• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Article from WUWT

Buzz said:
They WILL cancel out if they are truly random no matter what you erroneously think. This is basic science. Go look it up before you make a fool of yourself and try telling me I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Duh... No itsha Sherlock.

Problem is there are significant systemic errors.

Buzz said:
How about YOU running the numbers. And for fun why don't you run the statistics of probability for Frank's insane error ranges so we might see which is more likely.
Click to expand...
Not taking the time. I have known the models don't properly utilize the variables for a long time. I have sever sought out the specific misalignment, and that is an endeavor that would be massive. Since I am only an expert, and not a professional in this topic... I have better things to do with my time.

Buzz said:
I watched it twice then went a did a bunch of research on the subject. Not only did I find the Real Climate link Quaestio fond I also found another blog debate that Pat Frank participated in.
Click to expand...
Are we suppose to believe a blog that doesn't say what you claim?

Where is comment 528, when the link says there are only 70 comments?

Your fellow believers never seek the facts, so I assume you think you can just claim anything you wish.

Buzz said:
What he showed was high correlation between some of the models but not all of them. Some of the models overestimated clouds... some underestimated. Hence the plus or minus error Frank gave. From what I understand there should have been high correlation between all of them if there really was systemic error. And what ever you do... don't just tell me I am wrong. Tell me why I am wrong.
Click to expand...
You are wrong because you believe what the alarmists say, rather than understanding that science is far from perfect. The hypothesis is busted when such information is shown. The correct formulation for models may never be seen in our lifetimes, but the correlations shown prove the modelling ideas share incorrect concepts, making the results incorrect.

Science is meant to be tested and tested to try to break the hypothesis. Once broken, new ideas need to be formulated. As long as their models overestimate the effects of CO2, and underestimate other factors, they will never be right.
 
Jack Hays said:
They said positive and negative would cancel if they were random. Whether they are random or systemic is the point at issue.
Click to expand...

They deny the slightest possibility there are systemic errors included.

I keep saying they are science deniers, this is another example. If they were honest and reasonable on the topic, they would switch to "how large is the assumed error," rather than denying science.
 
Buzz said:
They WILL cancel out if they are truly random no matter what you erroneously think. This is basic science. Go look it up before you make a fool of yourself and try telling me I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
Duh... No itsha Sherlock.
Click to expand...

O.K. Watson... then please tell me why you just told me this yesterday.

Lord of Planar said:
Errors are actually not likely to cancel each other out. No matter what they say. The probability is actually low.
Click to expand...

Are you drinking?

Lord of Planar said:
Problem is there are significant systemic errors.
Click to expand...

Where is your peer reviewed and published study.... Oh that's right. You don't have one. You have a rejected study from WUWT!

Lord of Planar said:
Not taking the time.
Click to expand...

You never take the time. Oh come on Lord. With as much scientific literature you have supposedly read you should be able to quickly come up with a few words for a search!

Lord of Planar said:
I have known the models don't properly utilize the variables for a long time. I have sever sought out the specific misalignment, and that is an endeavor that would be massive.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think your the only one? :lol: Everybody knows that the models are far from perfect and will likely be that way for a long time.

Lord of Planar said:
Since I am only an expert, and not a professional in this topic... I have better things to do with my time.
Click to expand...

Expert... my ass!

Lord of Planar said:
Are we suppose to believe a blog that doesn't say what you claim?

Where is comment 528, when the link says there are only 70 comments?

Your fellow believers never seek the facts, so I assume you think you can just claim anything you wish.
Click to expand...

Never claimed it said anything other than it was a discussion that Frank participated in.
 
Jack Hays said:
Likely, perhaps, but not certain. Systemic errors both positive and negative are not out of the question in complex models.
Click to expand...

Yup! You are correct. This is actually a good point. There is the possibility... if not probability that there are systemic errors in the models. The problem is that Pat Frank hasn't proven that there is nor what they are. And when Pat takes this issue and hypes it up into the ridiculous claim that this somehow invalidates all the models and that we shouldn't do anything about AGW he goes from being a skeptic into being a denialist.

This point isn't the only thing that most climate scientists disagree with him on either.
 
Buzz said:
:(

I'm hoping you just missed my posts.
Click to expand...

Yep, my apologies. You're the only other person in this thread who took the time to do some research too.
 
Buzz said:
O.K. Watson... then please tell me why you just told me this yesterday.
Click to expand...
You said "if they are truly random." That's the point. There are both random and systematic errors.

Buzz said:
Are you drinking?
Click to expand...
No. To clarify, systematic errors are unlikely to cancel out. Random errors are more likely to cancel out as the sample size increases. A small handful of random errors have a significant chance of not cancelling.
 
reinoe said:
I'm already tired of the whining about alternative news. Zero-fund correctly saw the corruption in Goldman-Sachs because the MSM was too busy slurping after big banks.

It was the freaking National Inquirer that broke the story about John Edwards extra-marital baby. The MSM actually had the story but was sitting on the information.

It was a blogger that showed Hillary's fainting spell while the MSM was putting up a wall of protection about Hillary's health issues and denounced anyone who dared question her health.

The MSM was fully and completely complicit in allowing the DNC to cheat against Bernie Sanders and in fact helped to facilitate that action and just went whole hog in it's endorsements of HIllary Clinton.

I've learned my lesson from now on. ALL NEWS SOURCES are legitimate. I used to buy into the kool-aid of "good sources" but not anymore. Al-Jazeera? Alex Jones? WND? Slate? RT? Huffington Post? Random Blogger online? It's all good to me from now on.

**** the NYT. The WashingtonPost can go straight to hell. I can't believe I actually used to respect MSNBC's coverage. Forget about it CNN. CNN were actually worse than MSNBC when it comes to being in the tank for Hillary which is saying something because MSNBC markets itself as a liberal haven.
Click to expand...



your comments are obviously incorrect
 
Lord of Planar said:
You said "if they are truly random." That's the point. There are both random and systematic errors.


No. To clarify, systematic errors are unlikely to cancel out. Random errors are more likely to cancel out as the sample size increases. A small handful of random errors have a significant chance of not cancelling.
Click to expand...
An article in Nature has all but acknowledge systematic errors in the models.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment

Stark contrast

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast
to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it.
Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an
average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012.
Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade,
as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit
at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.
Click to expand...
Predicting a continuation of a specific rate of warming over time, that does not occur,
is an example of a systematic error.
 
Buzz said:
Wrong.

That is because you don't really understand science.
Click to expand...

Wow. You seem to have deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote.

You guys seem to be going to desperate lengths to refute Frank. Falsely, I might add.

To be clear about it, cloud forcing errors in the climate models are systemic and don't cancel out. They always remain the same sign from one iteration of the model to the next and therefore accumulate. This causes the model predictions to veer off in the wrong direction, and we can see that happening when we compare models to real world data:

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg

Climate scientists can't model clouds and can't predict cloud forcing in advance (or atmospheric turbidity from aerosols, either, for that matter) and so it's impossible to eliminate this error from the models. The models are useless for predicting future climate.

Exactly the same problem bedevils short term models of the weather, which is why they are accurate for 5 or 10 days at the most.
 
Buzz said:
Yup! You are correct. This is actually a good point. There is the possibility... if not probability that there are systemic errors in the models. The problem is that Pat Frank hasn't proven that there is nor what they are. And when Pat takes this issue and hypes it up into the ridiculous claim that this somehow invalidates all the models and that we shouldn't do anything about AGW he goes from being a skeptic into being a denialist.

This point isn't the only thing that most climate scientists disagree with him on either.
Click to expand...

I really don't care about extensions of the point. It's enough that I could demonstrate Pat Frank's thesis is not ridiculous.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You said "if they are truly random." That's the point.
Click to expand...

Yes... I know this. I had just pointed out that the errors were random when you erroneously claimed that they(random errors) were unlikely to cancel out. You were wrong. Stop pretending that you were not.

Lord of Planar said:
There are both random and systematic errors.
Click to expand...

Most likely you are correct. Problem is that neither you nor Pat Frank have proven which and how much.

Lord of Planar said:
No. To clarify, systematic errors are unlikely to cancel out. Random errors are more likely to cancel out as the sample size increases. A small handful of random errors have a significant chance of not cancelling.
Click to expand...

Your not telling me anything I don't know. Why don't you show that you really understand statistics and tell us all what the chances are that random errors will be the max possible in every iteration. That is what Frank is doing when he pushes his ridiculous error bars graph that says the error could be ~12 degrees centigrade. And that is plus or minus 12 degrees. You should know that this is almost impossible. And even if your guy's point that the errors are systemic and only go in one direction then the error bars would also go only in one direction as well. Frank is not saying this and as far as I can remember never says anything of the kind in the video.
 
longview said:
An article in Nature has all but acknowledge systematic errors in the models.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment
Click to expand...

"all but" :lol:

So the Nature article didn't say the errors were systematic. :lol:

Did you read the last paragraph of the article?

Scientists may get to test their theories soon enough. At present, strong tropical trade winds are pushing ever more warm water westward towards Indonesia, fuelling storms such as November’s Typhoon Haiyan, and nudging up sea levels in the western Pacific; they are now roughly 20 centimetres higher than those in the eastern Pacific. Sooner or later, the trend will inevitably reverse. “You can’t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,” Trenberth says. “At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.” And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.
Click to expand...

Trenberth was right and you are wrong to constantly want to ignore the warming of 2014, 2015 and now 2016 that looks to be the third warmest year on record all in a row.
 
LowDown said:
Wow. You seem to have deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote.
Click to expand...

I didn't misrepresent anything. You basically admitted that random errors cancel out. I never said that you didn't claim that you think they are systemic. Still doesn't change your admission.

LowDown said:
You guys seem to be going to desperate lengths to refute Frank. Falsely, I might add.
Click to expand...

Desperate? :lol: I don't think so. None of you denialist have yet to prove me wrong.

LowDown said:
To be clear about it, cloud forcing errors in the climate models are systemic and don't cancel out. They always remain the same sign from one iteration of the model to the next and therefore accumulate.
Click to expand...

This is just not true. Go back to the video and fast forward to the 16 minute mark and look at the data. There are clearly models that overestimate cloud cover while others that underestimate them. So for you to claim they are always the same sign is obviously wrong!

LowDown said:
This causes the model predictions to veer off in the wrong direction, and we can see that happening when we compare models to real world data:

View attachment 67210597
Click to expand...

Several problems with this statement and graph. First... your graph is misleading because it leaves out the last 4 years of temps.(typical denialist tactic) And secondly it uses a stupid 5 year running mean that hides the rapid warming of 1998. So... your not really looking at real world data. You are looking at denialist cherry picked data.

LowDown said:
Climate scientists can't model clouds and can't predict cloud forcing in advance (or atmospheric turbidity from aerosols, either, for that matter) and so it's impossible to eliminate this error from the models. The models are useless for predicting future climate.
Click to expand...

Prove it! Oh... I'm sorry. I keep forgetting that you guys can't. You all can't even really provide any convincing evidence. Remember... this study was rejected by 6 scientific journals!!

LowDown said:
Exactly the same problem bedevils short term models of the weather, which is why they are accurate for 5 or 10 days at the most.
Click to expand...

Another denialist shows that he doesn't know the difference between weather and climate. Pitiful.
 
Buzz said:
"all but" :lol:

So the Nature article didn't say the errors were systematic. :lol:

Did you read the last paragraph of the article?

Trenberth was right and you are wrong to constantly want to ignore the warming of 2014, 2015 and now 2016 that looks to be the third warmest year on record all in a row.
Click to expand...
Saying the models expected the warming to continue at the .21 C per decade rate, is a form of systematic error.
The warming in 2015 and 2016 were from a weather event known as an El Nino, which changes temperatures many times faster than CO2 could possibly.
The last few months the satellite records have returned to pre El Nino levels.
As to the article, I cited it because they state the contrast of what the models expected and why.
The conclusions they draw, are as speculative as the supposed missing heat.
Since the amplified feedback portion of the AGW concept is the least scientific portion, with the largest uncertainty,
there is a real possibility the extra predicted energy never existed in the first place.
Long term the ECS looks to be between 1.8 and 2 C for a doubling of the CO2 level.
If that is correct, someone claiming 3 to 4.5 C, that never materialize, would think heat/energy were missing.
 
Buzz said:
Yes... I know this. I had just pointed out that the errors were random when you erroneously claimed that they(random errors) were unlikely to cancel out. You were wrong. Stop pretending that you were not.
Click to expand...
I don't remember the subtleties that way, but yes. I was wrong if I responded to "random" alone that way.

Buzz said:
Most likely you are correct. Problem is that neither you nor Pat Frank have proven which and how much.
Click to expand...
The proof isn't needed to point out a flaw in the methodology. The probable/possible errors, once pointed out, need to be addressed in farther modeling. Until then, the modeling must be assumed to be wrong. At least flawed or inaccurate.

Buzz said:
Your not telling me anything I don't know. Why don't you show that you really understand statistics and tell us all what the chances are that random errors will be the max possible in every iteration. That is what Frank is doing when he pushes his ridiculous error bars graph that says the error could be ~12 degrees centigrade. And that is plus or minus 12 degrees. You should know that this is almost impossible. And even if your guy's point that the errors are systemic and only go in one direction then the error bars would also go only in one direction as well. Frank is not saying this and as far as I can remember never says anything of the kind in the video.
Click to expand...
I agree the extent of his additive errors are statistically very small. However, what is different with his projection of error range, vs. the IPCC et. al. continual using RCP 8.5 scenarios, when we have seen that trend to be impossible?

