• 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

Threegoofs said:
721d9f8e2e2b82aa65783a4f853c3039.jpg
Click to expand...

Cherry picking graphs that start at around 1980 is unprofessional. We started clearing the skies in the late 70's allowing more sunshine to heat the earths surface.
 
LowDown said:
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
Click to expand...

We can't get the weather right for tomorrow.

The simple fact is people need to UNDERSTAND what it is they're looking at.

So many times you get anti-man made climate change people coming on here saying "their predictions were wrong", well duh.

However there's a message in all of this. Something IS HAPPENING, and there's evidence something's happening, and they're trying to understand it, but really we can't predict that well, but the argument of some is "well we can't predict 100%, so, let's not do anything. Let's wait until it's too late."
 
Lord of Planar said:
Cherry picking graphs that start at around 1980 is unprofessional. We started clearing the skies in the late 70's allowing more sunshine to heat the earths surface.
Click to expand...

Is that some new talking point from a denier blog?
 
No modelling is needed to determine that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm as a consequence of AGW - that is a consequence of fundamental physics and is further evidenced by the palaeoclimatological record, which indicates the Earth's sensitivity to greenhouse gases. The purpose of modelling to predict more precisely what will happen - rainfall distribution, ice sheet behaviour, etc. - this is where the uncertainty lies, not in the basic theory.

It's a bit like modelling a car crashing into a concrete pillar at 100mph. You need a lot of computing power to determine exactly what will happen to the car - where it will end up, how many pieces it'll be in, etc. - and even then you'll probably be wrong. But it is quite obvious from basic physics that the effects on the occupants are not going to be good!
 
Lets take a look at Hansen's 1988 prediction, His 1988 graph went to 2019.
Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the last 20 years,
Click to expand...
Hansen.jpg
No the growth rate of CO2 from 1968 to 1988 was 1.4 ppm/year, and from 1998 to now has been 1.9 ppm per year,
so we have exceeded Hansen's Scenario A, which shows the temperature to be about 1.5 C above the GISS
1951 to 1980 average.
GISS's actual temperature for 2018 was .85 C, with a decade average of about .89 C, So Hansen's 1988 projection
was off by ~ .65 C.
So a quick refresh, In 1988 the GISS temperature was .49 C, Hansen's model showed that at CO2 growth rates lower that
what actually occurred, we should see ~ 1C of warming by 2019, but instead we only saw .4 C of warming,
with a CO2 growth rate 35% higher than his Scenario A.
 
Surface Detail said:
No modelling is needed to determine that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm as a consequence of AGW - that is a consequence of fundamental physics and is further evidenced by the palaeoclimatological record, which indicates the Earth's sensitivity to greenhouse gases. The purpose of modelling to predict more precisely what will happen - rainfall distribution, ice sheet behaviour, etc. - this is where the uncertainty lies, not in the basic theory.
Click to expand...
More precisely? Please show us your formula on how to accurately predict clouds for your modeling a year from now.
 
PoS said:
More precisely? Please show us your formula on how to accurately predict clouds for your modeling a year from now.
Click to expand...

They don't, and they don't understand why they fail.
 
longview said:
Lets take a look at Hansen's 1988 prediction, His 1988 graph went to 2019.

View attachment 67263501
No the growth rate of CO2 from 1968 to 1988 was 1.4 ppm/year, and from 1998 to now has been 1.9 ppm per year,
so we have exceeded Hansen's Scenario A, which shows the temperature to be about 1.5 C above the GISS
1951 to 1980 average.
GISS's actual temperature for 2018 was .85 C, with a decade average of about .89 C, So Hansen's 1988 projection
was off by ~ .65 C.
So a quick refresh, In 1988 the GISS temperature was .49 C, Hansen's model showed that at CO2 growth rates lower that
what actually occurred, we should see ~ 1C of warming by 2019, but instead we only saw .4 C of warming,
with a CO2 growth rate 35% higher than his Scenario A.
Click to expand...

Pretty impressive given the state of the science at the time.

And quacks like you were complaining about it and forecasting cooling back then. Just like some of you are doing now.

