Global Warming

[DavidSSS]

First Lindzen, now Christy, and quoting conservative news sites.

The graph I provided above shows that the models are not perfect but they are pretty accurate in their predictions of what has been observed since the model runs.

In response I get no evidence and a link to some dodgy right wing propaganda site.

It is not common sense to damage the planet for the sake of a few extra dollars. It makes no economic sense to continue to rely on fossil fuels that are becoming a less attractive investment by the day, meanwhile ignoring the massive opportunities Australia has to export energy sourced from clean renewable sources. FFS the fuel for solar panels is free, why wouldn't you want to get energy this way?

You really should start reading some science rather than relying on dodgy right wing propaganda.

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

The graph I provided above shows that the models are not perfect but they are pretty accurate in their predictions of what has been observed since the model runs.

They are past-posting! Show me some datestamped forecasts that were accurate before the race!

 

[DavidSSS]

They are past-posting! Show me some datestamped forecasts that were accurate before the race!

Look at the graph, predictions and observations from 2000.

Much more accurate than Lindzen's forecasts and based on science not right wing propaganda.

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Look at the graph, predictions and observations from 2000.

Hansen's 1988 model has been dissected previously. Only one of his three scenarios was close to the mark, and that was using estimates for variables that were grossly inaccurate. If it was any good they'd be using it today.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

"Our conclusion is that climate models can be considered reliable for some qualitative gross features and some long-term tendencies of the climate system as well as for quantitative aspects of some smaller-scale mechanisms. The adequacy of climate models for other purposes is less convincing. Among the latter are probability estimates, in particular, those concerning rare events. On the whole, climate models suffer from important deficits and are difficult to verify."

Climate Models: How to Assess Their Reliability

 

[Coburgtiger]

Isn't that the standard for sending people to jail, beyond reasonable doubt?

Yes (in some cases) but if we used it as the standard to accept evidence in order to construct scientific models and theories, we'd still be sitting in the mud, hitting rocks with sticks, and wishing someone could show beyond a reasonable doubt that its possible to turn them into wheels.

 

[tigertim]

Looking at the reader comments under the HS article The Bureau of Meteorology’s prediction for Autumn 2020 (paywalled).

48 comments and every one of them scathing of the BoM.

When will the BOM become the BOC, Bureau of Climatology?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

When will the BOM become the BOC, Bureau of Climatology?

It's well on the way.

No issue with reporting of heat records etc, but if all you ever hear is heat, heat, heat, you're going to get the impression that we're experiencing runaway warming.

Melbourne average temperature

We're tracking for 24.3-24.4 degrees this month, which is a significant deviation from the February norm.

(It's interesting that this BoM webpage shows all records since 1855 while in official releases regarding temperature records, they have discounted all data prior to 1910.)

 

[AngryAnt]

Batten down the hatches and adjust your tin foil hats.

 

[DavidSSS]

It seems those socialists at JP Morgan are hitting the panic button over climate change.

In a recently released report they state:

We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened

You can see an article about it here: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51581098

Some on the right are sensible about this, others go around questioning thermometer readings . . .

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

It seems those socialists at JP Morgan are hitting the panic button over climate change.

In a recently released report they state:


You can see an article about it here: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51581098

Some on the right are sensible about this, others go around questioning thermometer readings . . .

Motherhood statement. The article even mentions that they're big investors in fossil fuels. Let me know when they stop lending to people building beachfront mansions.

 

[DavidSSS]

"Our conclusion is that climate models can be considered reliable for some qualitative gross features and some long-term tendencies of the climate system as well as for quantitative aspects of some smaller-scale mechanisms. The adequacy of climate models for other purposes is less convincing. Among the latter are probability estimates, in particular, those concerning rare events. On the whole, climate models suffer from important deficits and are difficult to verify."

Climate Models: How to Assess Their Reliability

Interesting article, now let's look at more than just the abstract and see what is being said.

The global mean surface temperature seemed to exhibit a recess in the time period between approximately 1998 and 2012. Even the IPCC recognised a puzzling ‘hiatus’ in otherwise unabated global warming (Hausfather et al. 2017, 20). Some climate scientists attributed the mysterious break fully or mostly to the internal variability of the climate system (Medhaug et al. 2017; Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cahill 2017), whereas critics considered the apparent drop as a major objection to climate models that served to undermine their reliability (Koonin 2014). However, it was suggested that the appearance of a decrease in temperature was spurious and chiefly due to changes in the measurement routines of sea surface temperature. Ocean temperatures are highly influential on the overall temperature of the globe. Sea temperatures had traditionally been measured at the water intake of ship engines, but methods shifted to employing buoys, Argo floats and satellites in the past quarter century. Accordingly, the portion of ship-based measurements decreased considerably over this period. The point is that in ship-based measurements the temperature is actually taken in the warm engine room, which drives the temperature up by approximately 0.1 K. The upshot is that sea surface temperature between ca. 1940 and 1990 had come out slightly too high, and this mistake has been slowly corrected by the gradual replacement of ship-based procedures with other instruments. This correction created the appearance of a hiatus, which had never existed in fact (Hausfather et al. 2017).5

Both examples converge in showing that climate models have proven able to overrule recalcitrant data. Climate models had entailed all the time that global temperature should have risen unabatedly. The alleged hiatus had been serious counterevidence that was dissolved through analysis of the data. The models proved right. In Lakatos’ methodology, such dissolution of anomalies by reanalysing the data and improving the observation processes counts as striking success of a research programme (Lakatos 1970, 42–45, 53–55). Climate models managed to set aside flawed observations in this way and thereby garnered striking support.

Hmm, so, no hiatus after all.

And, the last line of the conclusion:

In sum, climate models that stood tests of the sorts outlined have acquired some advanced degree of reliability.

Nice of you to point to this article which concludes that climate models have acquired some advanced degree of reliability.

See how much better it is when we look at actual scientific papers?

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Nice of you to point to this article which concludes that climate models have acquired some advanced degree of reliability.

They're improving, I'll concede that. They need to.

PS Hausfather is a rabid warmist. I don't look at anything he's associated with as it is invariably biased.

And there's clearly a hiatus after 1998 in this chart you linked to on the previous page.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Yes (in some cases) but if we used it as the standard to accept evidence in order to construct scientific models and theories, we'd still be sitting in the mud, hitting rocks with sticks, and wishing someone could show beyond a reasonable doubt that its possible to turn them into wheels.

And if we were. I'd happily bet you any amount that the climate would still be changing. With or without our help.

 

[Coburgtiger]

And if we were. I'd happily bet you any amount that the climate would still be changing. With or without our help.

Well yes. Nothing is static. Do you have a point?

 

[AngryAnt]

Interesting article, now let's look at more than just the abstract and see what is being said.



Hmm, so, no hiatus after all.

And, the last line of the conclusion:

ls

Nice of you to point to this article which concludes that climate models have acquired some advanced degree of reliability.

See how much better it is when we look at actual scientific papers?

DS

Recurring pattern, Lee googles something he likes but usually fails to read the whole article.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Recurring pattern, Lee googles something he likes but usually fails to read the whole article.

Yeah I Googled very quickly. Most of this stuff has been gone over before. It gets tiring to repeat-post.

 

[DavidSSS]

Yeah I Googled very quickly. Most of this stuff has been gone over before. It gets tiring to repeat-post.

I particularly liked the way that the article you chose not only showed that the models are reliable, but also that the hiatus was no hiatus at all.

This is not surprising as the hiatus was always based on cherry picking 1998 as the base year.

Now, I could just use 1997 as a base year, but I choose not to do things like that, I choose to look at the 5 year rolling average, like this:

This is more up to date, but a little small:

No hiatus unless you cherry pick the base year.

One is forced to repeat this stuff because of the repeated claims based on distorted claims.

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I particularly liked the way that the article you chose not only showed that the models are reliable, but also that the hiatus was no hiatus at all.

They are not reliable. They are simply incapable of predicting climate change.

This is not surprising as the hiatus was always based on cherry picking 1998 as the base year.

Not this *smile* again.

This is more up to date, but a little small:

No hiatus

I've already posted that chart as an example of data fudging.

Here's your chart again...

...which depicts unfudged data and looks nothing like the first chart for the period 1998-2013.

 

[DavidSSS]

Thanks for posting a larger version, seems to be going up smoothly around 1998 there, where is the hiatus?

How is having a 5 year rolling average a fudge, c'mon give us an explanation.

As usual, reality doesn't fit with your beliefs so reality must be wrong.

DS