Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Sleipnir]

Lol people are still arguing in 2012 whether climate change is occurring or not? Like debating whether gravity exists or not.

[TimG]

Lol people are still arguing in 2012 whether climate change is occurring or not? Like debating whether gravity exists or not.

People who cannot bothered to figure what people are actually saying should keep their strawman opinions to themselves.

[Moonbox]

No doubt; but as I recall from when I used to post here regularly, I always had a hard time figuring out what your conclusions are.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. I don't really have any firm convictions on the issue, other than that both sides have turned this into an dogmatic debate similar to Democrats v Republicans or Communism v Capitalism and that nobody knows for sure what's going on.

And I have taken the fact that the climate models underestimate changes like melting Arctic sea ice and the time scales for when they were predicted to occur, as a sign that any leeway has to occur on the side that actual changes are likely worse than climate model predictions.

What's difficult to understand for someone like myself is what the goal posts are. Are we concerned with world temperatures, or just the ice? Is it just Arctic ice that matters? If worldwide temperatures didn't really go up, is possible that the Arctic specifically has been going through a warming period? How does the melting ice affect ocean temperatures and sea levels and what interaction does that have with ocean currents and air temperature? Obviously I have no idea. I don't, however, believe that climate scientist even really know themselves. My skepticism on the subject revolves more around the fact that there haven't really been any accurate predictions yet, whether it be trends or more short-term, and a cherry-picking of deviation from the models. It's sort of like, "Aha! The ice caps are melting even faster than we said! This proves it! No...the fact that temperatures didn't rise overall as predicted, or that hurricanes have been decreasing in number/intensity as opposed to the predictions...none of that matters."

The windmills and solar panels are fine in my view, as long as it is taken into account that we are already consuming too much energy, and replacing the consumption with windmills and solar panel sources won't do much to solve the problem...because building windmills in particular, has a significant carbon footprint, and with the increased prices acting as a leading indicator of non-renewable resource scarcities, it's not even going to be possible to build enough high-tech windmills requiring some of the most exotic rare earths to match conventional power generation.

The windmills and solar panels don't provide near enough power for their cost or materials to be worth it yet. They're also weather dependent. Windmills operate at 30% capacity usually, because there's often not a lot of wind. There was an article I remember reading showing that if people wanted to power New York City with just wind turbines, they'd have to devote an area 3x the size of Manhatten Island to just building wind turbines. That's not feasible on its own, nevermind the cost. Even if NYC was to reduce its power consumption by 50% (not happening) the space require is STILL not feasible, whether on land or on water. Solar is an even bigger mess.

[Mighty AC]

Actually, a good doctor would respect the fact that you have a vested interest in your medical care...

Actually, if I had no pain or other symptom of broken bone and the doctor has no evidence that anyone had ever had a broken bone and the doctor was telling me I needed to amputate my leg then I would have to be an idiot if I did not question what the doctor was saying....

You avoided the point twice here. The point is an expert in a field has more information that you and is better qualified to evaluate it. In this case 93% of the experts agree that the evidence supports anthropogenic climate change. That is huge. Especially since science is extremely modest; constantly attempting to reproduce result sets and disprove prevailing theories. Those who dispute the conclusions are against a massive consensus of the experts in this field.

Actually many people work with computer models all of the time and many people are qualified to judge the effectiveness of the computer models and find them wanting. It is no coincidence that the people who stand to benefit the most from a public belief in these models are the most insistent that they are infallible.

The experts don't claim the models are infallible. The experts have shown the models predict future trends that have gone on to match actual results. Those same models also jive with past data sets. The experts have determined the tools are currently very good and getting better all the time.

You are sounding like a conspiracy theorist here...but to deny the near unanimous conclusion of the world's experts in this field, I guess you have to be.

[TimG]

In this case 93% of the experts agree that the evidence supports anthropogenic climate change.

So what? You are creating a strawman. Show me were I have claimed that anthropogenic climate change does not exist or is not occurring? What I am saying is climate models are not useful predictors of the magnitude and consequences of future warming. There is no where close to 93% agreement on that latter assertion.

What you are doing is using the alarmist "bait and switch" tactic. i.e. instead of addressing the arguments made directly you make a claim that is well supported by the science and declare that all claims are equally well supported. If you want to have a discussion then focus on the arguments being made. Not the arguments you wish I would use.

The experts have shown the models predict future trends that have gone on to match actual results. Those same models also jive with past data sets.

Actually - they have not. What they have done is fiddle with smoke and mirrors designed to hide how useless models are. If the models were useful there are well established procedures for evaluating them:

1) Choose a single model.

2) Run that model at least 10 times to predict the future trends in temperature and precipitation.

3) Wait 20 years without changing the model (except for adjusting for actual emissions).

4) Compare results to actual.

The trouble is they don't do this. They combine many different models together and claim that the average of models means something even though some models get temperature right but fail miserably at precipitation or others get precipitation but not temperature. Others are bad at everything but get thrown into the average because they are available.

Bottom line: I will respect the expert opinion when the experts follow the well established processes for evaluating computer models. As long as they continue to obscure the picture by inventing ad hoc validation schemes I will assume they are doing this because the well established processes for evaluating computer models do not give them the answers they want.

Edited October 19, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

Based on your perception of climate models I can see why you would would oppose a switch to clean energy; but, your belief about the effectiveness of climate models is wrong. The models can reproduce land, air and sea temperatures back to 1900 and have made future trend predictions that have been observed to be true. There has been a lot of misinformation spread about the effectiveness of the tools.

A broken clock is right twice a day. I'm not saying the models are useless. I'm saying the models aren't reliably and consistently making the correct predictions. The excuse is usually that we're only interested in trends, but you start to wonder how much time is needed to establish them. The models are fallible, plain and simple, and people need to stop believing they end the debate on how quickly the climate is changing.

[Mighty AC]

Moonbox, I'm glad that you don't deny that our actions are changing the climate...you just deny the rate at which it's changing. That's something at least. Unfortunately, many of the measurable effects of climate change are on the upper limits of the predictions.

[TimG]

Unfortunately, many of the measurable effects of climate change are on the upper limits of the predictions.

Simply not true. Many of the measurable effects are at or below the lower limits of the predictions (Ocean Heat Content, Tropospheric Temperatures). Edited October 19, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

TimG, he said many of the measurements are. He didn't say all of them. That's the problem here though. Some of the model predictions are supported by recent climate effects, but then some of them aren't, and in some cases, the opposite has been happening. It's such a mixed basket that I don't know people claim certainty on these matters.

The climate scientists themselves are getting surprised all the time. The Arctic ice is shrinking, but the Antarctic is growing!? Whaaat? That's also explained as a global warming phenomenon. Apparently Arctic ice grows or shrinks depending on temperature more than anything, while Antarctic ice depends more on wind patterns. I can accept this premise, because I don't know any better, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable about it if the climate scientists had predicted it in the first place rather than come up with an explanation after the fact. At the very best, it shows that these guys and their models don't understand the world as well as people proclaim.

Based on your perception of climate models I can see why you would would oppose a switch to clean energy;

Even if I took the climate models and their conclusions faithfully as the Gospel, I would still see the current clean energy strategies for the disasters they are. They're prohibitively expensive both in materials, labour and land usage. To meet current energy needs we'd have to build so many wind turbines that you wouldn't be able to turn around in any direction without seeing one. It's THAT bad, and solar is worse, especially in Canada.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Moonbox

[TimG]

TimG, he said many of the measurements are. He didn't say all of them. That's the problem here though. Some of the model predictions are supported by recent climate effects, but then some of them aren't, and in some cases, the opposite has been happening. It's such a mixed basket that I don't know people claim certainty on these matters.

I believe arctic ice extent is *only* climate metric that is at or above the predicted levels. Most others are at or below. I suspect Mighty AC is basing his views on press releases from environmental NGOs.

At the very best, it shows that these guys and their models don't understand the world as well as people proclaim.

Well I have looked at this enough to come to the conclusion that:

#1 - any plausible outcome can be connected to "AGW" after the fact so after the fact analyses are useless;

#2 - climate scientists know that temperatures should go up - outside of the that they know nothing.

Edited October 19, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

People who cannot bothered to figure what people are actually saying should keep their strawman opinions to themselves.

Do you even know what a strawman opinion is? Or are you just saying that to sound smart?

[TimG]

Do you even know what a strawman opinion is?

Sure I do. Do you? If you had read the back and forth in this thread you would have seen that no one is disputing whether climate change is occurring. The debate is about whether the predictions of the future have any merit.

[Sleipnir]

The debate is about whether the predictions of the future have any merit.

It sure does, many climate change models are predicting similar events throughout the world based on quantitative data that have been gathered around the world.

[TimG]

It sure does, many climate change models are predicting similar events throughout the world based on quantitative data that have been gathered around the world.

I am not interested in press releases from Greenpeace which appear to be the source of your information. I am interested in what the models actually claim and what their actual limitations are. As far as I can tell there is no compelling evidence that models have reliably predicted future outcomes (other than saying temperatures would go up - a prediction with a 50/50 chance of being right). Edited October 19, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

I am not interested in press releases from Greenpeace which appear to be the source of your information.