And using the scenario A is what deniers have been doing now to pretend it is wrong.

30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
 
longview said:
Lets take a look at Hansen's 1988 prediction, His 1988 graph went to 2019.

View attachment 67263501
No the growth rate of CO2 from 1968 to 1988 was 1.4 ppm/year, and from 1998 to now has been 1.9 ppm per year,
so we have exceeded Hansen's Scenario A, which shows the temperature to be about 1.5 C above the GISS
1951 to 1980 average.
GISS's actual temperature for 2018 was .85 C, with a decade average of about .89 C, So Hansen's 1988 projection
was off by ~ .65 C.
So a quick refresh, In 1988 the GISS temperature was .49 C, Hansen's model showed that at CO2 growth rates lower that
what actually occurred, we should see ~ 1C of warming by 2019, but instead we only saw .4 C of warming,
with a CO2 growth rate 35% higher than his Scenario A.
Click to expand...

Also, the scenarios with CO2 growth rate are here, and you can see Hansens projections are pretty darn good, with scenarios B and C being closest to reality.

e9db2c62b309e1438b5c6ae528192988.jpg
 
LowDown said:
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
Click to expand...
This is exactly the kind of modeling analysis desperately needed by the field. Quantification of the impact of modeling assumptions and calibration error. Will eagerly digest the full paper later.

For those not familiar with the language being used in the abstract, Dr. Frank has found at least one "key" calibration parameter (basically, a parameter that has to be 'guessed' or fitted to data within a range) in the GCM model class whose impact on the output of the model is linear (basically, proportionally amplified) and exceptionally strong. The impact of the parameter is so strong that, even within its modest uncertainty limits, tweaking it can result in a +/- 15 C change in prediction of global temperature on a 100-year scale, which of course dwarfs even the most catastrophic estimates for the impact of anthropogenic CO2. His conclusion is what I've long suspected would be the case when somebody looked closely under the hood of these models: their parametric sensitivity is extremely high and they can be made to predict almost any macroscopic trend with only modest tuning within known uncertainties.

Excellent, excellent, excellent that some control theorists and climatologists are finally taking this on. It is so important.
 
Threegoofs said:
Pretty impressive given the state of the science at the time.

And quacks like you were complaining about it and forecasting cooling back then. Just like some of you are doing now.

And using the scenario A is what deniers have been doing now to pretend it is wrong.

30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
Click to expand...
Hansen clearly stated that scenario A, was "Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the last 20 years, "
The 20 years before 1988 had a CO2 growth of 1.4 ppm per year, so the growth since 1988 at 1.9 ppm per year,
exceeded Hansen's Scenario A, yet his projection was 2.5 times greater than the observed warming.
This is not an impressive projection by any standards!
 
COTO said:
This is exactly the kind of modeling analysis desperately needed by the field. Quantification of the impact of modeling assumptions and calibration error. Will eagerly digest the full paper later.

For those not familiar with the language being used in the abstract, Dr. Frank has found at least one "key" calibration parameter (basically, a parameter that has to be 'guessed' or fitted to data within a range) in the GCM model class whose impact on the output of the model is linear (basically, proportionally amplified) and exceptionally strong. The impact of the parameter is so strong that, even within its modest uncertainty limits, tweaking it can result in a +/- 15 C change in prediction of global temperature on a 100-year scale, which of course dwarfs even the most catastrophic estimates for the impact of anthropogenic CO2. His conclusion is what I've long suspected would be the case when somebody looked closely under the hood of these models: their parametric sensitivity is extremely high and they can be made to predict almost any macroscopic trend with only modest tuning within known uncertainties.

Excellent, excellent, excellent that some control theorists and climatologists are finally taking this on. It is so important.
Click to expand...

Here’s a good twitter thread that shows what actual climate scientists think of it.
Ken Rice on Twitter: "In a comment, Pat Frank claims that every scientist he's discussed his analysis with immediately understood and accepted it. I've yet to find one who doesn't think it's nonsense. For fun, I thought I would do a quick poll: I'm a scientist, I'm aware of Pat Frank's analysis, & I"
 
longview said:
Hansen clearly stated that scenario A, was "Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the last 20 years, "
The 20 years before 1988 had a CO2 growth of 1.4 ppm per year, so the growth since 1988 at 1.9 ppm per year,
exceeded Hansen's Scenario A, yet his projection was 2.5 times greater than the observed warming.
This is not an impressive projection by any standards!
Click to expand...

Yes. Deniers say this.

But....

1f6266f40f54d1012c22efbe0f6dad22.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
Also, the scenarios with CO2 growth rate are here, and you can see Hansens projections are pretty darn good, with scenarios B and C being closest to reality.

e9db2c62b309e1438b5c6ae528192988.jpg
Click to expand...

You can post up the nice graphs, but they do not cancel out Hansen's words.
"Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the last 20 years, "
CO2 in 1968 (20 years before 1988) was 323 ppm, by 1998, the level was 351 ppm.
Let's show the work, 351 - 323=28, 28/20 years=1.4 ppm per year.
The CO2 level in 2018 was 408 ppm, so 408 - 351 =57, 57/30 years = 1.9 ppm per year.
So the emissions for the last 30 year have exceeded Hansen's Scenario A, by 35.7%,
yet his projection based on Scenario A, exceeded the observed temperature by 250%.
Do you still think those results are "Pretty impressive"?
 
Quaestio said:
Pat Frank's pseudoscience claims are rebutted here:

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

Click to expand...

Hm. Based on this, it looks like Dr. Frank's methodology is garbage.

Damn it all. I really, really wish somebody competent would tackle the problem. As I say, it's such a critical deficit in the theory.
 
Threegoofs said:
Here’s a good twitter thread that shows what actual climate scientists think of it.
Click to expand...
I don't care what Twitter thinks about it.

The video rebuttal that @Quaestio posted that goes specifically into the methodological deficiencies convinced me Dr. Frank doesn't know what he's doing.

Damn it all, anyway.

It's getting to the point where one of these days... I'm going to have to do it myself. I've got the background and the expertise to properly dissect models. Somebody's got to do it.
 
COTO said:
I don't care what Twitter thinks about it.

The video rebuttal that @Quaestio posted that goes specifically into the methodological deficiencies convinced me Dr. Frank doesn't know what he's doing.

Damn it all, anyway.

It's getting to the point where one of these days... I'm going to have to do it myself. I've got the background and the expertise to properly dissect models. Somebody's got to do it.
Click to expand...

A retired engineer, amiright?

They always seem to know more about the science than all the scientists.
 
COTO said:
I don't care what Twitter thinks about it.

The video rebuttal that @Quaestio posted that goes specifically into the methodological deficiencies convinced me Dr. Frank doesn't know what he's doing.

Damn it all, anyway.

It's getting to the point where one of these days... I'm going to have to do it myself. I've got the background and the expertise to properly dissect models. Somebody's got to do it.
Click to expand...
I cannot speak to Dr. Frank's assessment, but many of the models use Hansen's conversion of energy imbalance to change in temperature.
The forcing temperature change is .3 C per Watt per meter squared of imbalance.
This is per the IPCC and ACS,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
ΔT ≈ [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (2.2 W·m–2) ≈ 0.7 K
Hansen claimed in a paper the conversion for post ECS was more like .75 C per Watt per meter square of imbalance.
All of the models assume a 2XCO2 imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2.
The most basic portion of the concept is that doubling the level of CO2 causes an energy imbalance and forces a temperature change.
but the amount of the actual forcing imbalance is itself an assumption.
Feldman, observed a change in downwelling longwave radiation over a change in CO2 level,
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
but the 2XCO2 number would only come out to 2.52 Wm-2.
I personally think the people who programed the test in the HITRAN database, were not familiar,
with how population inversions can limit how quickly CO2 can cycle back to ground state.
Also how 2325 cm-1 transfer from sunlight excited nitrogen could break the Hitran modeled process.
Since the feedbacks are supposed to be an amplification of the forcing warming, an error in the forcing
warming would be magnified into a systematic error.
 
