disproves any of this.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Unnecessary. You speak of the obvious.
Click to expand...

Glad you think so.

mhaze said:
Curious while Warmer in this thread support Piggy's devious detours, in the other thread Rodale is criticized for giving no more or less link data than Piggy via Science Daily.

Bias noted.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate on that? How have I personally shown bias in that regard?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
You do realize, I hope, that this sort of talk in many fields of science and engineering using quite advanced and skillful models would get you fired?
Click to expand...

Is atmospheric science one of the fields you describe? If so, explain how. If not, please try attacking the argument instead of the arguer.
 
mhaze said:
Unnecessary. You speak of the obvious.

Curious while Warmer in this thread support Piggy's devious detours, in the other thread Rodale is criticized for giving no more or less link data than Piggy via Science Daily.
Click to expand...
Blantant lie noted.

Besides, Hansen happens to be a huge figure in this field.
Click to expand...
Oh, and your point is...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom