Junk Science Week: Climate models fail reality test

[IanC]

Junk Science Week: Climate models fail reality test | FP Comment | Financial Post

Just how good are climate models at predicting regional patterns of climate change? I had occasion to survey this literature as part of a recently completed research project on the subject. The simple summary is that, with few exceptions, climate models not only fail to do better than random numbers, in some cases they are actually worse.

There are two reasons why this is important. First, it tells us something about our lack of understanding of the climate. There are various different theories to explain the rising trend in the global average temperature over the past century. Climate models embed one such theory, based on a relatively high sensitivity to greenhouse gases and strong amplifying effects from a positive water-vapour feedback, and relative insensitivity to other things. In this setup, the only way to get a climate model to mimic the 20th-century average warming is to feed in the observed increase in greenhouse gases. Therefore, the argument goes, greenhouse gases are to blame.

A 2011 study in the Journal of Forecasting took the same data set and compared model predictions against a “random walk” alternative, consisting simply of using the last period’s value in each location as the forecast for the next period’s value in that location. The test measures the sum of errors relative to the random walk. A perfect model gets a score of zero, meaning it made no errors. A model that does no better than a random walk gets a score of 1. A model receiving a score above 1 did worse than uninformed guesses. Simple statistical forecast models that have no climatology or physics in them typically got scores between 0.8 and 1, indicating slight improvements on the random walk, though in some cases their scores went as high as 1.8.

The climate models, by contrast, got scores ranging from 2.4 to 3.7, indicating a total failure to provide valid forecast information at the regional level, even on long time scales. The authors commented: “This implies that the current [climate] models are ill-suited to localized decadal predictions, even though they are used as inputs for policymaking.”

I have read about random walks before but I did not realize that the HadCRU data is a near perfect random walk with a Hurst Exponent only slightly showing a small regression to the mean. (0.475 compared to a perfect 0500)

 

[westwall]

I posted the same story before i found yours! Very interesting and yet another nail in the coffin of AGW science which is almost wholly based on these things.

 

[Big Fitz]

Tis what happens when you rely on straight line projections and predetermined desired outcomes.

 

[flacaltenn]

But but but --- these tests were done against REGIONAL DATA!!! That's not fair.. THat single "Global Mean Surface Temperature" number is supposed to simplify policy making.. Not project the temperature in Buffalo, NY or Vladisvostok...

U need to find a region on earth that has AVERAGE temperatures.. Then the models are incredibly accurate I bet...

You guys are always stretching the truth...

 

[flacaltenn]

It was sarcasm guys.. Really it was.. Didn't mean to kill the joy...

Here have a smiley-face...

 

[Big Fitz]

I smirked.

 

[whitehall]

We know for a fact that real life computer models cannot determine the track of an imminent Atlantic hurricane or storm. The Weather Channel gives us three or four or ten possible tracks depending on minute data that is fed into the computer. How many times do we have to see evidence of bad data fed into computers to achieve a desired result? The theory of Man-Made-Global-Warming is fiction designed for several purposes including left wing political agendas, lavish federal funding for bogus "research", and international extortion schemes aimed at the US.

 

[rdean]

Why don't we see any "Republican" computer models or Republican "science"?

Just kidding.​

​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why don't we see any "Republican" computer models or Republican "science"?

Just kidding.​

​

Retard alert. the board retard has infected this thread, ignore him as best you can, just remember in Rdean's case he is mentally unstable when it comes to facts and reality.

 

[Big Fitz]

Why don't we see any "Republican" computer models or Republican "science"?

Just kidding.​

​

The idea that the scientific method has a political position went out with Soviet Biology. Now we just use this silly thing called objective fact. You know, the stuff that is repeatable and disregards political party?

 

[whitehall]

The little Freudian slip by Dean indicates that radical lefties admit the global warming agenda is supported and funded (only) by democrats.

 

[rdean]

Why don't we see any "Republican" computer models or Republican "science"?

Just kidding.​

​

The idea that the scientific method has a political position went out with Soviet Biology. Now we just use this silly thing called objective fact. You know, the stuff that is repeatable and disregards political party?

Then how can you prove the Grand Canyon was made by "Noah's Flood"?

 

[rdean]

The little Freudian slip by Dean indicates that radical lefties admit the global warming agenda is supported and funded (only) by democrats.

Oh, how sweet. A chance to "teach". A "teaching moment".

When Republicans believe something and the entire rest of the world believes something else, it's probably not the entire rest of the world that is "radical".

Did that help?

 

[Big Fitz]

Why don't we see any "Republican" computer models or Republican "science"?

Just kidding.​

​

The idea that the scientific method has a political position went out with Soviet Biology. Now we just use this silly thing called objective fact. You know, the stuff that is repeatable and disregards political party?

Then how can you prove the Grand Canyon was made by "Noah's Flood"?

Who said I ever hypothosized that? I know the Wisconsin Dells were recently discovered to have been made in the space of a few short months when Glacial Lake Oshkosh let go and emptied down what became the WI. It used to be "true" that it took millions of years... except it would have been buried under so much ice the features would never have survived outside the driftless area.

Secondly, I never claimed to be a believer in the 'young earth' theory. It may be true, it may not. If you are working with the divine power of God, all bets are off, when you can operate supernaturally.

Third, gravity warps spacetime. So when the postulate of the 'young earth' is put out there... from who's point of view is creation viewed from? The one where it SEEMS to take 7 days (assuming divine creation) or the point of view where it required millions and billions of years?

Lastly, the Bible is not a science text. Just get over it. It doesn't teach the mechanics of reality. That's what science does. What science doesn't do is tell us Why.

But thank you for playing "Guess My Non-Sequiter!" You don't win, or get a copy of our home game because you're such a dipshit we dare not allow you to be seen with it in your house.

 

[Big Fitz]

The little Freudian slip by Dean indicates that radical lefties admit the global warming agenda is supported and funded (only) by democrats.

Oh, how sweet. A chance to "teach". A "teaching moment".

When Republicans believe something and the entire rest of the world believes something else, it's probably not the entire rest of the world that is "radical".

Did that help?

Hairnet... what this shows is that even WAGS are better than the predictions and computer models by the cargo cult of climate change.

 

[skookerasbil]

Relying on computer models is gay.

Except to the hopelessly naive, of course.

 

[flacaltenn]

Those hurricane trackers are actually pretty good up to 48 hours. But they are fed good quality fresh data. In the climate model case.. When your model is built on ASSUMPTION that CO2 is the principal driver of the warming, guess what the outcome is gonna be??

The climate sensitivities, CO2 forcing numbers, feedback effects -- all based on fudged data. So the poor models are truth challenged from the get-go...

Back to the OP --- After seeing how the surface temp data has been jacked over and over again, I can't imagine that models mean ANYTHING for a particular regional station. The famous case of the IPCC graph for Darwin, Aus. shows over 2degC of abitrary jacking to make a favorable IPCC graph. We're talking about HUGE increases in "calibration" over 15 years that is not documented well at all. When in reality, all that surface data should have been adjusted down for increases in "urban heating" and other human density effects. So how can the models predict REGIONAL effects? Only if the jacking continues into the future..

Does your nightly weather station report the JACKED USHCN corrected high temp? Or just what they read on their thermometer? OMG -- THere's a DIFF???? Yup.. Think I'll start selling "Hansen corrected" weather stations for the backyard...

 

[westwall]

Why don't we see any "Republican" computer models or Republican "science"?

Just kidding.​

​

You're witnessing it right now deanie. We use observed science, your side uses fiction.

 

[skookerasbil]

Those hurricane trackers are actually pretty good up to 48 hours. But they are fed good quality fresh data. In the climate model case.. When your model is built on ASSUMPTION that CO2 is the principal driver of the warming, guess what the outcome is gonna be??

The climate sensitivities, CO2 forcing numbers, feedback effects -- all based on fudged data. So the poor models are truth challenged from the get-go...

Back to the OP --- After seeing how the surface temp data has been jacked over and over again, I can't imagine that models mean ANYTHING for a particular regional station. The famous case of the IPCC graph for Darwin, Aus. shows over 2degC of abitrary jacking to make a favorable IPCC graph. We're talking about HUGE increases in "calibration" over 15 years that is not documented well at all. When in reality, all that surface data should have been adjusted down for increases in "urban heating" and other human density effects. So how can the models predict REGIONAL effects? Only if the jacking continues into the future..

Does your nightly weather station report the JACKED USHCN corrected high temp? Or just what they read on their thermometer? OMG -- THere's a DIFF???? Yup.. Think I'll start selling "Hansen corrected" weather stations for the backyard...

But for hurricane models FlaCatenn, there is still alot of variability. Indeed, frequently, we see the track match the tracks with the highest probability values, but sometimes not. So the bigger issue becomes, do we blow up out ecomony and all live like serfs based upon a distinct what if?


FlaCaTenn..............read up a bit on Iceland. It is an environmentalist's wet dream. Everybody............and I mean virtually ALL, pay just $100 a year for energy because they have all likes of non-conventional forms of energy supply. But nobody is flying out of that country on vacation and everybody's driving the 2000's version of a Gremlin. Why? Income taxes are through the roof and then you add a 25% VAT tax. They sit around 365 days a year drinking beer and watching TV at the local pub. Very few poor but very few well off. Its a dream civilization for Plato, Hobbes and Moore. Not for me though, and not for most Americans.

I damn near fight to the death to make sure this gayness isnt the future for my kids...............little hope, and no opportunity. Obama's perfect society. Not for me........not based upon a fucking computer model.


By the way FLAcaTenn..........the Prime Minister of Icelend is a lesbian. Just goes to show what happens to your society if you let the fucking k00ks take over.........highly ironic when you think about Thor having come from Iceland. LMAO.......no more Thor's in that country!!!

 

[IanC]

Those hurricane trackers are actually pretty good up to 48 hours. But they are fed good quality fresh data. In the climate model case.. When your model is built on ASSUMPTION that CO2 is the principal driver of the warming, guess what the outcome is gonna be??

The climate sensitivities, CO2 forcing numbers, feedback effects -- all based on fudged data. So the poor models are truth challenged from the get-go...

Back to the OP --- After seeing how the surface temp data has been jacked over and over again, I can't imagine that models mean ANYTHING for a particular regional station. The famous case of the IPCC graph for Darwin, Aus. shows over 2degC of abitrary jacking to make a favorable IPCC graph. We're talking about HUGE increases in "calibration" over 15 years that is not documented well at all. When in reality, all that surface data should have been adjusted down for increases in "urban heating" and other human density effects. So how can the models predict REGIONAL effects? Only if the jacking continues into the future..

Does your nightly weather station report the JACKED USHCN corrected high temp? Or just what they read on their thermometer? OMG -- THere's a DIFF???? Yup.. Think I'll start selling "Hansen corrected" weather stations for the backyard...

J Curry has had lots of columns and articles over the last year talking about how the models should be measured for accuracy but they are usually pretty dry and the stats are boring so they never get traction with the public. it really is just a shell game that gets props from the media even though random guessing would be more often be correct.