• 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!

Oooops the climate models all got in wrong

KLATTU

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,900
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative


and-what a coincidence- all in the same direction

But hey , they are just non partisan folks in lab coats who just go where the the numbers take them. No agenda.
 
The Corn Belt.

How about the rest of the world?
 
KLATTU said:


and-what a coincidence- all in the same direction

But hey , they are just non partisan folks in lab coats who just go where the the numbers take them. No agenda.
Click to expand...

Ok, send the guy to the next conference.
 
The corn belt isn't the world.
 
KLATTU said:


and-what a coincidence- all in the same direction

But hey , they are just non partisan folks in lab coats who just go where the the numbers take them. No agenda.
Click to expand...

The climate models will always overestimate warming anywhere, because they are simulating the wrong thing!
They simulate ECS which is based on an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level, whereas the actual CO2 levels have been increasing at ~ .65% per year. When the same models simulate emissions close to actual emissions, they come in much lower. There is not an error with the models, but what they are simulating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
KLATTU said:


and-what a coincidence- all in the same direction

But hey , they are just non partisan folks in lab coats who just go where the the numbers take them. No agenda.
Click to expand...

Spencer. Lol
 
Having worked in aerospace I know a bit about modeling and simulations and what all these models all lack is a methodology to certify or validate them. We had simulations and we ran them against real flight test data. That's the ONLY way you can have confidence in your models.
 
dmpi said:
Having worked in aerospace I know a bit about modeling and simulations and what all these models all lack is a methodology to certify or validate them. We had simulations and we ran them against real flight test data. That's the ONLY way you can have confidence in your models.
Click to expand...
I think this guy nails it w/r to the "methodology" used to validate those 36 models - the highest of which is roughly 7x above actual:

1687568143907.webp
 
KLATTU said:


and-what a coincidence- all in the same direction

But hey , they are just non partisan folks in lab coats who just go where the the numbers take them. No agenda.
Click to expand...


So it's warming, just not as much as they predicted. That's good. I hope it's must slower than they have predicted.

In that very narrow example, it's much slower, even better.
 
It is not just an isolated incident!
Climate Science Establishment Finally Admits Some Models Run Too Hot
Overall, the projected median is 2.2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit), considerably lower than the implausible 4 to 5 degrees Celsius (7.2 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) of future warming often touted by the media – although it’s slightly above the upper limit of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) targeted by the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Click to expand...
 
dmpi said:
Having worked in aerospace I know a bit about modeling and simulations and what all these models all lack is a methodology to certify or validate them. We had simulations and we ran them against real flight test data. That's the ONLY way you can have confidence in your models.
Click to expand...
They test models by running them against past known climate.
 
longview said:
The climate models will always overestimate warming anywhere, because they are simulating the wrong thing!
They simulate ECS which is based on an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level, whereas the actual CO2 levels have been increasing at ~ .65% per year. When the same models simulate emissions close to actual emissions, they come in much lower. There is not an error with the models, but what they are simulating.
Click to expand...
That would be assuming there are no positive feedbacks at all. For example, a warming ocean and its impact on atmospheric co2.
 
ALiberalModerate said:
They test models by running them against past known climate.
Click to expand...
That's not a 'test', rather that's a study. It's problematic for a number of reason. One is there's no way to narrow down & isolate your input variables like you can do in a carefully controlled experiment. Next, no matter what historical data you choose you're cherry picking your inputs. Consider that the earth is billions of years old, how do you pick which years to look at? The earth is large, how do you choose the locations? And last and most importantly, Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Just like the stock market or any super complex system for that matter.
 
dmpi said:
That's not a 'test', rather that's a study. It's problematic for a number of reason. One is there's no way to narrow down & isolate your input variables like you can do in a carefully controlled experiment. Next, no matter what historical data you choose you're cherry picking your inputs. Consider that the earth is billions of years old, how do you pick which years to look at? The earth is large, how do you choose the locations? And last and most importantly, Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Just like the stock market or any super complex system for that matter.
Click to expand...
I am not a data scientist, but how far you go back in terms of predicting past climate or forward in predicting future climate impacts the resolution of the models. For example, predicting climate over the past 100 when we have solid records would be a high resolution model. Going 100 million years back would be a much lower resolution model. In terms of future climate prediction, that is why there is a range in terms of predicting climate.

