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.​

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

Hey, Cupcake, are you ever going to DO anything to merit the level of arrogance you display?

No?

Then eat shit. I read quite well indeed. IPCC says their models failed.

 

[Abraham3]

The above post is de facto evidence that you are a victim of that Dunning-Kruger effect. Sad, really.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

Oregon is largely hydro and solar There's a few natural gas plants.

 

[RollingThunder]

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

That's a total crock of shit, you lying denier cult nutjob, and you know it. You tried to push this crap before and it was pointed out to you at that time that this paper you're citing is not talking about climate models at all. It is talking about the 'social cost of carbon' economic models that try to quantify the economic costs of climate change. It has nothing to do with the actual climate models. You are such an incompetent liar, you retarded POS.

 

[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.

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

And so we get the economics study again. Y'know, I've thought you were stupid right from the get go. Just not this stupid.

 

[westwall]

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.

Oregon is largely hydro and solar There's a few natural gas plants.

Oregon is 2nd in hydroelectric power generation after Washington State thanks to those nice big rivers that were dammed up long before you were born. Your second major source is natural gas. Solar doesn't even rate its own line in the list of suppliers, and you still get some from coal....


http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=OR

 

[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

That's a total crock of shit, you lying denier cult nutjob, and you know it. You tried to push this crap before and it was pointed out to you at that time that this paper you're citing is not talking about climate models at all. It is talking about the 'social cost of carbon' economic models that try to quantify the economic costs of climate change. It has nothing to do with the actual climate models. You are such an incompetent liar, you retarded POS.

Which use climate models to make the assumptions, you feeble minded silly person. You are simply one of the most powerfully stupid people on this planet.

True story!

 

[flacaltenn]

There are what we call customers in the marketplace that use and depend on science forecasts. THEY are certainly qualified to critique the intelligience coming out of say the "climate community"..

If the economic forecasters (who are modeling experts) says your shit is junk.. I, myself think that's a very powerful review..

Why Abe doesn't get that --- I dont know..

 

[RollingThunder]

There are what we call customers in the marketplace that use and depend on science forecasts. THEY are certainly qualified to critique the intelligience coming out of say the "climate community"..

If the economic forecasters (who are modeling experts) says your shit is junk.. I, myself think that's a very powerful review..

Why Abe doesn't get that --- I dont know..

Nobody said any such thing, you lying piece of retarded shit.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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.

Oreagon and washinghton are freaky in that they have huge hydro potential. The columbia and williamette river systems have a huge amount of water fall and water flowing. They also have relatively sparse populations concentrated in small areas.

Nuclear can't provide energy for political reasons. Not after fukishama and chernbolil. Even better systems like thorium reactors can get built. Oregon took out its nuclear reactor 20 years ago, and no way can it get another one build, after the whoops fiasco.

Oregon and washington have built to capacity in hydro.


The question remains, where is the energy going to come from?

 

[flacaltenn]

There are what we call customers in the marketplace that use and depend on science forecasts. THEY are certainly qualified to critique the intelligience coming out of say the "climate community"..

If the economic forecasters (who are modeling experts) says your shit is junk.. I, myself think that's a very powerful review..

Why Abe doesn't get that --- I dont know..

Nobody said any such thing, you lying piece of retarded shit.

Well of course they did -- retarded fairy.. Otherwise I wouldn't have made the comment.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/328790-ipcc-admits-97-of-their-models-are-flawed-2.html#post8290838

Abe was complaining that it was from an economic analysis source..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Oreagon and washinghton are freaky in that they have huge hydro potential. The columbia and williamette river systems have a huge amount of water fall and water flowing. They also have relatively sparse populations concentrated in small areas.

Nuclear can't provide energy for political reasons. Not after fukishama and chernbolil. Even better systems like thorium reactors can get built. Oregon took out its nuclear reactor 20 years ago, and no way can it get another one build, after the whoops fiasco.

Oregon and washington have built to capacity in hydro.


The question remains, where is the energy going to come from?

The resistance against massive hydro is as strong as it is against nuclear.. No more LARGE hydro is ever gonna built in this country.. ESPECIALLY now that we realize it's NOT a CO2 free source.

Capacity has to come from 3rd gen nuclear. But perhaps not as LARGE centralized generators. Plenty of folks building smaller "closed system" nuclear generators in modular form.. Also would be good to get sketchy wind and solar OFF GRID --- and use them to make hydrogen and biofuels for the transport sector...

 

[RollingThunder]

There are what we call customers in the marketplace that use and depend on science forecasts. THEY are certainly qualified to critique the intelligience coming out of say the "climate community"..

If the economic forecasters (who are modeling experts) says your shit is junk.. I, myself think that's a very powerful review..

Why Abe doesn't get that --- I dont know..

Nobody said any such thing, you lying piece of retarded shit.

Well of course they did -- retarded fairy.. Otherwise I wouldn't have made the comment.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/328790-ipcc-admits-97-of-their-models-are-flawed-2.html#post8290838

Abe was complaining that it was from an economic analysis source..

Oh, fecalhead, you are always making delusional "comments" that have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. That's your MO. The fact that you're doubling down on the stupidity and insanity of the walleyedretard's idiotic claims about the paper he cited is just another symptom of your desperate insanity around climate science. Abe was completely correct about the fact that that paper was from an economic analysis source.

Even your link (http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/328790-ipcc-admits-97-of-their-models-are-flawed-2.html#post8290838) in this last post of yours is retarded. It just goes to Abe's post #25 on this thread, which is also pointing out the stupidity of walleyed's fraudulent claims.

What is especially funny about your insistence that your delusions about that paper are correct is that it's not at all difficult to check out and verify, like perhaps some of the more arcane and technical parts of climate science might be.....anybody can just read it for themselves and see directly just how loony you are.

The paper is looking at the economic Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) that are being used by economists and social policy planners to try to assess the probable economic costs to society ('social cost of carbon' or SCC) of global warming and climate change under a number of different possible government CO2 emission abatement policies, like levying a tax on carbon emissions. It finds the current IAM models to be inadequate for a number of reasons, but partly because they don't properly consider the costs to society of the strong possibility of "catastrophic climate outcomes". The paper has nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy and usefulness of the, entirely different, Global Climate Models (GCMs) that are being developed and used by the world's climate scientists. It does not assess the validity of those models at all, although it uses their predictions of the possible physical consequences of AGW/CC as a working basis for the economic predictions. You and walleyed just make yourselves look insanely delusional by claiming otherwise.

Let's let everybody take a look at the actual paper itself instead of implying a fraudulent title for it and pretending it means something it very obviously doesn't mean. You and walleyed are obviously way too clueless about science to even comprehend that the abstract you quote isn't saying what your puppet masters told you it was saying. You both are such sad-assed victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect....the same effect that prevents you from recognizing the fact that you are victims of that effect. Kind of a vicious circle of stupidity.

CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY: WHAT DO THE MODELS TELL US?
Robert S. Pindyck
Working Paper 19244 Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?
NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
July 2013
(excerpts)

Abstract

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. the 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.

There is almost no disagreement among economists that the full cost to society of burning a ton of carbon is greater than its private cost. Burning carbon has an external cost because it produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that accumulate in the atmosphere, and will eventually result in unwanted climate change — higher global temperatures, greater climate variability, and possibly increases in sea levels. This external cost is referred to as the social cost of carbon (SCC). It is the basis for taxing or otherwise limiting carbon emissions, and is the focus of policy-oriented research on climate change. So how large is the SCC? Here there is plenty of disagreement. Some argue that climate change will be moderate, will occur in the distant future, and will have only a small impact on the economies of most countries. This would imply that the SCC is small, perhaps only around $10 per ton of CO2. Others argue that without an immediate and stringent GHG abatement policy, there is a reasonable chance of substantial temperature increases that might have a catastrophic economic impact. If so, it would suggest that the SCC is large, perhaps as high as $200 per ton of CO2.

 

[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.​

Bump for those who believe in the infallibility of the models.

 

[flacaltenn]

I second your bump.. Classic crow tastes like chicken....

 

[Crick]

Bump for those who believe in the infallibility of the models.

Then you're talking to a vacuum. No one here has ever even suggested that models are infallible.

Likewise, no one has ever suggested that most climate models failed to foresee or reproduce the surface warming hiatus. However, it is still a fact that no model (ZERO PERCENT) that does not assume AGW has ever been able to reproduce the observed warming of the previous 150 years.

 

[skookerasbil]

That's how mental these AGW fascists are......these entities even admit on their own that they have flawed models and still.......still the k00ks call BS!!!


I love this forum!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh....and blind faith is ghey and embraced by.......cults!!!

On Climate Change, Who Are the Real "Deniers"? | RealClearPolitics

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bump for those who believe in the infallibility of the models.

Then you're talking to a vacuum. No one here has ever even suggested that models are infallible.

Likewise, no one has ever suggested that most climate models failed to foresee or reproduce the surface warming hiatus. However, it is still a fact that no model (ZERO PERCENT) that does not assume AGW has ever been able to reproduce the observed warming of the previous 150 years.