• 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!

Numerous Climate Models Got It Right

Visbek

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
23,282
Reaction score
18,292
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
A recent study checked the performance of 17 different climate models that were developed between 1970 and 2007.

Surprise! 14 of the 17 were spot on, nearly identical to observations. One of the misses was low, by about 0.15C; one was off by 0.1C; two were off by 0.05C. Not too shabby.

Oh, and we should note: These were actual climate models, developed by actual climate scientists. Unlike the usual nonsense hawked by the deniers, these were not journalists, or biologists predicting a Malthusian nightmare resulting from population growth.

hausfather19_fig2-600x450.png


The paper:
Error - Cookies Turned Off


Axios summary:
Climate models got it right on projected temperature changes - Axios
 
[h=2]NASA: We Can’t Model Clouds, So Climate Models Are 100 Times Less Accurate Than Needed For Projections[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 29. August 2019
NASA has conceded that climate models lack the precision required to make climate projections due to the inability to accurately model clouds. Clouds have the capacity to dramatically influence climate changes in both radiative longwave (the “greenhouse effect”) and shortwave. Cloud cover domination in longwave radiation In the longwave, clouds thoroughly dwarf the CO2 climate […]
 

Climate Models Have Not Improved in 50 Years

Guest “how can he write this with straight face?” by David Middleton Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warmingBy Warren Cornwall Dec. 4, 2019 Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the…
December 6, 2019 in Climate Models.
 
Jack Hays said:
Guest “how can he write this with straight face?” by David Middleton
Click to expand...

That's funny...

Scientists: here is our model. IF nothing changes, our prediction is X, but if something changes, here is the model to compute the result.

40-year-later: something changed, observation is Y

2019 peer-reviewed science paper: just like scientists predicted years ago, after we plugged in the changes, their model would produce Y' which is very close to Y... had they known about the changes

Oil industry blogger, David Middleton, just a BS degree, not even a Masters / PhD? : Oh, look we did not get X! X-Y is very large, so models are useless. Here is a bunch of graphs I generated to prove my point.

Jack Hays: oh goodie, I can copy paste denier blog with a fancy looking graph
 
Slavister said:
Jack Hays: oh goodie, I can copy paste denier blog with a fancy looking graph
Click to expand...
Yep. Some denier objections can be safely ignored.
 
 
Slavister said:
That's funny...

Scientists: here is our model. IF nothing changes, our prediction is X, but if something changes, here is the model to compute the result.

40-year-later: something changed, observation is Y

2019 peer-reviewed science paper: just like scientists predicted years ago, after we plugged in the changes, their model would produce Y' which is very close to Y... had they known about the changes

Oil industry blogger, David Middleton, just a BS degree, not even a Masters / PhD? : Oh, look we did not get X! X-Y is very large, so models are useless. Here is a bunch of graphs I generated to prove my point.

Jack Hays: oh goodie, I can copy paste denier blog with a fancy looking graph
Click to expand...

The OP claim was that the models were accurate without adjustment. In any case, if the later observation is not what the model expected (x vs y in your example) then that too is model failure.


In any case, here's the story of a defector from the climate nomenklatura.

[h=2]Scientist’s Confession: Climate “Models Have “Serious Flaws”… Confident Others Will Speak Up On “Fraudulent Claims”[/h]By P Gosselin on 14. September 2019
Now in English… An eye-opener book by Japanese MIT climate scientist now partly available in English at Kindle. MIT climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s writes global warming data are “untrustworthy”, “falsified”. Image: International Pacific Research Center | Home Not long ago we reported on a recently released book authored by Dr. Mototaka Nakamura, a scientist who received his doctorate from MIT […]
 
Visbek said:
Yep. Some denier objections can be safely ignored.
Click to expand...

How about a defector from the modeling nomenklatura?

[h=2]Scientist’s Confession: Climate “Models Have “Serious Flaws”… Confident Others Will Speak Up On “Fraudulent Claims”[/h]By P Gosselin on 14. September 2019
Now in English… An eye-opener book by Japanese MIT climate scientist now partly available in English at Kindle. MIT climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s writes global warming data are “untrustworthy”, “falsified”. Image: International Pacific Research Center | Home Not long ago we reported on a recently released book authored by Dr. Mototaka Nakamura, a scientist who received his doctorate from MIT […]
 
Jack Hays said:
The OP claim was that the models were accurate without adjustment. In any case, if the later observation is not what the model expected (x vs y in your example) then that too is model failure.
Click to expand...


Nope, it's not a failure of the model. The models correctly predicted the increases, given the arguments that became known as time went on.

The OP also said the models matched the observations, which is correct. There was nothing there about "without adjustment".

According to you, if we say predict 2 degree increase by 2050 if nothing happens, and then governments finally start doing something and we only get 1 degree increase as a result, you'll be all over here claiming how our predictions failed... despite the fact that models would have accurately predicted 1 degree increase if governments acted and 2 degrees if they did not.
 
Slavister said:
Nope, it's not a failure of the model. The models correctly predicted the increases, given the arguments that became known as time went on.

The OP also said the models matched the observations, which is correct. There was nothing there about "without adjustment".
Click to expand...

Your own words:

Scientists: here is our model. IF nothing changes, our prediction is X, but if something changes, here is the model to compute the result.

40-year-later: something changed, observation is Y.

Case closed.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your own words:

Scientists: here is our model. IF nothing changes, our prediction is X, but if something changes, here is the model to compute the result.

40-year-later: something changed, observation is Y.

Case closed.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension problem? Are you that confused or trying to confuse others?
 
Jack Hays said:
You inadvertently made my point, and you haven't even begun to address Dr. Nakamura.
Click to expand...

What point? My posts are consistent. You are trying to grasp at straws as if I misstated something.
 
Slavister said:
What point? My posts are consistent. You are trying to grasp at straws as if I misstated something.
Click to expand...

You have already conceded and you don't even know it. Tsk tsk. If the observation doesn't match the model's prediction then the model failed.
And you're in support of a post-and-run OP.
Dr. Nakamura is still waiting.
 
When scientists can predict when and where hurricanes will hit next season then I'll start paying more attention. Until then it's all conjecture among the highly paid climate elites. They like to scare people with predictions.
 
Visbek said:
A recent study checked the performance of 17 different climate models that were developed between 1970 and 2007.

Surprise! 14 of the 17 were spot on, nearly identical to observations. One of the misses was low, by about 0.15C; one was off by 0.1C; two were off by 0.05C. Not too shabby.

Oh, and we should note: These were actual climate models, developed by actual climate scientists. Unlike the usual nonsense hawked by the deniers, these were not journalists, or biologists predicting a Malthusian nightmare resulting from population growth.

hausfather19_fig2-600x450.png


The paper:
Error - Cookies Turned Off


Axios summary:
Climate models got it right on projected temperature changes - Axios
Click to expand...

Yep that is cool and about right with what i read before there were about 13-14 that got it right, however before you jump up and down that is only a 2% success rate since there are about 400 models.
which means that 386 models got it wrong.

that is what we call piss poor modeling.
 
lemmiwinx said:
When scientists can predict when and where hurricanes will hit next season then I'll start paying more attention. Until then it's all conjecture among the highly paid climate elites.
Click to expand...
sigh

Climate ≠ Weather

Hurricanes are notoriously difficult to predict, even when in progress. We have gotten significantly better at predicting hurricane paths once they start. Predicting a hurricane's path months before it forms will never happen.

That has nothing whatsoever with climate predictions. Even though we can't predict specific hurricane paths, we can predict what time of year that hurricanes happen; we have accurately predict that hurricanes are getting stronger, move slower, and produce more precipitation.

Along those lines: We can't predict the date of a specific temperature or rainstorm 3 months in advance. However, there is no serious difficulty in estimating likely temperatures and precipitation amounts 3 months in advance.

And again! The point of the article is that the models climate scientists are using to make temperature predictions are accurate. The models incorporate all sorts of assumptions about climate, including the effects of CO2 emissions, CH4 emissions, solar changes, feedback effects and more -- and they are getting it right. Thus, they are worth listening to.
 
Visbek said:
sigh

Climate ≠ Weather

Hurricanes are notoriously difficult to predict, even when in progress. We have gotten significantly better at predicting hurricane paths once they start. Predicting a hurricane's path months before it forms will never happen.

That has nothing whatsoever with climate predictions. Even though we can't predict specific hurricane paths, we can predict what time of year that hurricanes happen; we have accurately predict that hurricanes are getting stronger, move slower, and produce more precipitation.

Along those lines: We can't predict the date of a specific temperature or rainstorm 3 months in advance. However, there is no serious difficulty in estimating likely temperatures and precipitation amounts 3 months in advance.

And again! The point of the article is that the models climate scientists are using to make temperature predictions are accurate. The models incorporate all sorts of assumptions about climate, including the effects of CO2 emissions, CH4 emissions, solar changes, feedback effects and more -- and they are getting it right. Thus, they are worth listening to.
Click to expand...

Climate may not equal weather as you put it but neither should it determine what kind of car I drive or house I live in. I hate climate Nazis if I can call them them that without being reported. Seems you can call any conservative a Nazi on here and get away with it.
 
For those interested, the referenced paper: Error - Cookies Turned Off

I see nothing remarkable or compelling about a sampling of models with broad prediction ranges that (more or less) accurately predict the continuation of a trend known to be in existence for well over a hundred years. YMMV. :shrug:
 
This should end any confusion.

