• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On climate models

S

Simpletruther

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
19,670
Reaction score
3,721
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In order to very useful, a global temperature climate model needs to be accurate for at the very least 50 years.

And in order to have much confidence in a 50 year climate model, we would need to see repeated success. Not just one 50 year run.

that is what science is built on, repeated success to build confidence.

Yet we basically have only had one 50 year run with climate modeling.

it seems to me we won't really have a lot of confidence in climate modeling for a couple of hundred years.

Then we can look back and say okay the model didn't just get lucky it's consistently getting it right.
 
Simpletruther said:
In order to very useful, a global temperature climate model needs to be accurate for at the very least 50 years.
Click to expand...

How has the scientific community received the many papers you published to establish this propostion? And what are they?
 

Where are you coming up with these criteria?

Many models of how various cancers behave become the basis of cancer staging for those tumors. Based on that, doctors decide whether only a mild treatment is indicated, or whether the patient needs to undergo potentially mutilating surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, etc…

Many of these cancer staging protocols are based on information and modeling of the behavior of these cancers which has come out only in the last 50 years. Are you saying these doctors are going to need a few more centuries of data before they can act on these models?
 
Last edited:
Thats like saying for evolution to be real, we need to study it and model it for at least 10,000 years.

I mean, why make excuses for being a denier and just tell us what you really think? Just go for it and pretend climate change isnt real, like the other bozos who post here.
 
It is not just the how good or bad the climate model is, but also what is being simulated in the climate model.
For an ECS simulation, the initial condition, is an abrupt doubling or quadrupling of the CO2 level,
something that cannot happen in the real world.
The TCR simulation, where they increase the CO2 level by 1% per year is much closer to how Humans emit CO2.
When existing models are used to evaluate things like the time between emission and maximum warming, they produce much lower
doubling sensitivities.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
The red 100 GtC line, represents a pulse size of 47 ppm added to 389 ppm, and equals a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 1.21C.
Worth noting, is that they took the simulation out to 1000 years, and so saw all the feedbacks.
 
NO ITS not like that. why not just admit you are a climate alarmist?
 
It's how modern science has always been done if a theory is confirmed by observation than other scientists do more tests and more tests and if they all confirm those relation more confidence is gained.

One experiment or test doesn't give us confidence.
 
Sure. We have had experiments, observations, and tests over the last century and a half, from all over the world, on this subject.

History of Climate Science Research | Center for Science Education

How has our knowledge about Earth's climate grown over time? Use our interactive timeline to explore important and interesting scientific milestones, including when carbon dioxide was first discovered and when we learned about the heat-trapping ability of gases.
scied.ucar.edu
 
If you read those experiments, they verify that CO2 absorbs some photons in the longwave spectrum.
They also find a correlation between the raising temperature and and the raising CO2 levels.
What they do not find is any empirical evidence that added CO2 is increasing the Earth's energy imbalance in the
longwave spectrum.
 
longview said:
If you read those experiments, they verify that CO2 absorbs some photons in the longwave spectrum.
They also find a correlation between the raising temperature and and the raising CO2 levels.
Click to expand...
All the different lines of evidence for climate change are too numerous to count here- and they all converge on the same general estimates of the effects of CO2 on climate change.
longview said:
What they do not find is any empirical evidence that added CO2 is increasing the Earth's energy imbalance in the
longwave spectrum.
Click to expand...

They are. The reasons why have been explained to you. Repeatedly.
 
ataraxia said:
All the different lines of evidence for climate change are too numerous to count here- and they all converge on the same general estimates of the effects of CO2 on climate change.


They are. The reasons why have been explained to you. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...
No, They all infer that added CO2 causes warming, but do not have any empirical evidence that is actually happening.
 
soylentgreen said:
And your thinking is still a so what? It is the accuracy not the quantity that counts.
Click to expand...
But when an experiment confirms a hypothesis, we don't say gee that was accurate we can now rest assured the hypothesis is solid theory.

No they do many more experiments/tests to confirm validate the theory.

It's repeatability that builds confidence in accuracy.

You are just assuming accuracy from one run.
 
All confirming the planet is warming sure. That's not the issue.

The issue is accuracy of climate models.
 
LOL - you assume accuracy when the model works as predicted.

And this model has repeatedly. Decades upon decades.
 
You make the false assumption that only one form of testing is available rather than many different tests have given matching results.


No one is buying into your false claim of only one test has ever been done.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL - you assume accuracy when the model works as predicted.
Click to expand...
Why? Aborediction coming to pass doesn't demonstrate much unless one is able to consistently make accurate predictions.
Threegoofs said:
And this model has repeatedly. Decades upon decades.
Click to expand...
Multiple decades only counts as one model run for a long term (50 year) forecast.
 
soylentgreen said:
You make the false assumption that only one form of testing is available rather than many different tests have given matching results.



No one is buying into your false claim of only one test has ever been done.
Click to expand...
So describe the test you think will verify the hypothesis that added greenhouse gases will cause warming at the levels the
IPCC suggests (2XCO2 = 3C)?
 
Simpletruther said:
Thwr has beennonlynone result.

Irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I just showed you in my previous post that scientists have experimented in any different ways that all lead to the same conclusions about climate change.
Not irrelevant because the claim that there has ben only one result that onlt one experiment has ever been done is false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…