Threegoofs said:
A retired engineer, amiright?

They always seem to know more about the science than all the scientists.
Click to expand...
I'm not retired. I am an engineer and scientist. You can quit with the ad hominems any time.

longview said:
I cannot speak to Dr. Frank's assessment, but many of the models use Hansen's conversion of energy imbalance to change in temperature.
The forcing temperature change is .3 C per Watt per meter squared of imbalance.
This is per the IPCC and ACS,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
ΔT ≈ [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (2.2 W·m–2) ≈ 0.7 K
Hansen claimed in a paper the conversion for post ECS was more like .75 C per Watt per meter square of imbalance.
All of the models assume a 2XCO2 imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2.
The most basic portion of the concept is that doubling the level of CO2 causes an energy imbalance and forces a temperature change.
but the amount of the actual forcing imbalance is itself an assumption.
Feldman, observed a change in downwelling longwave radiation over a change in CO2 level,
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
but the 2XCO2 number would only come out to 2.52 Wm-2.
I personally think the people who programed the test in the HITRAN database, were not familiar,
with how population inversions can limit how quickly CO2 can cycle back to ground state.
Also how 2325 cm-1 transfer from sunlight excited nitrogen could break the Hitran modeled process.
Since the feedbacks are supposed to be an amplification of the forcing warming, an error in the forcing
warming would be magnified into a systematic error.
Click to expand...
I can't speak to your assessment, @longview. Sorry.
 
COTO said:
I'm not retired. I am an engineer and scientist.
Click to expand...

With no background in climate.

It’s a common thing, for engineers (and pretend engineers as we have seen here) to imagine they have repeatedly proven climate scientists wrong about the areas they study.

It’s a bizarre phenomenon, and it’s been noted many many times.
 
COTO said:
I'm not retired. I am an engineer and scientist. You can quit with the ad hominems any time.


I can't speak to your assessment, @longview. Sorry.
Click to expand...
It's ok, I have done quite a bit of work with lasers, and so got into a narrow area of how quantum energy states interact.
I cannot put my finger on it, but something with the entire concept is not working.
The observation is that the greenhouse effect has a lot more effect on evening lows than daytime highs, diurnal asymmetry.
My hypothesis is that sunlight is disrupting how CO2 changes energy states,
but no longer work at a University with the equipment to test this.
Maybe in a few years I will have time to properly investigate it.
 
Threegoofs said:
With no background in climate.

It’s a common thing, for engineers (and pretend engineers as we have seen here) to imagine they have repeatedly proven climate scientists wrong about the areas they study.

It’s a bizarre phenomenon, and it’s been noted many many times.
Click to expand...
I've noted purple ducks walking through the thread many, many times.

It was easy. I used my imagination.

Speaking of which, you'll have to point out to me where I've claimed to "have repeated proven climate scientists wrong".
 
Threegoofs said:
With no background in climate.

It’s a common thing, for engineers (and pretend engineers as we have seen here) to imagine they have repeatedly proven climate scientists wrong about the areas they study.

It’s a bizarre phenomenon, and it’s been noted many many times.
Click to expand...

What's your background? Based on your posts, you seem to have a doctorate in fallacies.
 
COTO said:
I don't care what Twitter thinks about it.

The video rebuttal that @Quaestio posted that goes specifically into the methodological deficiencies convinced me Dr. Frank doesn't know what he's doing.

Damn it all, anyway.

It's getting to the point where one of these days... I'm going to have to do it myself. I've got the background and the expertise to properly dissect models. Somebody's got to do it.
Click to expand...

Looks like the debunking doesn't really debunk it at all. The errors should be compounded with each iteration of the model. That's how the calculations are done. And at that rate the total error becomes very large.

I don't see how get around the issue of systemic errors regardless of which methods one uses to estimate their total effect. If the errors go a little high or low with each iteration it will throw any predictions way off. No one has demonstrated how the possibility of this error is eliminated. They have no way to do that.

The performance of the climate models so far show that they run way too hot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom