• 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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Consistently running hot, is a sign of systematic errors, normal errors tend to average out,
systematic errors accumulate!
 
LowDown said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying the rebuttal proves the models are valid, but it demonstrates to my satisfaction that Dr. Frank's reasoning in the two challenged papers isn't mathematically sound. He makes some egregious (and frankly, embarrassing) errors in interpreting the meaning of various parameters, which is plainly laid out in the rebuttal video.

I stand by my earlier comments that this kind of analysis is extremely important. But its importance also means it needs to be done rightly.
 
Sunsettommy said:
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:



Then we have Ecofarms non rebuttal, rebuttal:



The paper remains unchallenged.

Cheers

:lol:
Click to expand...

Unchallenged? Do you have your denier goggles stuck on permanently with superglue? See post #13

Here it is again

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...
 
LOL! Climate science deniers are so easily fooled by pseudoscience rubbish because they WANT to be fooled.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
Unchallenged? Do you have your denier goggles stuck on permanently with superglue? See post #13

Here it is again
Click to expand...

Then your other names in this forum are, Surface Detail and Ecofarms.

Thanks for letting me know.

Cheers.
 
Quaestio said:
LOL! Climate science deniers are so easily fooled by pseudoscience rubbish because they WANT to be fooled.
Click to expand...

I see that you are unaware of a number of skeptics who are not convinced with his paper, here are a couple of new blog postings that show critical analysis of the paper.

Both from Watts Up With That:

Critique of “Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Predictions”

and,

Additional Comments on the Frank (2019) “Propagation of Error” Paper | Watts Up With That?

It is YOU who have a bad case of being a bigot.
 
Quaestio said:
Unchallenged? Do you have your denier goggles stuck on permanently with superglue? See post #13

Here it is again
Click to expand...

LOL attempts to refute a research article with a youtube vid.

More climate-nut fail.
 
COTO said:
I'm not saying the rebuttal proves the models are valid, but it demonstrates to my satisfaction that Dr. Frank's reasoning in the two challenged papers isn't mathematically sound. He makes some egregious (and frankly, embarrassing) errors in interpreting the meaning of various parameters, which is plainly laid out in the rebuttal video.

I stand by my earlier comments that this kind of analysis is extremely important. But its importance also means it needs to be done rightly.
Click to expand...

To get way too far into the weeds about it, the rebuttal isn't sound. Errors are compounded according to the amount of time each iteration of the model covers. That's where the issue of time is considered.
 
LowDown said:
To get way too far into the weeds about it, the rebuttal isn't sound. Errors are compounded according to the amount of time each iteration of the model covers. That's where the issue of time is considered.
Click to expand...
The uncertainty factor Dr. Frank is compounding doesn't appear to have any dimension in time. It's W m[SUP]-2[/SUP], not W m[SUP]-2[/SUP] ann[SUP]-1[/SUP] or something similar. To even think about compounding it over time, it needs to have time in the denominator.

An analogy is this: we observe rainfall for 20 years and observe that r = 2.5c + 0.4e, where r is liters of rainwater, c is the number of clouds, and e is a white random variable with standard distribution, expressed in units of liters per cloud. We can't then take this constant error of 0.4 L/cloud, which has no dimension in time, and start compounding it over time. It makes no sense. Most physicists would immediately realize this because they'd run into the problem of "What should the compounding period be?" If we interpret 0.4 L/cloud as a rate, it has no unit that would indicate what its timescale is. Dr. Frank, however, erroneously figures that since the simulation is simulating year by year, we can just "tack on" a "per year" to make it 0.4 L/cloud/year--based on absolutely nothing--and then start treating it like a rate with respect to time. I'm sorry but that dog won't hunt. It's amateur hour.
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
That's roughly 0.01% of all scientists. Sounds about right.
Click to expand...

The names of those who actively put their names on the agree list isn't much larger. Most skeptics simply stay silent, because it can be the death of their financial livelihood to disagree with the gestapo of climate change.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The names of those who actively put their names on the agree list isn't much larger. Most skeptics simply stay silent, because it can be the death of their financial livelihood to disagree with the gestapo of climate change.
Click to expand...

What agree list?
 
Sunsettommy said:
I see that you are unaware of a number of skeptics who are not convinced with his paper, here are a couple of new blog postings that show critical analysis of the paper.

Both from Watts Up With That:

Critique of “Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Predictions”

and,

Additional Comments on the Frank (2019) “Propagation of Error” Paper | Watts Up With That?

It is YOU who have a bad case of being a bigot.
Click to expand...

Both posts are copied from Roy Spencer from his own blog. Hardly the average gullible climate science denier on WUWT junkscience conspiracy blog or this subforum.

Seems you got caught with a bad case of lying.

Let's look at the typical comments from the scientifically illiterate gullible WUWT cult BEFORE Roy Spencer demolished it as rubbish. Including how you got sucked in too.

Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II. | Watts Up With That?

"Wow! What a blockbuster of an article, Anthony. Knowledgeable people in the scientific and political communities need to read this article and the accompanying paper and SI and take this to heart"

"Someone needs to get this Paper to trump…..Have HIM go public with it….And have him ask for rebuttal from the Climate Science world"

"Climate modelling is Cargo Cult Science!"

"I have been waiting for years hoping that someone would come up with an A+B proof that definitively buries the non-scientific proceedings of the “climate religion”. Pat Frank’s publication hits that nail with a beautiful hammer!"

Pat Frank: "Thank-you Charles and thank-you Anthony, for this and all you do."

Sunsettommy: "Thank YOU for the hard fought effort to post the paper!"

Pat Frank: "Thanks, but no thanks are necessary, Sunsettommy. I was compelled to do it. Compelled. My sanity demanded it."

"An excellent paper and commentary. I will reference it often."

"Thank you, Patrick, for this magnificent defense of science and reason"

"I have been waiting for 20+ years for someone to publish “common sense” commentary such as yours is, that gives reason for discrediting 99% of all CAGW “junk science” claims and silly rhetoric."

"This looks like a giant step forward to me."

Monckton of Brenchley: "Pat Frank’s powerful article is the most important ever to have been published at WattsUpWithThat.com."​
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
What agree list?
Click to expand...

Imagine the surprise that LoP might get if he knew how to do a literature search. There are millions of scientists writing papers related to climate change and global warming.

Just a quickie Google Scholar search of the published literature using simple parameters "global warming " and "climate change" shows:

Google Scholar- "global warming"

About 1,830,000 results

Google Scholar -"climate change"

About 2,530,000 results


Or if he ever went to a major earth sciences conference like the AGU where 1000s of scientists attend who accept that anthropogenic climate change is a problem.
 
Last edited:
Both posts are copied from Roy Spencer from his own blog. Hardly the average gullible climate science denier on WUWT junkscience conspiracy blog or this subforum.

Seems you got caught with a bad case of lying.

Let's look at the typical comments from the scientifically illiterate gullible WUWT cult BEFORE Roy Spencer demolished it as rubbish. Including how you got sucked in too.

Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II. | Watts Up With That?

"Wow! What a blockbuster of an article, Anthony. Knowledgeable people in the scientific and political communities need to read this article and the accompanying paper and SI and take this to heart"

"Someone needs to get this Paper to trump…..Have HIM go public with it….And have him ask for rebuttal from the Climate Science world"

"Climate modelling is Cargo Cult Science!"

"I have been waiting for years hoping that someone would come up with an A+B proof that definitively buries the non-scientific proceedings of the “climate religion”. Pat Frank’s publication hits that nail with a beautiful hammer!"

Pat Frank: "Thank-you Charles and thank-you Anthony, for this and all you do."

Sunsettommy: "Thank YOU for the hard fought effort to post the paper!"

Pat Frank: "Thanks, but no thanks are necessary, Sunsettommy. I was compelled to do it. Compelled. My sanity demanded it."
​
Click to expand...


================================

My my, what an ass you are, I posted them for the single purpose of showing that a number of people are not sold on the paper, I myself have no idea since I never read through it, but realize better to have it published to give it exposure.

Meanwhile you read the comments very selectively, there are a number of comments that indicate skepticism of the paper, such as these you miraculously didn't see:


Greg Goodman
September 11, 2019 at 5:53 pm

Many thanks to Dr Spencer for his analysis. It was immediately obvious to me that the paper was spurious but I did not have the time to go into it in the detail that he did to come up with a direct refutation and solid reasons why.

Being a sketpic means being equally skeptical and critical of everything, not just the results you don’t like.

many thanks for the objective scientific approach.
Reply

Nick Stokes
September 11, 2019 at 6:44 pm

+1

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
September 11, 2019 at 7:40 pm

I agree with you, Nick, that this is probably one factor contributing to the delay.


Javier
September 11, 2019 at 2:23 pm

Thank you for your clarification, Dr. Spencer. I was a little suspicious of such a large propagating error in such a short time. Even if wrong, climate models are quite consistent in their response to increasing CO2 levels. That’s why they are easy to emulate with simple models.
Reply

TheFinalNail
September 11, 2019 at 4:39 pm

I was a little suspicious of such a large propagating error in such a short time.

As was I. If such a large propagating error existed, then surely it would have already manifested itself as a bigger deviation in the model runs from observations over the forecast period (starts 2006).

Like Dr Spencer I am not arguing that the models are “right”, or above questioning; and anyone can see that observations are currently on the low side of of the CMIP5 model runs overall. However, as things stand observations remain within the relatively narrow margins of the multi-model range.

If Pat’s hypothesis were right, and the error in the models was as big as he suggests, then after nearly 13 years we would already expect to see a much bigger deviation between model outputs and observations than we currently do.

Kudos to Roy Spencer and WUWT for demonstrating true skepticism here.

======================

There are a few more, and that was from the first link. The second link shows two camps in the comments.

Now that I have showed evidence that a few skeptics are not enamored with the paper...............

Yes I did laud him for the SIX year effort to get it published, but that didn't mean I thought his paper was validated, that remains to be seen. Thus your usual evasive B.S. over the details of the paper gets noted for your deflection.

It is clear you have no interest in cogent debate.​
 
Questrio makes clear of his bigotry and makes unsubstantiated claims, first he states the following:

Both posts are copied from Roy Spencer from his own blog. Hardly the average gullible climate science denier on WUWT junkscience conspiracy blog or this subforum.

Seems you got caught with a bad case of lying.

Let's look at the typical comments from the scientifically illiterate gullible WUWT cult BEFORE Roy Spencer demolished it as rubbish. Including how you got sucked in too.
Click to expand...

Of course they were Originally from Dr. Spenser, it says in both postings, here are the opening of each post:


Additional Comments on the Frank (2019) “Propagation of Error” Paper

charles the moderator / 3 days ago September 12, 2019

From Dr Roy Spencer’s Blog

September 12th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

NOTE: This post has undergone a few revisions as I try to be more precise in my wording. The latest revision was at 0900 CDT Sept. 12, 2019.

If this post is re-posted elsewhere, I ask that the above time stamp be included.
Click to expand...

LINK

and,


Critique of “Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Predictions”

charles the moderator / 4 days ago September 11, 2019

From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog

September 11th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Click to expand...

LINK

==========================

The reason why Watts Up With That? reposted both of his blog articles, is because he is in reply to Dr. Franks paper which was originally posted at Watts Up With That?


Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II.

Guest Blogger / 1 week ago September 7, 2019

Guest post by Pat Frank

Readers of Watts Up With That will know from Mark I that for six years I have been trying to publish a manuscript with the post title. Well, it has passed peer review and is now published at Frontiers in Earth Science: Atmospheric Science. The paper demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value.

Before going further, my deep thanks to Anthony Watts for giving a voice to independent thought. So many have sought to suppress it (freedom denialists?). His gift to us (and to America) is beyond calculation. And to Charles the moderator, my eternal gratitude for making it happen.
Click to expand...

LINK

Dr Spenser's criticism were deliberately brought up to foster debate.

You have been exposed as a bullcrapper, stop being a meathead.
 
Last edited:
Sunsettommy said:
================================

My my, what an ass you are, I posted them for the single purpose of showing that a number of people are not sold on the paper, I myself have no idea since I never read through it, but realize better to have it published to give it exposure.

Meanwhile you read the comments very selectively, there are a number of comments that indicate skepticism of the paper, such as these you miraculously didn't see:


Greg Goodman
September 11, 2019 at 5:53 pm

Many thanks to Dr Spencer for his analysis. It was immediately obvious to me that the paper was spurious but I did not have the time to go into it in the detail that he did to come up with a direct refutation and solid reasons why.

Being a sketpic means being equally skeptical and critical of everything, not just the results you don’t like.

many thanks for the objective scientific approach.
Reply

Nick Stokes
September 11, 2019 at 6:44 pm

+1

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
September 11, 2019 at 7:40 pm

I agree with you, Nick, that this is probably one factor contributing to the delay.


Javier
September 11, 2019 at 2:23 pm

Thank you for your clarification, Dr. Spencer. I was a little suspicious of such a large propagating error in such a short time. Even if wrong, climate models are quite consistent in their response to increasing CO2 levels. That’s why they are easy to emulate with simple models.
Reply

TheFinalNail
September 11, 2019 at 4:39 pm

I was a little suspicious of such a large propagating error in such a short time.

As was I. If such a large propagating error existed, then surely it would have already manifested itself as a bigger deviation in the model runs from observations over the forecast period (starts 2006).

Like Dr Spencer I am not arguing that the models are “right”, or above questioning; and anyone can see that observations are currently on the low side of of the CMIP5 model runs overall. However, as things stand observations remain within the relatively narrow margins of the multi-model range.

If Pat’s hypothesis were right, and the error in the models was as big as he suggests, then after nearly 13 years we would already expect to see a much bigger deviation between model outputs and observations than we currently do.

Kudos to Roy Spencer and WUWT for demonstrating true skepticism here.

======================

There are a few more, and that was from the first link. The second link shows two camps in the comments.

Now that I have showed evidence that a few skeptics are not enamored with the paper...............

Yes I did laud him for the SIX year effort to get it published, but that didn't mean I thought his paper was validated, that remains to be seen. Thus your usual evasive B.S. over the details of the paper gets noted for your deflection.

It is clear you have no interest in cogent debate.
Click to expand...

LOL.

And I thought WUWT was the lowest evidence bar in existence.

And then sunsettommy presents *comments* from WUWT posts as some kind of educated forum.

Jeez.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

And I thought WUWT was the lowest evidence bar in existence.

And then sunsettommy presents *comments* from WUWT posts as some kind of educated forum.

Jeez.
Click to expand...

Doesnt matter where its published from since you cant put anything up to refute it either way.
 
Sunsettommy said:
================================

My my, what an ass you are

It is clear you have no interest in cogent debate.
Click to expand...
Projection wont make your posts any less dishonest.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

And I thought WUWT was the lowest evidence bar in existence.

And then sunsettommy presents *comments* from WUWT posts as some kind of educated forum.

Jeez.
Click to expand...
The usual gullible science deniers only hesitated in their over the top praise of Frank’s paper AFTER Spencer demolished the paper. Then they were all “well I knew there was a problem with it....” lol!
 
Sunsettommy said:
Questrio makes clear of his bigotry and makes unsubstantiated claims....

You have been exposed as a bullcrapper, stop being a meathead.
Click to expand...

Your dishonesty and childish insults don’t help make your posts credible.

I linked to the 1st article on WUWT with Frank’s paper. You linked to the follow up articles AFTER Spencer had already demolished the paper.

Laughable. But typical of a gullible dishonest Watt’s conspiracy cultist.
 
PoS said:
Doesnt matter where its published from since you cant put anything up to refute it either way.
Click to expand...
Pay attention. Its already been refuted by posts on ....the junkscience conspiracy blog WUWT itself. See your buddy sunsetTommy’s posts that you yourself “liked” but must not have read.

After all the initial fawning and praise over “The paper that will destroy the climate hoax!” by WUWT regular ignorant gullible Climate Truthers on the initial blog article by Pat Frank, they later went quiet or reversed themselves once contrarian Roy Spencer and a few others demolished it in follow up blog posts. Pretty funny to watch.
 
Quaestio said:
Pay attention. Its already been refuted by posts on ....the junkscience conspiracy blog WUWT itself. See your buddy sunsetTommy’s posts that you yourself “liked” but must not have read.

After all the initial fawning and praise over “The paper that will destroy the climate hoax!” by WUWT regular ignorant gullible Climate Truthers on the initial blog article by Pat Frank, they later went quiet or reversed themselves once contrarian Roy Spencer and a few others demolished it in follow up blog posts. Pretty funny to watch.
Click to expand...

Since youre obviously clueless with regards to what's going on, let me say this- not all skeptics believe in the same thing or the same formula in getting that result. I admire sunsettommy because he tells the truth about you.

What is funny is you getting all upset about it- a true sign of desperation. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom