Global Warming Models

[waldo]

Haven't checked in for a few days. I can see that my old friends Wyly and Waldo have been busy. For the record, although I am Simple - I do recognize that weather modelling is different from Climate modelling.

then change your thread title and OP content to reflect the weather model emphasis you linked to/quoted from.

[Keepitsimple]

then change your thread title and OP content to reflect the weather model emphasis you linked to/quoted from.

Waldo - I took you off ignore. My thread, like the article was somewhat tongue in cheek. As with weather models, Climate Models have their limitations - much more so due to the complexities of decades long forecasting on a planetary scale. To think otherwise is......not helpful.

[waldo]

then change your thread title and OP content to reflect the weather model emphasis you linked to/quoted from.

My thread, like the article was somewhat tongue in cheek. As with weather models, Climate Models have their limitations - much more so due to the complexities of decades long forecasting on a planetary scale. To think otherwise is......not helpful.

no - as you've done quite regularly, you, once again, conflated weather and climate... and clearly, I wasn't the only one to point this out to in this thread. You did not do this 'tongue in cheek' - it's what you know; rather, it's what you don't know. If you have (another) burning desire to showcase what you don't know about climate models... you shouldn't have improperly conflated weather/climate, weather models/climate models. Now go change your thread title, hey?

[Keepitsimple]

no - as you've done quite regularly, you, once again, conflated weather and climate... and clearly, I wasn't the only one to point this out to in this thread. You did not do this 'tongue in cheek' - it's what you know; rather, it's what you don't know. If you have (another) burning desire to showcase what you don't know about climate models... you shouldn't have improperly conflated weather/climate, weather models/climate models. Now go change your thread title, hey?

As I said....your attitude is not helpful. As I've repeated - this thread is meant to highlight that like weather models, climate models have significant limitations - even more so than weather models. Your unsavoury attacks indicate that you do not agree at all. In effect, your position seems to be that the models do not have any significant limitations. Seems that a severe case of denial is afoot.

The set of most recent climate simulations, referred to as CMIP3 models and utilized heavily in Working Group 1 and 2 reports of the Fourth IPCC Assessment (2007), have received unprecedented scrutiny by hundreds of investigators in various areas of expertise. Although a number of systematic biases are present across the set of models, more generally the simulation strengths and weaknesses, when compared against the current climate, vary substantially from model to model. From many perspectives, an average over the set of models clearly provides climate simulation superior to any individual model, thus justifying the multimodel approach in many recent attribution and climate projection studies.

Climate modeling has been steadily improving over the past several decades, but the pace has been uneven because several important aspects of the climate system present especially severe challenges to the goal of simulation.

Link: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Strengths_and_limitations_of_climate_models?topic=54246

Edited August 26, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

As I said....your attitude is not helpful. As I've repeated - this thread is meant to highlight that like weather models, climate models have significant limitations - even more so than weather models. Your unsavoury attacks indicate that you do not agree at all. In effect, your position seems to be that the models do not have any significant limitations. Seems that a severe case of denial is afoot.

the only denial afoot is yours - prominently on display once again. Your sensitivities not withstanding, you received no, as you say, "unsavoury attack"... unless you consider pointing out your conflation of weather and climate... an "unsavoury attack"!

I've had much to say about climate models over the past through assorted MLW threads, inclusive of uncertainties. I've also emphasized what demonstrated reliability climate models do hold. You're not offering anything new to what's been discussed many times over in the past. If you're particularly emboldened by some denier blog reference you've come upon, why not start directly with that? Aside from refusing to change your OP thread title and acknowledge your weather/climate conflation, you've not prefaced your desired climate model discussion shift, particularly in terms of how you interpret climate models being correctly/incorrectly used, their relationship (if any) to past climate observations, their relationship (if any) to current climate observations, their relationship to future climate observations, etc.; i.e. just what is it you want to speak to about climate models? It's fine for you to drop a link and quote from it... but you've offered no context and no direct interpretation you intend focus on. Equally, if you insist on starting up yet another climate model discussion, you could start with fully qualifying your concerns/reservations over capabilities, uncertainties (acknowledged or otherwise), hindcast reliability, success as predicated upon predictions/projections-to-observations, etc.

but first change your thread title/OP, hey?

[Pliny]

Speaking of global warming models....it seems they are a construct of a wager that someone made, perhaps at the UN, regarding his ability to institute the taxation of air. The losers of the wager applaud the ingenuity of the winner, who is currently sunning himself on the beaches of Antarctica.....or at least he would have you believe that.