Are you going to tell me the largest error he shows is impossible? Or just statistically very improbable?
 
Buzz said:
"all but" :lol:

So the Nature article didn't say the errors were systematic. :lol:
Click to expand...
No it didn't, but it acknowledges something unknown occurring which could easily be systematic errors. Especially since the pattern of error fits. They do make assumptions of the unknown, but it isn't tested.

Buzz said:
Did you read the last paragraph of the article?
Click to expand...
Do you mean this:


Scientists may get to test their theories soon enough. At present, strong tropical trade winds are pushing ever more warm water westward towards Indonesia, fuelling storms such as November’s Typhoon Haiyan, and nudging up sea levels in the western Pacific; they are now roughly 20 centimetres higher than those in the eastern Pacific. Sooner or later, the trend will inevitably reverse. “You can’t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,” Trenberth says. “At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.” And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.
​

This is nothing more than justifying a reason for the stated power of CO2 not to be challenged. At best, they are putting off a new thorough study of the actual CO2 forcing by pushing this thought.
 
Buzz said:
I didn't misrepresent anything. You basically admitted that random errors cancel out. I never said that you didn't claim that you think they are systemic. Still doesn't change your admission.
Click to expand...

That's the only thing from your comments I need to address. You clearly don't understand the difference between random and systemic errors. It is this: Random errors cancel out, systemic errors don't. You seem to share this deficiency with the climate modelers. Incredibly enough, they don't understand the difference, either! It can't be that they are not smart enough to know, it is simply that no one can be made to understand something if their income depends on them not understanding it.
 
LowDown said:
no one can be made to understand something if their income depends on them not understanding it.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the truth.

I see so much stupidity, that people know is stupid, but they have to do it, because their paycheck is dependent on following what the stupid rules are.
 
longview said:
Saying the models expected the warming to continue at the .21 C per decade rate, is a form of systematic error.
Click to expand...

It is error. Whether it is systemic or random hasn't been proven by anyone. Especially Pat Frank.

longview said:
The warming in 2015 and 2016 were from a weather event known as an El Nino, which changes temperatures many times faster than CO2 could possibly.
Click to expand...

So... we shouldn't count this last El Nino because you claim it is a weather event yet you just posted a link to an 3 year old article that uses the 1998 El Nino to claim no warming for 16 years. Didn't I point out this blatant hypocrisy of yours a while back?

longview said:
The last few months the satellite records have returned to pre El Nino levels.
As to the article, I cited it because they state the contrast of what the models expected and why.
Click to expand...

The recent cool down wasn't that low and hasn't been long enough to say anything about the planet being back to the same levels. And you cited the article because it was written before this last El Nino and its dramatic warming.

longview said:
The conclusions they draw, are as speculative as the supposed missing heat.
Since the amplified feedback portion of the AGW concept is the least scientific portion, with the largest uncertainty,
there is a real possibility the extra predicted energy never existed in the first place.
Click to expand...

Actually much of the article discussed the possibility that it was oceans that were sucking up the heat and that they could start releasing that heat in another El Nino. And now 3 years later it looks like they were right.

longview said:
Long term the ECS looks to be between 1.8 and 2 C for a doubling of the CO2 level.
If that is correct, someone claiming 3 to 4.5 C, that never materialize, would think heat/energy were missing.
Click to expand...

Did you see Lord Of Denial's latest thread with the 2 studies about cloud feedbacks? Looks like they both say that the estimates of ECS from recent times has likely been biased low.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The proof isn't needed to point out a flaw in the methodology. The probable/possible errors, once pointed out, need to be addressed in farther modeling. Until then, the modeling must be assumed to be wrong. At least flawed or inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows and acknowledges that the models are far from perfect and need plenty of work. The main problem here is denialists taking these facts and suggesting that they somehow disprove AGW. This is wrong and you know it.

Lord of Planar said:
I agree the extent of his additive errors are statistically very small. However, what is different with his projection of error range, vs. the IPCC et. al. continual using RCP 8.5 scenarios, when we have seen that trend to be impossible?
Click to expand...

When has the RCP 8.5 been shown to be impossible?

Lord of Planar said:
Are you going to tell me the largest error he shows is impossible? Or just statistically very improbable?
Click to expand...

Just so statistically improbable to be almost impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom