IPCC admits 97% of their models are flawed

[daveman]

IPCC spin translated – the leaked Synopsis admits 97% of models fail

“For the period 1998–2012, 111 of the 114 climate-model simulations show a surface-warming trend larger than the observations (Box SYR.1, Figure 1a). There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable internal climate variability. Variability sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend (Figure Box SYR.1). Internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change. There are also possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic factors. {WG1 2.4, 9.3, 9.4; 10.3, 11.2, 11.3, WG1 Box 9.2}​

Translated: This is what 95% certainty looks like: 97% of our models are wrong. (See also here). We blame that on unpredictable stuff that goes on inside the climate. Maybe we are also incorrect on solar, volcanic and dust too.​

 

[skookerasbil]

conveniently ignored by the AGW k00ks........doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They already admitted they use AGW to redistribute wealth. Their "Science" is flawed and faked

 

[Kosh]

It is no surprise they were junk to begin with.

 

[PredFan]

The AGW Scam artists are busy working on spinning a response, and the USMB Lefties are waiting for it before they post here.

 

[daveman]

The AGW Scam artists are busy working on spinning a response, and the USMB Lefties are waiting for it before they post here.

It's going to be entertaining to watch them claim “For the period 1998–2012, 111 of the 114 climate-model simulations show a surface-warming trend larger than the observations" DOESN'T mean the models are wrong.

And I shall laugh in their faces.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'll admit because of the fact that surface temperature hasn't risen = a failure of understanding of our climate system.

 

[skookerasbil]

All the IPCC shit is rigged. The UN is a joke. Most people are so deep into the matrix its not real.

 

[ScienceRocks]

All the IPCC shit is rigged. The UN is a joke. Most people are so deep into the matrix its not real.

Climate science is very complex and you can say the same about most science from extrasolar planets to geology.

Recently extrasolar planets and 80 years ago geology with how plates moved....

Science evolves and we learn more....

 

[flacaltenn]

I know 3 or 4 forum posters that are waiting on skepticalscience to publish the "talking points" on this one..

 

[daveman]

I'll admit because of the fact that surface temperature hasn't risen = a failure of understanding of our climate system.

Then perhaps we shouldn't cripple the economies of the entire Western world until we have that understanding, mmmkay?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'll admit because of the fact that surface temperature hasn't risen = a failure of understanding of our climate system.

Then perhaps we shouldn't cripple the economies of the entire Western world until we have that understanding, mmmkay?

Only if you believe that renewables and nuclear couldn't do the same job

Oregon and Washington are huge hydro states with large percentages of wind...

Iowa and a few other states have 20+% wind per capita.

The southeast where most conservatives live are of course highly dependent on coal.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I also support 40% natural gas and feel it is a acceptable part of the blend.

 

[Abraham3]

IPCC spin translated – the leaked Synopsis admits 97% of models fail

“For the period 1998–2012, 111 of the 114 climate-model simulations show a surface-warming trend larger than the observations (Box SYR.1, Figure 1a). There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable internal climate variability. Variability sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend (Figure Box SYR.1). Internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change. There are also possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic factors. {WG1 2.4, 9.3, 9.4; 10.3, 11.2, 11.3, WG1 Box 9.2}​

Translated: This is what 95% certainty looks like: 97% of our models are wrong. (See also here). We blame that on unpredictable stuff that goes on inside the climate. Maybe we are also incorrect on solar, volcanic and dust too.​

God are you stupid. You don't even seem able to read. Or you choose not to.

 

[Abraham3]

No GC model is going to precisely reproduce every climatic parameter on the planet. Ever. The best and most complex are working on granularities of roughly a cubic kilometer per cell. And, like everything else in the real world, they are made better by noting their errors, determining the causes and fixing them. That requires discussions of the sort that you want (and I want to emphasize "want") to take as some forced admission of abject failure. The models are doing what they're supposed to do as are the model writers. If you can't come to understand the basics here, you're going to continue to voice seriously uninformed bushwah like this thread.

A few points:

1) Climate science is not "model-driven". It uses models, but as you will realize with just a wee bit of thought, it uses a LOT of data. If you want predictions (and I know you do) you will need models with which to do it. The physicist who tells you how far your bullet will travel is using a model. His system is orders and orders of magnitude simpler but there will still be errors between his predictions and reality. Do you want to tell him that he's just making ignorant guesses and that his fundamental working logic is worthless? The same fundamental physics is used in every general climate model, it is just used on a large number of interacting cells, over and over and over again. That the errors are as small as they are is amazing. And since YOU aren't writing any models - since NO ONE on your side of the argument is writing any and no model has ever come within a long mile of reality without assuming AGW - you're just going to have to live with what you've got. Feel free to pick and choose. Feel free to offer advice and note trends. Do not feel free to condemn modeling as a practice or climate science because it models.

