• 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!

Climate Models Have No Predictive Power

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
An article published in a peer reviewed science journal shows that due to the propagation of systemic errors computer climate models are unavoidably inaccurate. It follows that an effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate cannot have been nor will be detected.

Patrick Frank, Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections. Frontiers in Earth Science, Sept., 2019

The reliability of general circulation climate model (GCM) global air temperature projections is evaluated for the first time, by way of propagation of model calibration error. An extensive series of demonstrations show that GCM air temperature projections are just linear extrapolations of fractional greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Linear projections are subject to linear propagation of error. A directly relevant GCM calibration metric is the annual average ±12.1% error in global annual average cloud fraction produced within CMIP5 climate models. This error is strongly pair-wise correlated across models, implying a source in deficient theory. The resulting long-wave cloud forcing (LWCF) error introduces an annual average ±4 Wm–2 uncertainty into the simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux. This annual ±4 Wm–2 simulation uncertainty is ±114 × larger than the annual average ∼0.035 Wm–2 change in tropospheric thermal energy flux produced by increasing GHG forcing since 1979. Tropospheric thermal energy flux is the determinant of global air temperature. Uncertainty in simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux imposes uncertainty on projected air temperature. Propagation of LWCF thermal energy flux error through the historically relevant 1988 projections of GISS Model II scenarios A, B, and C, the IPCC SRES scenarios CCC, B1, A1B, and A2, and the RCP scenarios of the 2013 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, uncovers a ±15 C uncertainty in air temperature at the end of a centennial-scale projection. Analogously large but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced climate models. The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.

Publication was announced in WattsUpWithThat.com
 
Publication was published in WattsUp because it's the only one that will publish fake science.
 
An article published in a peer reviewed science journal shows that due to the propagation of systemic errors computer climate models are unavoidably inaccurate. It follows that an effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate cannot have been nor will be detected.

Patrick Frank, Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections. Frontiers in Earth Science, Sept., 2019



Publication was announced in WattsUpWithThat.com

I guess that neuters 97% of the science papers on AGW.
 
Publication was published in WattsUp because it's the only one that will publish fake science.

There is a link to the paper.
 
I guess that neuters 97% of the science papers on AGW.

Funny how science doesn't work like that when it's against your conspiracy theory. How pathetic.

"The .01% destroyed the 99.9%!" Via pay to play journal.

Keep on Truthin'.
 
Last edited:
Frontiers is a 5-year-old predatory journal. They'll publish whatever crap you send them if you pay them enough :roll:

Always rationalizing ways to ignore science.

Your loss.
 
Always rationalizing ways to ignore science.

Your loss.

Even worse is that they make clear their irrational bigotry, when they NEVER ever read the paper, even to so much as look at the link for it. That is why they are so ignorant of general science, they suck hard on Consensus, education fallacy, authority fallacy and personal attacks.

That is why real and mature debate with warmists are so rare, they don't seek it. They don't want it. They are scared of it.
 
Even worse is that they make clear their irrational bigotry, when they NEVER ever read the paper, even to so much as look at the link for it. That is why they are so ignorant of general science, they suck hard on Consensus, education fallacy, authority fallacy and personal attacks.

That is why real and mature debate with warmists are so rare, they don't seek it. They don't want it. They are scared of it.

I did read the paper, and I have enough of a scientific background (PhD in Physics) to be able to determine that it's a pile of nonsensical pseudo-science that couldn't possibly have been published in a proper academic journal. It's a shame you were fooled by it.
 
I did read the paper, and I have enough of a scientific background (PhD in Physics) to be able to determine that it's a pile of nonsensical pseudo-science that couldn't possibly have been published in a proper academic journal. It's a shame you were fooled by it.

Not merely fooled. They believe it overturns established science. I mean, one could imaginably take the article at face value, believe it, and still categorize it as an outlier to be considered. That's asinine, but at least it's half minded. To go off the ledge with it is another thing.
 
An article published in a peer reviewed science journal shows that due to the propagation of systemic errors computer climate models are unavoidably inaccurate. It follows that an effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate cannot have been nor will be detected.