Interesting enough I haven't given any info yet, already you are jumping the gun This tells me that you're not open to new information that may contradict your dogmatic views.

I am interested in what the models actually claim and what their actual limitations are. As far as I can tell there is no compelling evidence that models have reliably predicted future outcomes (other than saying temperatures would go up - a prediction with a 50/50 chance of being right).

Clearly you have not been reading scientific journals or taken any courses related to climate change.

[TimG]

Clearly you have not been reading scientific journals or taken any courses related to climate change.

I have been reading scientific papers and that I why I think the reliability of the models is grossly overstated. Here a link to a few papers from the peer reviewed literature that support my claims:

http://pielkeclimate...climate-models/

We have shown that a low resolution atmospheric model, with horizontal resolution typical of CMIP5 models, is not capable of simulating the statistically significant regimes seen in reanalysis,yet a higher resolution configuration of the same model simulates regimes realistically. This result suggests that current projections of regional climate change may be questionable. This finding is also highly relevant to regional climate modelling studies where lower resolution global atmospheric models are often used as the driving model for high resolution regional models. If these lower resolution driving models do not have enough resolution to realistically simulate regimes, then then boundary conditions provided to the regional climate model could be systematically erroneous. It is therefore likely that the embedded regional model may represent an unrealistic realization of regional climate and variability.

Edited October 20, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

I have been reading scientific papers and that I why I think the reliability of the models is grossly overstated. Here a link to a few papers from the peer reviewed literature that support my claims:

http://pielkeclimate...climate-models/

I said a scientific journal, it's not even an appropriate 'peer-review'

Edited October 20, 2012 by Sleipnir

[TimG]

I said a scientific journal, it's not even an appropriate 'peer-review'

One thing I have noticed about alarmists is giving them links is a waste of time since they do not read the links. If you had actually read the link you would have seen a blog that discussed peer reviewed papers on the reliability of models. The quote I provided was from such a paper.

[Sleipnir]

One thing I have noticed about alarmists is giving them links is a waste of time since they do not read the links.

I do not read inappropriate 'peer review' or inappropriate 'scientific journals'.

If you had actually read the link you would have seen a blog that discussed peer reviewed papers on the reliability of models.

A blog is not consider an appropriate source of scientific information. It is clear to me that you have absolutely no understanding in finding scientific information.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Sleipnir

[TimG]

A blog is not consider an appropriate source of scientific information. It is clear to me that you have absolutely no understanding in finding scientific information.

And clearly you have no understanding of how the Internet works. You see there are these things called "blogs" and on these "blogs" they have these things called "links" and these "links" are cool because they can go to any other web page such as a scientific journal. So a "blog" that has "links" to many scientific journals is actually an extremely useful reference.

Of course that would require that you read the blog but you don't do that since you are not interested in learning about the topic - you simply want to regurgitate whatever propaganda conforms to your ideology even though you do not understand it.

Edited October 20, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

And clearly you have no understanding of how the Internet works.

I found this place didn't I?

You see there are these things called "blogs" and on these "blogs" they have these things called "links" and these "links" are cool because they can go to any other web page

I can wiki the word 'blog' ya know.

Of course that would require that you read the blog but you don't do that since you are not interested in learning about the topic - you simply want to regurgitate whatever propaganda conforms to your ideology even though you do not understand it.

lol do you even read what you wrote? Science is blind when it comes to ideologies.

[TimG]

lol do you even read what you wrote? Science is blind when it comes to ideologies.

LOL - You are either completely clueless or a troll - probably both. Edited October 20, 2012 by TimG

[Guest]

Science might be blind when it comes to ideologies, but scientists most definitely are not. And as they report on the science, the blindness can be cured pretty quickly.

[Mighty AC]

TIm do you have a working link to the actual article by Dawson, Palmer and Corti? The blog you linked is by Roger Pielke who, along with his son, are well known for misrepresenting the words and views of others. Pielke's link to the article requires an AGU membership account. Based on Pielke's less than stellar reputation I'd rather read the actual article than his own potentially cherry picked quotes.

[TimG]

TIm do you have a working link to the actual article by Dawson, Palmer and Corti?

http://www.agu.org/p...2GL053284.shtml

Cherry picking cuts both ways. The quote I included is quite long and seems to have the necessary context. If you read the entire paper you will likely find various meaningless fluff designed to "keep the faith" in the models but such fluff probably does not address the real criticisms raised by the paper.

Edited October 20, 2012 by TimG