Your stock market comparison is actually a decent one because while we cannot predict with high accuracy how the market will do on a day 10 years from now, we can reasonably predict the future rate of return for index funds over a period of several decades in that while it may fluctuate a lot in any given year, over the course of 30 years you are very likely to average 6 to 8% return per year.
 
I don’t get the periodic appearances of such posts/arguments. If you have info that contradicts what the IPPC, the nations of the world and the consensus of scientists seem to say, submit it to Congress, go to the international meetings, write article for Science and Scientific American and try to overcome the bad science that torments us. But as McCain said, even if human activity is not affecting the climate in problematic ways, many of the steps taken to deal with the problem are good for other reasons.
 
longview said:
The climate models will always overestimate warming anywhere, because they are simulating the wrong thing!
They simulate ECS which is based on an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level, whereas the actual CO2 levels have been increasing at ~ .65% per year. When the same models simulate emissions close to actual emissions, they come in much lower. There is not an error with the models, but what they are simulating.
Click to expand...
In 1960-1970 the growth rate was slightly less than about 1 ppm/y, but the growth-rate has been steadily increasing, reaching 2.37±0.26 ppm/y (mean ± 2 std dev) at the beginning of 2023. This means that currently, the concentration of carbon dioxide is growing by about 2.37 ppm per year.Jun 5, 2023

https://mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/carl/word... 1960-1970 the growth,about 2.37 ppm per year.

The growth rate is increasing now by .26 ppm/y how does that figure into your calculations?
 
ALiberalModerate said:
I am not a data scientist, but how far you go back in terms of predicting past climate or forward in predicting future climate impacts the resolution of the models. For example, predicting climate over the past 100 when we have solid records would be a high resolution model. Going 100 million years back would be a much lower resolution model. In terms of future climate prediction, that is why there is a range in terms of predicting climate.

Your stock market comparison is actually a decent one because while we cannot predict with high accuracy how the market will do on a day 10 years from now, we can reasonably predict the future rate of return for index funds over a period of several decades in that while it may fluctuate a lot in any given year, over the course of 30 years you are very likely to average 6 to 8% return per year.
Click to expand...
To model the earth's climate is about the most complex chaotic non-linear system ever imagined. We might choose 100 different input parameters, but who's to say that we didn't miss something important. Add to the fact that there's only one earth (n=1) and its always active in motion. A controlled experiment is impossible and looking at historical data has its problems. What we're doing with climate modeling isn't useless it's just that we're assigning for more importance to it than it deserves because it can be and probably is wrong.
With regard to the stock market, I myself is hoping that we can average 6-8% or more over the coming decades. So far it's been true in my lifetime, but looking forward into the future it is actually dependent on the the US economy relative the to the rest of world and the US dollar relative to other currencies. Things can change, for example look at the British Empire. In the first half of the 1900s they were a powerhouse. Now they struggle to stay relevant. Truth is the 6-8% thing is an assumption not a fact... But I do hope it stays true.
 
iguanaman said:
In 1960-1970 the growth rate was slightly less than about 1 ppm/y, but the growth-rate has been steadily increasing, reaching 2.37±0.26 ppm/y (mean ± 2 std dev) at the beginning of 2023. This means that currently, the concentration of carbon dioxide is growing by about 2.37 ppm per year.Jun 5, 2023

https://mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/carl/words/carbon.html#:~:text=In 1960-1970 the growth,about 2.37 ppm per year.

The growth rate is increasing now by .26 ppm/y how does that figure into your calculations?
Click to expand...
The .65% figure I used is the average annual growth since 2000, of 2.74 ppm per year.
At the current level of CO2 (418 ppm) 1% would be 4.18 ppm per year.
TCR is a growth of 1% per year,
ECS is an abrupt 100% increase!
Which looks closer to how humans emit CO2 at 0.65% per year?
 
longview said:
The .65% figure I used is the average annual growth since 2000, of 2.74 ppm per year.
At the current level of CO2 (418 ppm) 1% would be 4.18 ppm per year.
TCR is a growth of 1% per year,
ECS is an abrupt 100% increase!
Which looks closer to how humans emit CO2 at 0.65% per year?
Click to expand...
ECS examines all feedback and represent a number equal to warming from all sources at equilibrium from a given CO2 level. Oceans can take 100's of years to reach equilibrium. Currently the date of doubling is 2060. 37 years away.
 
I really don't care about your article. How do you explain the severe thunderstorms and tornadoes happening in the South in June? How do you explain the fact that Miami Beach is raising their roads due to flooding? How do you explain the flooding in India? Just another day in paradise, I suspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom