# Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures.

#### Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Well, first you might need to prove yourself correct.

Lets see some references that state your argument.

Yeah... Ive got actual sciency stuff to do today - I cant be bothered debunking your fantasies.

The pathetic thing is, I know you are serious. that you don't understand what I have been saying for a long time now.

Just because your bloggers or the IPCC et. al. never speak of atmospheric transparency, doesn't mean it isn't real.

#### Absentglare

DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

But in addition to model not being complex enough to include all the variables, there is also the relative contribution
of each of the variables, and weather they amplify or attenuate the signal from the sun.
Clouds are clearly the largest factor, adding up to 3 C of uncertainty to an input of 1.2 C.

Amplify the signal from the sun ?? Amplify is the wrong word here, unless you're suggesting that someone is drawing power from some other source (nuclear? coal?) to increase the luminosity (?) of the sun's rays.

What you mean is that the planet is a ridiculously complex feedback control system. That's true.

Steering on your car ? That's a simple feedback control system. You point the car where you think it should go, you observe the difference between where you wanted to go and where it actually went (error), and use that to make a correction, iterating through the feedback loop to minimize the error.

The planet is a much more complex feedback control system. It is the largest system that we interact with on this level. What i think you mean to say is that other things impact the filter of the suns rays, altering what is absorbed and what is reflected in terms of energy. And since we DON'T understand how that works perfectly, we SHOULD exercise CAUTION when we dramatically change how that filter works say, by unnaturally projecting tons and tons of carbon dioxide into the upper atmosphere.

"One planet, one experiment." - EO Wilson

#### Absentglare

DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Quantum theory and general/special relativity are simple but mindblowing. And produce the correct results.

When a model produces wrong results the assumptions it is using are wrong. The underlying hypothesis is thus wrong. Back to the drawing board.

They are not simple, but i am unsurprised that your version of them might seem simple.

#### Aunt Spiker

##### Cheese
DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

And the models have been pretty good at accurately predicting current warming from 30 years ago. They're probably much better now.

Apparently not.

#### Threegoofs

##### In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Apparently not.

Why do you say that? More data on climate sensitivity has been pouring in for decades. The models back in the late 80s accurately predicted that we would be in an unprecedented warming period, and were generally on target as to how much (as best can be estimated in a chaotic system over short decadal periods of time).

#### Jack Hays

##### Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Why do you say that? More data on climate sensitivity has been pouring in for decades. The models back in the late 80s accurately predicted that we would be in an unprecedented warming period, and were generally on target as to how much (as best can be estimated in a chaotic system over short decadal periods of time).

In February 2016 climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented testimony to Congress demonstrating that climate models grossly exaggerate and over estimate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures . Dr. Christy noted in his testimony that “models over-warm the tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately 3″.

Climate Models Don't Work | Watts Up With That?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/.../climate-models-dont-wor...

Watts Up With That?

May 25, 2016 - In February 2016 climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented ... seek to downplay and ignore the demonstrated failures of climate models to ...

[PDF]

#### Threegoofs

##### In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Checking climate model predictions
Nature Climate Change
May 31, 2016

Nature Climate Change
Statistical methods can be used to detect the accuracy of climate model projections, by assessing how well the models capture the feedback and interaction between all of the components of the climate system: the system dynamics. A study published online this week in Nature Climate Change may help to improve climate model predictions and help increase confidence in making decisions informed by those predictions.

Michael Runge and colleagues develop a method to detect when predictions from a single model - or set of models - are failing to match actual observational data, and apply the method in two examples: the change in range of the northern pintail duck, and Arctic sea-ice projections. For the northern pintail, they compared the observed latitude of the North American breeding population and the predicted latitude from two models. Their analysis shows that these methods would have detected a shift in the breeding range in 1985, 20 years earlier than it was observed.

The second example examines the ability of models to accurately predict the level of Arctic sea-ice in September. Their analysis of 11 climate models under a high emissions scenario suggests that the current set of models is accurately representing the observed system dynamics and, therefore, capable of accurate predictions. However, the authors note that some individual models are showing rapid changes in their fit to observations, suggesting the model ensemble may be at risk of failure in the future. The authors conclude that more weight should be given to those climate models that forecast an ice-free Arctic by September 2055.

DOI:10.1038/nclimate3041

=========================================================================================================

Hansen’s 1988 projections
— gavin @ 15 May 2007

At Jim Hansen’s now famous congressional testimony given in the hot summer of 1988, he showed GISS model projections of continued global warming assuming further increases in human produced greenhouse gases. This was one of the earliest transient climate model experiments and so rightly gets a fair bit of attention when the reliability of model projections are discussed. There have however been an awful lot of mis-statements over the years – some based on pure dishonesty, some based on simple confusion. Hansen himself (and, for full disclosure, my boss), revisited those simulations in a paper last year, where he showed a rather impressive match between the recently observed data and the model projections.

Last edited:

#### Jack Hays

##### Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Checking climate model predictions
Nature Climate Change
May 31, 2016

Nature Climate Change
Statistical methods can be used to detect the accuracy of climate model projections, by assessing how well the models capture the feedback and interaction between all of the components of the climate system: the system dynamics. A study published online this week in Nature Climate Change may help to improve climate model predictions and help increase confidence in making decisions informed by those predictions.

Michael Runge and colleagues develop a method to detect when predictions from a single model - or set of models - are failing to match actual observational data, and apply the method in two examples: the change in range of the northern pintail duck, and Arctic sea-ice projections. For the northern pintail, they compared the observed latitude of the North American breeding population and the predicted latitude from two models. Their analysis shows that these methods would have detected a shift in the breeding range in 1985, 20 years earlier than it was observed.

The second example examines the ability of models to accurately predict the level of Arctic sea-ice in September. Their analysis of 11 climate models under a high emissions scenario suggests that the current set of models is accurately representing the observed system dynamics and, therefore, capable of accurate predictions. However, the authors note that some individual models are showing rapid changes in their fit to observations, suggesting the model ensemble may be at risk of failure in the future. The authors conclude that more weight should be given to those climate models that forecast an ice-free Arctic by September 2055.

DOI:10.1038/nclimate3041

#### longview

DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Amplify the signal from the sun ?? Amplify is the wrong word here, unless you're suggesting that someone is drawing power from some other source (nuclear? coal?) to increase the luminosity (?) of the sun's rays.
The atmosphere can control the duration the suns energy resides on earth, they call this the energy balance.
The ugly part of the concept known as AGW, is that the direct warming from the added CO2, causes open looped amplified feedbacks,
which may cause much higher warming. There is a 3 degree uncertainty, the IPCC assigns to this uncertainty, mostly from clouds.
Technically the uncertainty is greater than the prediction.
There are also other problems with the range contribution and even the sign of the other variables.

#### Absentglare

DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

The atmosphere can control the duration the suns energy resides on earth, they call this the energy balance.
The ugly part of the concept known as AGW, is that the direct warming from the added CO2, causes open looped amplified feedbacks,
which may cause much higher warming. There is a 3 degree uncertainty, the IPCC assigns to this uncertainty, mostly from clouds.
Technically the uncertainty is greater than the prediction.
There are also other problems with the range contribution and even the sign of the other variables.

"open looped amplified feedbacks" is nonsense. 'Open loop' is when the feedback path does NOT exist.

The uncertainty is very large. That doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't result in warming (it does) or that we should gamble on it falling on the most optimistic side of the confidence interval for the sake of saving a few dollars.

#### Tpaine

##### Member
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

The atmosphere can control the duration the suns energy resides on earth, they call this the energy balance.
The ugly part of the concept known as AGW, is that the direct warming from the added CO2, causes open looped amplified feedbacks,
which may cause much higher warming. There is a 3 degree uncertainty, the IPCC assigns to this uncertainty, mostly from clouds.
Technically the uncertainty is greater than the prediction.
There are also other problems with the range contribution and even the sign of the other variables.

That's interesting. Can you point to where that would be in the IPCC publications?

#### longview

DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

"open looped amplified feedbacks" is nonsense. 'Open loop' is when the feedback path does NOT exist.

The uncertainty is very large. That doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't result in warming (it does) or that we should gamble on it falling on the most optimistic side of the confidence interval for the sake of saving a few dollars.
The amplified feedback is straight from the IPCC key concepts document, as is the 3 C of uncertainty.
The direct response warming from doubling the CO2 level is roughly 1.2 C, that is where the real Science ends.
The predicted range of 1.5 to 4.5 C, is the from the predicted amplified feedback between .3 and 3.3 C, (I.E. the 3C of uncertainty)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
Read the section called "The enhanced greenhouse effect".

#### Tpaine

##### Member
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

The amplified feedback is straight from the IPCC key concepts document, as is the 3 C of uncertainty.
The direct response warming from doubling the CO2 level is roughly 1.2 C, that is where the real Science ends.
The predicted range of 1.5 to 4.5 C, is the from the predicted amplified feedback between .3 and 3.3 C, (I.E. the 3C of uncertainty)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
Read the section called "The enhanced greenhouse effect".

That is not what that means. A calculation can be made using physics showing that a doubling of CO2 will result in a temperature increase of 1.2 degrees. That 1.2 degrees is just for the CO2. Amplified feedback due to increased water vapor and other factors will increase that 1.2 degrees up to a minimum of 1.5 degrees and a maximum of 4.5 degrees. And what you linked to is not the most recent report. I believe the most recent report has the increase at 2 to 4.5 degrees.

#### Threegoofs

##### In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

That is not what that means. A calculation can be made using physics showing that a doubling of CO2 will result in a temperature increase of 1.2 degrees. That 1.2 degrees is just for the CO2. Amplified feedback due to increased water vapor and other factors will increase that 1.2 degrees up to a minimum of 1.5 degrees and a maximum of 4.5 degrees. And what you linked to is not the most recent report. I believe the most recent report has the increase at 2 to 4.5 degrees.

Yes, it's not recent, but it's the only thing he's read on it.

Look at his past posts. I think I was the one who pointed out to him about 2 years ago that it actually was from the IPCC....he didn't even know that before then.

#### longview

DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

That is not what that means. A calculation can be made using physics showing that a doubling of CO2 will result in a temperature increase of 1.2 degrees. That 1.2 degrees is just for the CO2. Amplified feedback due to increased water vapor and other factors will increase that 1.2 degrees up to a minimum of 1.5 degrees and a maximum of 4.5 degrees. And what you linked to is not the most recent report. I believe the most recent report has the increase at 2 to 4.5 degrees.
Baede, was cited in IPCC AR5 as the more comprehensive reference in the key concepts of climate science.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter01.pdf
1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate Science
Here, some of the key concepts in climate science are briefly described; many of these were summarized
more comprehensively in earlier IPCC assessments (Baede et al., 2001). We only focus on several of them to
facilitate discussions in this assessment.
Also the most recent papers show the sensitivity lower, not higher.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
This is a article from many of the lead authors of IPCC AR5.
IPCC AR5 choose not to include the best estimate for ECS in the most recent report,
but it is near 2 C, on the graph.

#### Tpaine

##### Member
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Baede, was cited in IPCC AR5 as the more comprehensive reference in the key concepts of climate science.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter01.pdf

Also the most recent papers show the sensitivity lower, not higher.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
This is a article from many of the lead authors of IPCC AR5.
IPCC AR5 choose not to include the best estimate for ECS in the most recent report,
but it is near 2 C, on the graph.

I was simply referring to your interpretation of the IPCC uncertainty in your previous post.

#### Quaestio

DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Baede, was cited in IPCC AR5 as the more comprehensive reference in the key concepts of climate science.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...d/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter01.pdf

Also the most recent papers show the sensitivity lower, not higher.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
This is a article from many of the lead authors of IPCC AR5.
IPCC AR5 choose not to include the best estimate for ECS in the most recent report,
but it is near 2 C, on the graph.

Otto et al 2013 is not the 'most recent papers', it's just one paper and it's now several years old. Read what the authors themselves say about it.
Try using some scientific curiosity and do a literature search instead of relying only on what you read on climate truther 'skeptic' blogs.

For example, search for the term 'climate sensitivity' since 2013 in Google Scholar:

Last edited:

#### Quaestio

DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

IPCC AR5 choose not to include the best estimate for ECS in the most recent report,
but it is near 2 C, on the graph.
No. Best estimate for ECS was still centred around 3 C on the graphic in the AR5 WG1 report.

See Chapter 12, page 1110 Box 12.2

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

Also see Chapter 10 section 8.2 pages 920-926
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

Last edited:

#### Quaestio

DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

I was simply referring to your interpretation of the IPCC uncertainty in your previous post.

Climate truther 'skeptic' blogs often have interesting interpretations of what's stated in the IPCC reports.

#### longview

DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

I was simply referring to your interpretation of the IPCC uncertainty in your previous post.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
In other words, theradiative forcing corresponding to a
doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm−2.
To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of
the surface-troposphere system would have to increase
by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks,
the response of the climate system is much more complex.
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies
he temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our
limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
If the input is 1.2 C and the output is between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
The uncertainty is a range of 3 C,

#### longview

DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Climate truther 'skeptic' blogs often have interesting interpretations of what's stated in the IPCC reports.

No, the IPCC's key concepts in climate science document.

#### Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

The uncertainty is very large. That doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't result in warming (it does) or that we should gamble on it falling on the most optimistic side of the confidence interval for the sake of saving a few dollars.

How many people shoule we starve to death in order to make sure we are doing something to ward off this problem that so far is not even showing signs of being as much as the lowest projections of AGW?

Currently the figure is between 200,000 people per year and 20 million. How many would you think is acceptable?

#### Threegoofs

##### In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Currently the figure is between 200,000 people per year and 20 million. How many would you think is acceptable?