2) As noted, no one on your side of this argument is creating GCMs. That's an interesting point and I think their are alternate ways to look at it. I think their almost certainly ARE people who doubted AGW and built or worked on climate models in an attempt to explore and find some alternative causation for the warming of the last 150 years. The only trouble was that all such alternatives have failed. The only way models will recreate the past 150 years climate behavior is to incorporate the greenhouse effect working on the gigatonnes of GHG that humans have put into the air since we first lit a piece of coal. When one of you deniers figures out a way to avoid that, you will actually have an argument to which the rest of science might actually listen.

3) Modeling a complex system will always involve minimizing errors. Models are step-wise approximations of continuously moving targets. Billions of them. I don't know what you THINK accurate models are supposed to do, but your comments and criticism indicate the thinking is pretty damn poorly informed.

So pull your heads out of your asses, put on your thinking caps and engage your fooking brains. When you all get together like this, slapping each other on the back and yee-hawing it, you sound like a bunch of yammering mutts who think they've treed a coon.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Richard Alley of Penn State presentation in which he demonstrates the accuracy of the present models, and updates a lot of information on present climate matters.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_-8u86R3Yc]AGU Chapman Conference -- Climate Science: Richard Alley - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

All the IPCC shit is rigged. The UN is a joke. Most people are so deep into the matrix its not real.

Climate science is very complex and you can say the same about most science from extrasolar planets to geology.

Recently extrasolar planets and 80 years ago geology with how plates moved....

Science evolves and we learn more....

Indeed it does Matthew. Hell we didn't even know how far the Sun was from the galactic center till 1993!

 

[westwall]

No GC model is going to precisely reproduce every climatic parameter on the planet. Ever. The best and most complex are working on granularities of roughly a cubic kilometer per cell. And, like everything else in the real world, they are made better by noting their errors, determining the causes and fixing them. That requires discussions of the sort that you want (and I want to emphasize "want") to take as some forced admission of abject failure. The models are doing what they're supposed to do as are the model writers. If you can't come to understand the basics here, you're going to continue to voice seriously uninformed bushwah like this thread.

A few points:

1) Climate science is not "model-driven". It uses models, but as you will realize with just a wee bit of thought, it uses a LOT of data. If you want predictions (and I know you do) you will need models with which to do it. The physicist who tells you how far your bullet will travel is using a model. His system is orders and orders of magnitude simpler but there will still be errors between his predictions and reality. Do you want to tell him that he's just making ignorant guesses and that his fundamental working logic is worthless? The same fundamental physics is used in every general climate model, it is just used on a large number of interacting cells, over and over and over again. That the errors are as small as they are is amazing. And since YOU aren't writing any models - since NO ONE on your side of the argument is writing any and no model has ever come within a long mile of reality without assuming AGW - you're just going to have to live with what you've got. Feel free to pick and choose. Feel free to offer advice and note trends. Do not feel free to condemn modeling as a practice or climate science because it models.

2) As noted, no one on your side of this argument is creating GCMs. That's an interesting point and I think their are alternate ways to look at it. I think their almost certainly ARE people who doubted AGW and built or worked on climate models in an attempt to explore and find some alternative causation for the warming of the last 150 years. The only trouble was that all such alternatives have failed. The only way models will recreate the past 150 years climate behavior is to incorporate the greenhouse effect working on the gigatonnes of GHG that humans have put into the air since we first lit a piece of coal. When one of you deniers figures out a way to avoid that, you will actually have an argument to which the rest of science might actually listen.

3) Modeling a complex system will always involve minimizing errors. Models are step-wise approximations of continuously moving targets. Billions of them. I don't know what you THINK accurate models are supposed to do, but your comments and criticism indicate the thinking is pretty damn poorly informed.

So pull your heads out of your asses, put on your thinking caps and engage your fooking brains. When you all get together like this, slapping each other on the back and yee-hawing it, you sound like a bunch of yammering mutts who think they've treed a coon.

Here's a peer reviewed paper that says your models aren't just bad, they're next to useless.



"Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. them discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models' descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical
foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading."



http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf

 

[westwall]

Dr. Richard Alley of Penn State presentation in which he demonstrates the accuracy of the present models, and updates a lot of information on present climate matters.

AGU Chapman Conference -- Climate Science: Richard Alley - YouTube

And here's a MIT peer reviewed paper that says he's full of poo...

"Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. them discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models' descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical
foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading."


http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf

 

[daveman]

I'll admit because of the fact that surface temperature hasn't risen = a failure of understanding of our climate system.

Then perhaps we shouldn't cripple the economies of the entire Western world until we have that understanding, mmmkay?

Only if you believe that renewables and nuclear couldn't do the same job

Oregon and Washington are huge hydro states with large percentages of wind...

Iowa and a few other states have 20+% wind per capita.

The southeast where most conservatives live are of course highly dependent on coal.

Have you turned off 40% of your house's service panel breakers yet?

No?

The don't insist that other people quit using coal.