Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Mighty AC]

Have you read the article? You suggested that you did...but the words 'likely' and 'probably' in your comment suggest that you have only read the abstract.

[TimG]

Have you read the article? You suggested that you did...but the words 'likely' and 'probably' in your comment suggest that you have only read the abstract.

Not that particular one. I do read papers that are not behind pay walls (hence my reference to the "keep the faith" fluff that gets added to papers which have negative implications). Edited October 20, 2012 by TimG

[Pliny]

???

You don't understand that skepticism doesn't foster critical thinking? It encourages belief and faith in science not critical thinking.

So this "science" entity sure is bullying you, Pliny?

Yeah, I think I will go and hang myself. Then they'll be sorry. Just kidding! No need to send the social scientists around.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Double post

Edited October 20, 2012 by Pliny

[Mighty AC]

Not that particular one. I do read papers that are not behind pay walls (hence my reference to the "keep the faith" fluff that gets added to papers which have negative implications).

Tim, as it turns out you can create a guest membership with the AGU and then access the full article. True to form, it appears the quotes used on Roger Pielke's blog are designed to misrepresent what the study actually finds.

In short the paper points out that weather prediction models (NWT) are higer res than global atmospheric climate models. It states that it would be desirable to use NWT resolution for global climate models but the required computing power is an obstacle.

In the end they state the obvious. Lower resolution data will not be as realistic as higher res data. Since the global models aren't "high res" they will have to accept some error when extrapolating down to the regional level. They suggest that if that NWT level resolution was used in global climate models the results would be more accurate and therefor more useful at the regional level.

[Sleipnir]

The quote I included is quite long and seems to have the necessary context.

'Seems to'? In other words...you haven't read what you call 'evidence'.

[TimG]

In the end they state the obvious. Lower resolution data will not be as realistic as higher res data. Since the global models aren't "high res" they will have to accept some error when extrapolating down to the regional level. They suggest that if that NWT level resolution was used in global climate models the results would be more accurate and therefor more useful at the regional level.

So? I said there would be words in paper designed "keep the faith" that don't negate the point made in the quote. The fact remains that the widely used practice of initializing high res regional models with low res global models produces results that are not realistic.

[bleeding heart]

You don't understand that skepticism doesn't foster critical thinking? It encourages belief and faith in science not critical thinking.

No, I don't understand. It sounds counterintuitive.

I am more than willing to pay attention if you could expand on this.

[betsy]

I don't know if this has already been brought up. If it is, please excuse me. I'm referring to the new expose' about the IPCC.....on this topic in Philosophy.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21713

[Sleipnir]

LOL - You are either completely clueless or a troll - probably both.

Guess you can't justify not looking into appropriate sources without contradicting your dogmatic views :]

[Mighty AC]

So? I said there would be words in paper designed "keep the faith" that don't negate the point made in the quote. The fact remains that the widely used practice of initializing high res regional models with low res global models produces results that are not realistic.

You didn't read the paper...you just borrowed quotes from a denier's blog. It's not the damning study you hoped, it simply states the obvious. There will be less error when higher resolutions are used. When the required computing power is available to the IPCC researchers, I'm sure it will be used.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't know if this has already been brought up. If it is, please excuse me. I'm referring to the new expose' about the IPCC.....on this topic in Philosophy.

http://www.mapleleaf...showtopic=21713

Betsy.....I purchased that book by Donna Laframboise....there's a lot of other information in it relating to the credibility of the IPCC and related experts. It's full of facts. It's a quick read.....I thought it was so objective that I sent it to our moderator Michael......but I haven't heard his opinion on it. It was well worth reading - after which one cannot help but believe that there is at best, a very obvious bias at work at the IPCC.

[Mighty AC]

Donna Laframboise must have an extensive scientific background and really understand how research is carried out right? Wait what? She doesn't. Her degree is in women's studies?!

Donna, a non-climate scientist, a non-scientist in general seems to think that research is only done by those with PhDs. That's not how it works in any field though. The top dogs design and/or oversee/consult on the studies and analyze the results, but the grunt work is carried out by grad students. PhD are earned by doing research and getting published. This is how the top research outfits operate everywhere and in every field. What a joke.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Mighty AC

[jbg]

Guess you can't justify not looking into appropriate sources without contradicting your dogmatic views :]

After joining and making a grand total of 18 posts you already know he's dogmatic?

[Sleipnir]

After joining and making a grand total of 18 posts you already know he's dogmatic?

It's a classic behaviour among climate-change denialist that TimG displayed.

[TimG]

You didn't read the paper...you just borrowed quotes from a denier's blog. It's not the damning study you hoped, it simply states the obvious. There will be less error when higher resolutions are used. When the required computing power is available to the IPCC researchers, I'm sure it will be used.

Then provide quotes that clearly show that this excerpt is misleading:

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.

The paper appears to be saying the the models *currently* in use are *unrealistic*. This language is not saying there is some "error" - it is saying the current models do not represent *reality*. This is a huge problem because we are being told that the models do represent reality when they clearly do not.

BTW - scientists rarely come out and say something is 'full of crap' in a paper because it is not professional. They will generally make their point in a round a bout manner. So finding a few phrases that appear to soften the damming words used above does not negate the point made by those words.

Edited October 21, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

This is a huge problem because we are being told that the models do represent reality when they clearly do not.

Well you're being told that the models don't represent reality, but it does. Of course, you'll get variations among different models, but the general pattern shown in different models by different authors are eerily similar.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Sleipnir

[cybercoma]

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.

This is a joke, right?

[TimG]

This is a joke, right?

Why would it be? Are you claiming there is something wrong with the well established procedures for validating computer models?

[wyly]

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.

BULLSHITTE!you can fool the new guy with a lie but I’m still here ....we have science illiterates in this very thread and throughout the forum membership that deny CO2 is even a GHG...

and then we have you claiming a short term financial depression caused by green energy policy is a far worse case scenario than a civilization ending extinction event ....

[Guest]

BULLSHITTE!you can fool the new guy with a lie but I’m still here ....we have science illiterates in this very thread and throughout the forum membership that deny CO2 is even a GHG...

and then we have you claiming a short term financial depression caused by green energy policy is a far worse case scenario than a civilization ending extinction event ....

I think only a science illiterate would claim that green energy policy will prevent a civilization ending extinction event.

[cybercoma]

Why would it be? Are you claiming there is something wrong with the well established procedures for validating computer models?

Why would it be a joke? I don't honestly believe you're too stupid to understand why your idea is ridiculous.

[wyly]

I think only a science illiterate would claim that green energy policy will prevent a civilization ending extinction event.

and you have what to offer besides nothing?...I have 97% of climatologists on my side of the debate, are implying your vast science knowledge is superior to theirs?... Edited October 21, 2012 by wyly

[Guest]

and you have what to offer besides nothing?...I have 97% of climatologists on my side of the debate, are implying your vast science knowledge is superior to theirs?...

You're missing my point. Firstly, why should I have something to offer? My nothing equals your green energy policy in terms of effect combating climate change, unless you insist on getting down to hours and days when predicting what temperature the Earth will reach and when.

Do 97% of climatologists actually believe we can affect the climate with a few windmills and a Prius or two? If they do, then it certainly would appear that my scientific knowledge is greater than theirs.

Now, if those climatologists believe that the climate can be affected by their fantasy of a green energy policy, including total co-operation from China, Brazil, India, the entire first world, etc, then I would certainly consider a second look. Even then, I doubt we could anything to seriously affect the climate, all the while keeping everyone fed and warm.

How do you feel about forced sterilization of every child born on the planet, with it being reversed for those who qualify to have a child when they reach a certain age? With the qualifications being extremely stringent, such that maybe only 1 or 2% of applicants actually get to have children. Because that might work. Not much else will.

Edited October 21, 2012 by bcsapper

[TimG]

Why would it be a joke? I don't honestly believe you're too stupid to understand why your idea is ridiculous.

Oh please demonstrate how clueless you are by explaining why the basic steps that any competent scientist or engineer would follow when evaluating a computer model are "ridiculous" when it comes to climate models. I am sure your response will demonstrate why climate models are useless. Perhaps it is because it takes 20 years to gather enough data to properly evaluate a climate model and you know that those standards cannot be met. If so that is my point: climate models predictions cannot be evaluated in a reasonable timeframe therefore such predictions are no better than astrology.