AN Open Challenge for my AGW Friends....

[abu afak]

Recently I have had a lot of quiet time in hospitals and my colleague's sent me data from different climate models to review after they performed Empirical Verification tests. None of the models we evaluated passed the test. They all over estimated warming by a factor of 10 and some were as high as 20.
Each of the models failed to include UHI (Urban Heat Island) and other natural variation forcings, both positive and negative.
In several threads, I have asked multiple times how the current modeling had ruled out natural forcings and land use changes. No one seems to be able to answer this question. Many of the models, currently in use, we were denied access to. I found this very concerning as open and transparent science is required for replication and verification, the very basis of the scientific method.

My challenge is this: Bring me the names of models and how they included natural forcings and land use changes in them. Feel free to post links to these models/modelers and their sources. Then explain how they ruled out these natural factors and land use changes which affect the global average of temperature.

Do not appeal to authority. I want facts and data only.

Oh My!
You've really caught those idiots now.
They never heard of/thought of UHIs.
WTF!
You didn't named any Failed models. (just friends sent you stuff)

If they don't adjust, their data is wrong, and when they do, they're cheating/'moving the goal posts.'
RIGHT?

IAC they are well aware of the problem OF COURSE, YOU MORON. (they probably have to move some gauges all the time)
Just Google for a few SECONDS.
Because YOU just thought of it, doesn't mean it's new to them.
The 'Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.'


2015

Recent challenges in modeling of urban heat island​

RedirectingGet rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license - open access

Highlights​

• •
  Different techniques in investigation of urban heat island are discussed.
• •
  Recent efforts in modeling of urban heat island is categorized and summarized.
• •
  Importance of the selected scale in a UHI problem is described.

Abstract​

The elevated air temperature of a city, urban heat island (UHI), increases the heat and pollution-related mortality, reduces the habitats’ comfort and elevates the mean and peak energy demand of buildings. To countermeasure this unwanted phenomenon, a series of strategies and policies have been proposed and adapted to the cities.
Various types of models are developed to evaluate the effectiveness of such strategies in addition to predict the UHI. This paper explains the compatibility of each type of model suitable for various objectives and scales of UHI studies.
The recent studies, mainly from 2013 to 2015, are further categorized and summarized in accordance with their context of study.

[..........]
[..........]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210670715000414

`

 

[jc456]

If they don't adjust, their data is wrong, and when they do, they're cheating/'moving the goal posts

So they adjusted their data because they were right? Odd

 

[Crick]

Identify a model you believe has failed and EXPLAIN.

No response. Yet you state in the OP that they had ALL failed. How difficult can it be to find an example and, perhaps, explain to us how it failed and why

 

[ding]

No response. Yet you state in the OP that they had ALL failed. How difficult can it be to find an example and, perhaps, explain to us how it failed and why

"...GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century. Some of the predictions from GCMs are accompanied by standard errors, as in statistical analysis. But since the GCMs are deterministic models one cannot interpret these standard errors in the same way as in statistics. GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately,models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability. The problem is that some of the variables representing sources of climate variability other than greenhouse gases are not properly controlled for during the calibrations. The resulting calibration of the climate sensitivity may therefore be biased. Further critical evaluations are given by several authors, such as Essex (2022)..."

"...As mentioned in the previous section climate can also change owing to internal processes within the climate system even without any variations in external forcings (chaos). In the GCMs the source of chaos is the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations. If the initial conditions are not known exactly for a dynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes relations the forecast trajectory will diverge from the actual one, and it is not necessarily the case that small perturbations have small effects. In fact, slightly different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs..."

"...In order to assess the uncertainty due to internal variability, researchers use so-called ICE (Initial Condition Ensembles) simulations. This means that outputs of GCMs are simulated starting from slightly different initial conditions. As the climate system is chaotic, slightly different initial conditions lead to different trajectories..."

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

"...Next, we have updated the statistical time series analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on observed temperature series recorded during the last 200 years and further back in time. Despite long trends and cycles in these temperature series, we have found that the hypothesis of stationarity was not rejected, apart from a few cases. These results are therefore consistent with the results obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[Crick]

No response. Yet you state in the OP that they had ALL failed. How difficult can it be to find an example and, perhaps, explain to us how it failed and why

Billy Boy? Anything?

 

[jc456]

Flawed Climate Models

The relationship between CO2 and temperature is more complicated than the polemics suggest.

www.hoover.org

The problem is that these models have serious limitations that drastically limit their value in making predictions and in guiding policy. Specifically, three major problems exist. They are described below, and each one alone is enough to make one doubt the predictions. All three together deal a devastating blow to the forecasts of the current models.

 

[Crick]

The Challenge still stands. Why do your models FAIL, WITHOUT EXCEPTION? Please provide one that does not.

All anyone has done is appeal to authority and no science is presented. This is an epic failure of the CAGW faithful.

Identify a model you believe has failed and EXPLAIN how and why.

 

[jc456]

Identify a model you believe has failed and EXPLAIN how and why.

Again, any model has failed. All of them! It's truly simple to educated individuals, why do you always insist on bing a fking jerk?

post #166

 

[Crick]

Again, any model has failed. All of them! It's truly simple to educated individuals, why do you always insist on bing a fking jerk?

post #166

Because you insist on being THAT incredibly stupid.

 

[Crick]

Recently I have had a lot of quiet time in hospitals and my colleague's sent me data from different climate models to review after they performed Empirical Verification tests. None of the models we evaluated passed the test. They all over estimated warming by a factor of 10 and some were as high as 20.

Each of the models failed to include UHI (Urban Heat Island) and other natural variation forcings, both positive and negative.

In several threads, I have asked multiple times how the current modeling had ruled out natural forcings and land use changes. No one seems to be able to answer this question. Many of the models, currently in use, we were denied access to. I found this very concerning as open and transparent science is required for replication and verification, the very basis of the scientific method.

My challenge is this: Bring me the names of models and how they included natural forcings and land use changes in them. Feel free to post links to these models/modelers and their sources. Then explain how they ruled out these natural factors and land use changes which affect the global average of temperature.

Do not appeal to authority. I want facts and data only.

Still waiting for the OP to identify any ONE of the GCMs he claims to have examined and found to have failed. I am looking for the identity of said GCM and how and why Billy Boy believes it to have failed. Been a couple days now and still no response from the OP. It seems he may have abandoned his own thread.

 

[BULLDOG]

Still waiting for the OP to identify any ONE of the GCMs he claims to have examined and found to have failed. I am looking for the identity of said GCM and how and why Billy Boy believes it to have failed. Been a couple days now and still no response from the OP. It seems he may have abandoned his own thread.

What did you expect? Tucker told him the models failed. He didn't bother telling him how they failed.

 

[jc456]

Because you insist on being THAT incredibly stupid.

No…… I have evidences

 

[Crick]

No…… I have evidences

Of what?

 

[jc456]

Of what?

You don’t have any. Still waiting on that climate dude

 

[Billy_Bob]

Identify a model you believe has failed and EXPLAIN how and why.

Here are 73 models that have failed... You want to bring to the table one that you think is accurate?

As Ding posted HERE The models have been "calibrated" to the last thirty or so years. This means they improperly account for the other GHG's and natural factors. This is one of the many reasons not one of the alarmist models pass an empirical verification test. It is why modelers run from those who want access to evaluate their work.

 

[Crick]

Here are 73 models that have failed... You want to bring to the table one that you think is accurate?
View attachment 861827
As Ding posted HERE The models have been "calibrated" to the last thirty or so years. This means they improperly account for the other GHG's and natural factors. This is one of the many reasons not one of the alarmist models pass an empirical verification test. It is why modelers run from those who want access to evaluate their work.

You claimed that YOU had determined models had failed. Why aren't you bringing THOSE out? This, of course, is Roy Spencer's bullshit "Hot Whopper". And I note you haven't given any attribution. Were you thinking that some folks might think YOU had produced this graph?

 

[jc456]

You claimed that YOU had determined models had failed. Why aren't you bringing THOSE out? This, of course, is Roy Spencer's bullshit "Hot Whopper". And I note you haven't given any attribution. Were you thinking that some folks might think YOU had produced this graph?

Dude, you are truly a nut job. You asked for one, he provided you one. If you disagree with the one, explain it’s fault