CMIP5 Model Atmospheric Warming 1979-2018: Some Comparisons to Observations

December 12th, 2019I keep getting asked about our charts comparing the CMIP5 models to observations, old versions of which are still circulating, so it could be I have not been proactive enough at providing updates to those. Since I presented some charts at the Heartland conference in D.C. in July summarizing the latest results we had as of that time, I thought I would reproduce those here.
The following comparisons are for the lower tropospheric (LT) temperature product, with separate results for global and tropical (20N-20S). I also provide trend ranking “bar plots” so you can get a better idea of how the warming trends all quantitatively compare to one another (and since it is the trends that, arguably, matter the most when discussing “global warming”).
From what I understand, the new CMIP6 models are exhibiting even more warming than the CMIP5 models, so it sounds like when we have sufficient model comparisons to produce CMIP6 plots, the discrepancies seen below will be increasing.
Global Comparisons
First is the plot of global LT anomaly time series, where I have averaged 4 reanalysis datasets together, but kept the RSS and UAH versions of the satellite-only datasets separate. (Click on images to get full-resolution versions).
The ranking of the trends in that figure shows that only the Russian model has a lower trend than UAH, with the average of the 4 reanalysis datasets not far behind. I categorically deny any Russian involvement in the resulting agreement between the UAH trend and the Russian model trend, no matter what dossier might come to light. . . .
 
Heh heh.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Oreskes Vs. Oreskes[/h][FONT=&quot]By Rud Istvan, edited by Charles Rotter WUWT reader Max alerted us to a 1994 Naomi Oreskes et. al. paper published in the prestigious journal Science. Her paper was a critical analysis of Earth Science numerical models. I asked Rud to take a look, since he had previously written on climate models both here and…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Hausfather et al 2019 refuted:


Explaining the Discrepancies Between Hausfather et al. (2019) and Lewis&Curry (2018)

Posted on January 17, 2020 by curryja | 69 comments
by Ross McKitrick
Challenging the claim that a large set of climate model runs published since 1970’s are consistent with observations for the right reasons.
Continue reading →

Challenging the claim that a large set of climate model runs published since 1970’s are consistent with observations for the right reasons.

Introduction
Zeke Hausfather et al. (2019) (herein ZH19) examined a large set of climate model runs published since the 1970s and claimed they were consistent with observations, once errors in the emission projections are considered. It is an interesting and valuable paper and has received a lot of press attention. In this post, I will explain what the authors did and then discuss a couple of issues arising, beginning with IPCC over-estimation of CO2 emissions, a literature to which Hausfather et al. make a striking contribution. I will then present a critique of some aspects of their regression analyses. I find that they have not specified their main regression correctly, and this undermines some of their conclusions. Using a more valid regression model helps explain why their findings aren’t inconsistent with Lewis and Curry (2018) which did show models to be inconsistent with observations. . . . .

 
Visbek said:
A recent study checked the performance of 17 different climate models that were developed between 1970 and 2007.

Surprise! 14 of the 17 were spot on, nearly identical to observations. One of the misses was low, by about 0.15C; one was off by 0.1C; two were off by 0.05C. Not too shabby.

Oh, and we should note: These were actual climate models, developed by actual climate scientists. Unlike the usual nonsense hawked by the deniers, these were not journalists, or biologists predicting a Malthusian nightmare resulting from population growth.

hausfather19_fig2-600x450.png


The paper:
Error - Cookies Turned Off


Axios summary:
Climate models got it right on projected temperature changes - Axios
Click to expand...

Yes and sadly you are now seeing the devastating effects of climate change all across the world.

The Top 10 Weather and Climate Stories of 2019 - Scientific American Blog Network

Bushfire crisis: more than half of all Australians found to have been directly affected | Australia news | The Guardian

UN warns hunger crisis in southern Africa ′on scale we′ve not seen before′ | News | DW | 16.01.2020
 
Threegoofs said:
Model update:

Nailed it!


Gavin Schmidt on Twitter: "It's update day for the comparison of climate model projections to observations! https://t.co/WHqNkkR1O8
Reference page: https://t.co/nbAQhtjznr… https://t.co/ezF3NGil3p"
Click to expand...

That's Gavin's usual sleight-of-hand.


Climate Models Have Not Improved in 50 Years

Guest “how can he write this with straight face?” by David Middleton Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warmingBy Warren Cornwall Dec. 4, 2019 Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the…
December 6, 2019 in Climate Models.


“Same as it ever was”…
hawkins.png
Figure 14. Whether taking the temperature in the atmosphere (UAH v6.0) or at airports (HadCRUT4), the observations track near or below the bottom of the 5% to 95% range. Apart from the recent El Niño, the observations track cooler than 95% of the models. (Modified from Climate Lab Book)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom