How have the IPCC's computer models performed?

[Abraham3]

The IPCCs computer models will do what ever they're told to do. Rigging a model to give the answer you want is easy.

Sorry, but no. You seem to have some very basic misunderstandings.

 

[Abraham3]

Some actual data on the accuracy of IPCC projections


The Copenhagen Diagnosis

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.PDF

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf

Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

Papers by Hansen?

Yeah, HE'S got no financial turf to protect, does he?

Dismissed.

Yeah... well, I had a feeling you'd find one reason or to avoid actually reading them. Tell you what, though, Dave. You can skip reading them as long as you quit trying to tell us what they say.

 

[daveman]

Some actual data on the accuracy of IPCC projections


The Copenhagen Diagnosis

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.PDF

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf

Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

Papers by Hansen?

Yeah, HE'S got no financial turf to protect, does he?

Dismissed.

Yeah... well, I had a feeling you'd find one reason or to avoid actually reading them. Tell you what, though, Dave. You can skip reading them as long as you quit trying to tell us what they say.

These are the same models that can't predict past temperatures that we have on record to check the predictions against, right?

Right?

 

[Saigon]

Dave -

You have claimed that you will listen to scientists -in which case I trust you will read this:

What's new in 2012?

New records set for low snow extent and sea ice extent, and for widespread ice sheet melting, despite air temperatures - a key cause of melting - being unremarkable relative to the last decade.

Multiple observations provide strong evidence of widespread, sustained change driving Arctic environmental system into new state.

Record low snow extent and low sea ice extent occurred in June and September, respectively.

Duration of melting was the longest observed yet on the Greenland ice sheet, and a rare, nearly ice sheet-wide melt event occurred in July.

Massive phytoplankton blooms below summer sea ice suggest previous estimates of ocean primary productivity might be ten times too low.

Arctic Report Card

 

[Saigon]

To address the OP - I agree that many of the IIPC predictions have been too conservative, but I prefer them to be too conservative to too alarmist, as they were in the 1990's.

Models and predictions are only ever intended to be models and predictions - I find it rather peculiar that scientists can predict a rise in sea levels of 3 mm per year and then sceptics claim victory when the following year a rise of 2.8 mm is recorded.

What sceptics SHOULD be looking at are trends - rising sea levels, collapsing glaciers, retreating Arctic ice and rising temperatures. Those trends were all predicted, and have all been proven to be true. So why do sceptics refuse to address that?

 

[westwall]

These silly asses conveniatly skip the fact that the uptake and emission of CO2 was balanced until we began to burn fossil fuels. That 5.5% adds up rather rapidly, even when the ocean absorbs the most of it. We are at 400 ppm at present, up from the 280 ppm that we were at for centuries. That extra 120 ppm of CO2 is our creation. The CH4 was at 700 ppb for centuries, and that was the normal high in an interglacial period. Now it is at over 1800 ppb and rising. And in the time of a decade, CH4 is 100 times as effective of an GHG as CO2. Add in the manmade GHGs, many of which are several thousand times of an effective GHG as CO2, and we are over the equivelent of 500 ppm of CO2. Gonna get interesting.

NOTHING in nature is ever balanced you boob. Try getting an education you ignorant quack.

 

[westwall]

To address the OP - I agree that many of the IIPC predictions have been too conservative, but I prefer them to be too conservative to too alarmist, as they were in the 1990's.

Oh piss off with your whiney crap.

 

[rdean]

Not so great, actually.

New paper finds computer models are inconsistent with temperature reconstructions of the past millennium

A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds that computer model simulations of past climate are not consistent with reconstructed temperatures of past climate. Thus, either the model simulations are erroneous or the temperature reconstructions erroneous, or both.

--

If we treat simulations and reconstructions as equitable hypotheses about past climate variability, the found general lack of their consistency weakens our confidence in inferences about past climate evolutions on the considered spatial and temporal scales. That is, our available estimates of past climate evolutions are on an equal footing but, as shown here, inconsistent with each other.​

So, the models can't even predict past climate.

How are they working on more recent times?

Not so great, actually.

New paper finds climate models cannot explain the global warming stagnation over past 15 years

A new paper by prominent German climatologists Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. Eduardo Zorita, et al, finds "that the continued [global] warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." In other words, there is a greater than 98% probability that climate models are unable to explain the stagnation in warming over the past 15+ years. The authors suggest 3 possible explanations for this:

1. the models underestimate natural climate variability

2. the climate models fail to include important forcings such as ocean oscillations and solar amplification

3. the models assume exaggerated climate sensitivity to man-made CO2

The authors point out that even if climate sensitivity to CO2 was greatly reduced future models, it is still "hardly feasible" that the models would reproduce the 15 year stagnation of temperature, stating, "a recalibration [with lower CO2 sensitivity] reproducing the reduced warming of the last 15 years appears hardly feasible." All of which suggests that CO2 is not the control knob of climate and natural variability is.​

So -- the models can't predict the past, and they can't predict the present.

Remind me again why I should trust them to predict the future...?

They are better than the crystal ball you use.

 

[westwall]

But the models have done superbly, once you adjust for ENSO, as one should do.

And if someone isn't adjusting for ENSO, they're fudging hard. And there's no point in speaking with a fudger, since you can't trust a word they say.

Only in the minds of the serious cultists is a failure rate of 98% considered "superb".

Brings new meaning to the term propaganda!

 

[westwall]

Not so great, actually.

New paper finds computer models are inconsistent with temperature reconstructions of the past millennium

A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds that computer model simulations of past climate are not consistent with reconstructed temperatures of past climate. Thus, either the model simulations are erroneous or the temperature reconstructions erroneous, or both.

--

If we treat simulations and reconstructions as equitable hypotheses about past climate variability, the found general lack of their consistency weakens our confidence in inferences about past climate evolutions on the considered spatial and temporal scales. That is, our available estimates of past climate evolutions are on an equal footing but, as shown here, inconsistent with each other.​

So, the models can't even predict past climate.

How are they working on more recent times?

Not so great, actually.

New paper finds climate models cannot explain the global warming stagnation over past 15 years

A new paper by prominent German climatologists Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. Eduardo Zorita, et al, finds "that the continued [global] warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." In other words, there is a greater than 98% probability that climate models are unable to explain the stagnation in warming over the past 15+ years. The authors suggest 3 possible explanations for this:

1. the models underestimate natural climate variability

2. the climate models fail to include important forcings such as ocean oscillations and solar amplification

3. the models assume exaggerated climate sensitivity to man-made CO2

The authors point out that even if climate sensitivity to CO2 was greatly reduced future models, it is still "hardly feasible" that the models would reproduce the 15 year stagnation of temperature, stating, "a recalibration [with lower CO2 sensitivity] reproducing the reduced warming of the last 15 years appears hardly feasible." All of which suggests that CO2 is not the control knob of climate and natural variability is.​

So -- the models can't predict the past, and they can't predict the present.

Remind me again why I should trust them to predict the future...?

They are better than the crystal ball you use.

And yet, that well known charlatan Sylvia Brown has a far better predictive record than ANYTHING the IPCC or the fraudsters have ever done. Far better. Embarrassingly so.


GREAT JOB!

 

[Abraham3]

Not so great, actually.

New paper finds computer models are inconsistent with temperature reconstructions of the past millennium

A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds that computer model simulations of past climate are not consistent with reconstructed temperatures of past climate. Thus, either the model simulations are erroneous or the temperature reconstructions erroneous, or both.

--

If we treat simulations and reconstructions as equitable hypotheses about past climate variability, the found general lack of their consistency weakens our confidence in inferences about past climate evolutions on the considered spatial and temporal scales. That is, our available estimates of past climate evolutions are on an equal footing but, as shown here, inconsistent with each other.​

So, the models can't even predict past climate.

How are they working on more recent times?

Not so great, actually.

New paper finds climate models cannot explain the global warming stagnation over past 15 years

A new paper by prominent German climatologists Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. Eduardo Zorita, et al, finds "that the continued [global] warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." In other words, there is a greater than 98% probability that climate models are unable to explain the stagnation in warming over the past 15+ years. The authors suggest 3 possible explanations for this:

1. the models underestimate natural climate variability

2. the climate models fail to include important forcings such as ocean oscillations and solar amplification

3. the models assume exaggerated climate sensitivity to man-made CO2

The authors point out that even if climate sensitivity to CO2 was greatly reduced future models, it is still "hardly feasible" that the models would reproduce the 15 year stagnation of temperature, stating, "a recalibration [with lower CO2 sensitivity] reproducing the reduced warming of the last 15 years appears hardly feasible." All of which suggests that CO2 is not the control knob of climate and natural variability is.​

So -- the models can't predict the past, and they can't predict the present.

Remind me again why I should trust them to predict the future...?

Dave,

this is the study I quoted to you which you denied having posted. You called me a moron for suggesting such a thing.

Asshole.

A suggestion: read actual peer-reviewed papers, not the bullshit coverage of them in right-wing denier blogs.

 

[westwall]

Why read your peer reviewed papers...they are demolished in hours by mere statisticians.

Laughable, simply laughable. You're starting to show your colors trolling blunder...

 

[Abraham3]

Why read your peer reviewed papers...they are demolished in hours by mere statisticians.

Laughable, simply laughable. You're starting to show your colors trolling blunder...

Your mere statistician has not "demolished" ANY papers. He made a minor correction to ONE paper that HAD NO EFFECT ON THE PAPER'S CONCLUSIONS.

And since then, perhaps a few thousand papers have come out providing support for AGW for which your hero Steve has not had a word to say.

Pathetic, simply pathetic.

ps: "Why read your peer-reviewed papers". Now there's a fellow in search of the truth. Unfortunately, it's the 'truth' he already manufactured in his own, uneducated head.

pps: Did Dave ASK you for your help or is it just that you see him floundering?

 

[rdean]

I had a friend from India tell me that once, when he was in a small village, there were some old guys sitting in front of a temple smoking Temple Incense. He said it was one of those days you could see the moon even though it was still daytime. He pointed up and told the old guys, "Americans have walked on the Moon". They laughed and laughed. He asked what was so funny and one said to him, "How can someone walk on a God?" and they continued to laugh and laugh. True Story.

They could have been Republicans. They probably were.

 

[daveman]

Not so great, actually.

New paper finds computer models are inconsistent with temperature reconstructions of the past millennium

A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds that computer model simulations of past climate are not consistent with reconstructed temperatures of past climate. Thus, either the model simulations are erroneous or the temperature reconstructions erroneous, or both.

--

If we treat simulations and reconstructions as equitable hypotheses about past climate variability, the found general lack of their consistency weakens our confidence in inferences about past climate evolutions on the considered spatial and temporal scales. That is, our available estimates of past climate evolutions are on an equal footing but, as shown here, inconsistent with each other.​

So, the models can't even predict past climate.

How are they working on more recent times?

Not so great, actually.

New paper finds climate models cannot explain the global warming stagnation over past 15 years

A new paper by prominent German climatologists Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. Eduardo Zorita, et al, finds "that the continued [global] warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." In other words, there is a greater than 98% probability that climate models are unable to explain the stagnation in warming over the past 15+ years. The authors suggest 3 possible explanations for this:

1. the models underestimate natural climate variability

2. the climate models fail to include important forcings such as ocean oscillations and solar amplification

3. the models assume exaggerated climate sensitivity to man-made CO2

The authors point out that even if climate sensitivity to CO2 was greatly reduced future models, it is still "hardly feasible" that the models would reproduce the 15 year stagnation of temperature, stating, "a recalibration [with lower CO2 sensitivity] reproducing the reduced warming of the last 15 years appears hardly feasible." All of which suggests that CO2 is not the control knob of climate and natural variability is.​

So -- the models can't predict the past, and they can't predict the present.

Remind me again why I should trust them to predict the future...?

Dave,

this is the study I quoted to you which you denied having posted. You called me a moron for suggesting such a thing.

Asshole.

I've called you a moron lots of times. You need to be a little more specific.

A suggestion: read actual peer-reviewed papers, not the bullshit coverage of them in right-wing denier blogs.

Okay. Using nothing but the papers referenced, tell me how the blog got it wrong.

 

[daveman]

I had a friend from India tell me that once, when he was in a small village, there were some old guys sitting in front of a temple smoking Temple Incense. He said it was one of those days you could see the moon even though it was still daytime. He pointed up and told the old guys, "Americans have walked on the Moon". They laughed and laughed. He asked what was so funny and one said to him, "How can someone walk on a God?" and they continued to laugh and laugh. True Story.

They could have been Republicans. They probably were.

I forget...what was your reaction to Newt Gingrich's call to colonize the moon?

 

[Abraham3]

Not so great, actually.

New paper finds computer models are inconsistent with temperature reconstructions of the past millennium

A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds that computer model simulations of past climate are not consistent with reconstructed temperatures of past climate. Thus, either the model simulations are erroneous or the temperature reconstructions erroneous, or both.

--

If we treat simulations and reconstructions as equitable hypotheses about past climate variability, the found general lack of their consistency weakens our confidence in inferences about past climate evolutions on the considered spatial and temporal scales. That is, our available estimates of past climate evolutions are on an equal footing but, as shown here, inconsistent with each other.​

So, the models can't even predict past climate.

How are they working on more recent times?

Not so great, actually.

New paper finds climate models cannot explain the global warming stagnation over past 15 years

A new paper by prominent German climatologists Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. Eduardo Zorita, et al, finds "that the continued [global] warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." In other words, there is a greater than 98% probability that climate models are unable to explain the stagnation in warming over the past 15+ years. The authors suggest 3 possible explanations for this:

1. the models underestimate natural climate variability

2. the climate models fail to include important forcings such as ocean oscillations and solar amplification

3. the models assume exaggerated climate sensitivity to man-made CO2

The authors point out that even if climate sensitivity to CO2 was greatly reduced future models, it is still "hardly feasible" that the models would reproduce the 15 year stagnation of temperature, stating, "a recalibration [with lower CO2 sensitivity] reproducing the reduced warming of the last 15 years appears hardly feasible." All of which suggests that CO2 is not the control knob of climate and natural variability is.​

So -- the models can't predict the past, and they can't predict the present.

Remind me again why I should trust them to predict the future...?

Dave,

this is the study I quoted to you which you denied having posted. You called me a moron for suggesting such a thing.

Asshole.

I've called you a moron lots of times. You need to be a little more specific.

A suggestion: read actual peer-reviewed papers, not the bullshit coverage of them in right-wing denier blogs.

Okay. Using nothing but the papers referenced, tell me how the blog got it wrong.

You tell me. What claims does your blog make about the study that simply aren't true. It's pretty glaring.

Ahh... I've let you lead me astray.

The point was that you denied having linked to this study and insulted me for having suggested it. You owe me an apology asshole.

 

[daveman]

Dave,

this is the study I quoted to you which you denied having posted. You called me a moron for suggesting such a thing.

Asshole.

I've called you a moron lots of times. You need to be a little more specific.

A suggestion: read actual peer-reviewed papers, not the bullshit coverage of them in right-wing denier blogs.

Okay. Using nothing but the papers referenced, tell me how the blog got it wrong.

You tell me. What claims does your blog make about the study that simply aren't true. It's pretty glaring.

No, Skippy, it doesn't work that way. You claim the papers don't back up what the blogs say -- prove it.

There you go again, insisting people take your word for it simply because you say it.

You're woefully unprepared. Do your homework.

Ahh... I've let you lead me astray.

The point was that you denied having linked to this study and insulted me for having suggested it. You owe me an apology asshole.

I don't know what you're babbling about, but if it makes your tender little ego feel better, I'm sorry.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm sorry.

Apology accepted.

 

[daveman]

I'm sorry.

Apology accepted.

Cool.

Now, are you going to back up your claim that the blogs and the studies they cite disagree?