Patrick Frank, Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections. Frontiers in Earth Science, Sept., 2019



Publication was announced in WattsUpWithThat.com

Pat Frank's pseudoscience claims are rebutted here:

Do 'propagation of error' calculations invalidate climate model projections of global warming?

 
Ask Jack he's the expert on denier garbage sources.

We get WUWT threads every day. The denier crew is nothing if not relentless.
 
We get WUWT threads every day. The denier crew is nothing if not relentless.

Your non rebuttal, rebuttals are relentless.

This is a perfect example from a guy who claims a big science degree, but writes like a teenager, from Surface Detail:

I did read the paper, and I have enough of a scientific background (PhD in Physics) to be able to determine that it's a pile of nonsensical pseudo-science that couldn't possibly have been published in a proper academic journal. It's a shame you were fooled by it.

Then we have Ecofarms non rebuttal, rebuttal:

Not merely fooled. They believe it overturns established science. I mean, one could imaginably take the article at face value, believe it, and still categorize it as an outlier to be considered. That's asinine, but at least it's half minded. To go off the ledge with it is another thing.

The paper remains unchallenged.

Cheers

:lol:
 
I did read the paper, and I have enough of a scientific background (PhD in Physics) to be able to determine that it's a pile of nonsensical pseudo-science that couldn't possibly have been published in a proper academic journal. It's a shame you were fooled by it.

Then please look at the foundations of science and models that they keep using, that ignore important variables.

The foundation of the science is simply wrong.
 
The sad thing is that you actually believe this.

It's an obvious defect of climate models that has been discussed for a long time. I posted about it myself some time ago.

Climate models rely on re-iterative calculations that are vulnerable to systemic errors. It is impossible to be certain that such errors have been removed, so the models can't be accurate.

These kinds of models are well known for these weaknesses in other fields such as economics, and, ironically enough, weather forecasting.

Any references that you have that refute this would be welcomed.
 
It's an obvious defect of climate models that has been discussed for a long time. I posted about it myself some time ago.

Climate models rely on re-iterative calculations that are vulnerable to systemic errors. It is impossible to be certain that such errors have been removed, so the models can't be accurate.

These kinds of models are well known for these weaknesses in other fields such as economics, and, ironically enough, weather forecasting.

Any references that you have that refute this would be welcomed.

In 1988, climate models predicted we would have unprecedented warming, about a full degree by now, and that warming would be especially prominent in the Arctic.

And that is EXACTLY what we have seen.

The models were spot on.
 
In 1988, climate models predicted we would have unprecedented warming, about a full degree by now, and that warming would be especially prominent in the Arctic.

And that is EXACTLY what we have seen.

The models were spot on.
If the models in 1988 predicted we would be a full degree warmer now, then they are even further off than we thought.
The GISS 1988 temp was .39 C and the 2018 temp was .85 C, a delta of .46 C.
 
If the models in 1988 predicted we would be a full degree warmer now, then they are even further off than we thought.
The GISS 1988 temp was .39 C and the 2018 temp was .85 C, a delta of .46 C.

A full degree total. Which we are at.
 
Not since 1988!

Right.

I guess you think you can now prove the worlds scientists wrong by demonstrating that I wasn’t clear in a previous post.

Congratulations.


(Also... protip: if that’s the best argument you can muster, it’s time to recognize how weak your case is)
 
Right.

I guess you think you can now prove the worlds scientists wrong by demonstrating that I wasn’t clear in a previous post.

Congratulations.


(Also... protip: if that’s the best argument you can muster, it’s time to recognize how weak your case is)
Nope, just pointing out your misstatement,
By the way what was Hansen's 1988 prediction?
 
It's an obvious defect of climate models that has been discussed for a long time. I posted about it myself some time ago.

Climate models rely on re-iterative calculations that are vulnerable to systemic errors. It is impossible to be certain that such errors have been removed, so the models can't be accurate.

These kinds of models are well known for these weaknesses in other fields such as economics, and, ironically enough, weather forecasting.

Any references that you have that refute this would be welcomed.

721d9f8e2e2b82aa65783a4f853c3039.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom