What is (and isn't) the AGW Scientific Consensus?

[Simpletruther]

Models are NOT science!!!!!

Ok. My suspicion that you are clueless about what Science IS has been confirmed! Which means this is just a waste of time.

Thanks anyway....

Um, models are part of science lol. Clueless you say? Lol .....somebody is clueless alright.

 

[Threegoofs]

So what. Studies are not successful 50 year model predictions.

The 50 year model predictions have been pretty damn accurate.

The way its measured isn't the problem. The lack of measuring stations is.

I am afraid its you that doesnt understand Science.

I think the guy who can recognize there’s a very clear consensus here is the guy who’s really faking his scientific expertise.

 

[Simpletruther]

The 50 year model predictions have been pretty damn accurate.

Ok. But its only been about 50 years. Thats only one go around.

I think the guy who can recognize there’s a very clear consensus here is the guy who’s really faking his scientific expertise.

Ironic ^

 

[Threegoofs]

Ok. But its only been about 50 years. Thats only one go around.

That’s confirmation.

Ironic ^

Ironic, but you know I meant ‘cant’

 

[longview]

The 50 year model predictions have been pretty damn accurate.

I think the guy who can recognize there’s a very clear consensus here is the guy who’s really faking his scientific expertise.

No they are only accurate when they compare them to TCR simulations.
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections

We use an implied TCR metric to provide a meaningful model-observation comparison even in the presence of forcing differences.

Considering that the IPCC says 2XCO2 TCR sensitivity is 1.65 C, almost half of the 3C for ECS,
I would say that ECS projections were way off.

 

[Simpletruther]

That’s confirmation.

But reliable science built upon many confirmed accurate runs.

Ironic, but you know I meant ‘cant’

Well I gave zero indication of that.

 

[Threegoofs]

But reliable science built upon many confirmed accurate runs.

Weird. I’ve seen many pharmaceuticals approved with just a single large study to confirm efficacy and safety.
Guess all those scientists who do that research just don’t know science as well as you.

 

[Threegoofs]

No they are only accurate when they compare them to TCR simulations.
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections

Considering that the IPCC says 2XCO2 TCR sensitivity is 1.65 C, almost half of the 3C for ECS,
I would say that ECS projections were way off.

A key point of your reference says:

• Model simulations published between 1970 and 2007 were skillful in projecting future global mean surface warming

 

[longview]

A key point of your reference says:

• Model simulations published between 1970 and 2007 were skillful in projecting future global mean surface warming

But they were not, the simulation matters, these were simulations of ECS, and are being compared
to TCR.
Think about if in the 1970's Ford said their full size Pickup Truck would get over 40 Mpg by 2025.
2025 comes around and Ford indeed does sell a pickup that gets over 40 Mpg, but it is not their full size pickup truck.

 

[Threegoofs]

But they were not, the simulation matters, these were simulations of ECS, and are being compared
to TCR.
Think about if in the 1970's Ford said their full size Pickup Truck would get over 40 Mpg by 2025.
2025 comes around and Ford indeed does sell a pickup that gets over 40 Mpg, but it is not their full size pickup truck.

The more appropriate analogy is that multiple models were done to estimate the travel time of a car between LA and NY, and most of those models nailed the travel time down, despite many many variables.

And you’re complaining that the mpg was not accurate, so the model is wrong.

The main point of the models is to look at the temperature.

 

[Simpletruther]

Weird. I’ve seen many pharmaceuticals approved with just a single large study to confirm efficacy and safety.
Guess all those scientists who do that research just don’t know science as well as you.

Each participant represents a successful confirmation of the same drug.

No they know more than me. I just know more than you.

 

[Threegoofs]

Each participant represents a successful confirmation of the same drug.

No they know more than me. I just know more than you.

LOL. Each participant didn’t have efficacy and safety.

I’m pretty sure you don’t know more. Shit, you can’t even grasp that a consensus in science exists around AGW.

 

[longview]

The more appropriate analogy is that multiple models were done to estimate the travel time of a car between LA and NY, and most of those models nailed the travel time down, despite many many variables.

And you’re complaining that the mpg was not accurate, so the model is wrong.

The main point of the models is to look at the temperature.

No I am saying that they are comparing the results from a single doubling CO2 event to the results of a simulation
that increases the CO2 level by 1% per year.
Currently the single doubling CO2 event simulation has a sensitivity of 3C, while the 1% per year simulation has a sensitivity
of 1.65 C. They are saying that the observed temperatures best match the 1% per year simulation, but the
original simulations were coming in at 3 to 4 C .

 

[Threegoofs]

No I am saying that they are comparing the results from a single doubling CO2 event to the results of a simulation
that increases the CO2 level by 1% per year.
Currently the single doubling CO2 event simulation has a sensitivity of 3C, while the 1% per year simulation has a sensitivity
of 1.65 C. They are saying that the observed temperatures best match the 1% per year simulation, but the
original simulations were coming in at 3 to 4 C .

They were modeling temperature in the future. And they got it right, as your reference clearly states.

Models arent just CO2 projections, and also arent 'comparing results from a single doubling CO2 event' to anything.

 

[longview]

They were modeling temperature in the future. And they got it right, as your reference clearly states.

Models arent just CO2 projections, and also arent 'comparing results from a single doubling CO2 event' to anything.

Yes, but the simulation matters, because the simulations for the higher ECS, matched up with TCR, means the
ECS projections were too high!

 

[Simpletruther]

LOL. Each participant didn’t have efficacy and safety.

No kidding. But its enough to show "generally safe" etc. Lol

I’m pretty sure you don’t know more. Shit, you can’t even grasp that a consensus in science exists around AGW.

Sure I do. You can't follow a discussion it seems.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Um, models are part of science lol.

Models are used in science. Like a calculator. Neither of them are science. A model being wrong is no more relevant to a scientific consensus than a calculator breaking down.

In fact...

"All models are wrong. But some models are useful" J.P. Box

Again, you have too much to learn about how science works. Start by reading the OP!

...

 

[Simpletruther]

Models are used in science. Like a calculator. Neither of them are science. A model being wrong is no more relevant to a scientific consensus than a calculator breaking down.

In fact...

You are incorrect. They are not just calculating . They are projecting future climate based upon assumptions.

"All models are wrong. But some models are useful" J.P. Box

Again, you have too much to learn about how science works. Start by reading the OP!

...

And We don't know how useful they are until they have made multiple accurate projections.
You have much to learn. Start by listening.

 

[Steve Case]

You are incorrect. They are not just calculating . They are projecting future climate based upon assumptions.

And We don't know how useful they are until they have made multiple accurate projections.
You have much to learn. Start by listening.

Just listening? Uhm yeah OK but how 'bout stop arguing with people who turn out to be pompous wind bags.

 

[Steve Case]

Just listening? Uhm yeah OK but how 'bout stop arguing with people who turn out to be pompous wind bags.

Hmmm I don't want to trigger the Debatepoltics ban on trolling. So apologies for name calling.
Should have been something like don't continue in an argument that is obviously going nowhere.

 

[Simpletruther]

Just listening? Uhm yeah OK but how 'bout stop arguing with people who turn out to be pompous wind bags.

Fair point.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

You are incorrect. They are not just calculating . They are projecting future climate based upon assumptions.

Exactly! If this, then that.... which might be a useful tool in science (in the same sense that a calculator might be a useful tool in science) ... but NOT "science"

And We don't know how useful they are until they have made multiple accurate projections.

No!!!

Let me give you the following example. I hope you read it.

Imagine a model that says something like "at the current rate of warming, x and y coastal cities in Florida will be underwater by the end of the 21st Century" (just an example)

We USE that model (therefore it's useful) to make sure that that doesn't happen. We will use science and technology to keep that from happening. For example, build dykes, artificial trenches, seawalls and levees, restoring mangroves, .... The point is that if science is successful, the model predicting that X and Y will be underwater will NEVER be accurate.

That is and example of why "Models are always wrong, but some models are useful" -J.P. Box

Science IS what the OP describes. Basically peer-reviewed STUDIES. Everything else are models, technology, calculations, .... whatever you want. But they are NOT science!

 

[Simpletruther]

Exactly! If this, then that.... which might be a useful tool in science (in the same sense that a calculator might be a useful tool in science) ... but NOT "science"

Actually you are doing science when you use models.

No!!!

Let me give you the following example. I hope you read it.

Imagine a model that says something like "at the current rate of warming, x and y coastal cities in Florida will be underwater by the end of the 21st Century" (just an example)

We USE that model (therefore it's useful) to make sure that that doesn't happen. We will use science and technology to keep that from happening. For example, build dykes, artificial trenches, seawalls and levees, restoring mangroves, .... The point is that if science is successful, the model predicting that X and Y will be underwater will NEVER be accurate.

And you are missing the point. We don't know yet whether these models will consistently give accurate predictions with a given assumption. That takes multiple decades just for one accurate prediction.

That is and example of why "Models are always wrong, but some models are useful" -J.P. Box

Thay was a bad example. Models would predict thenlevel of sea rise. And if the sea rose what they predicted it wasn't "wrong".

Any prediction of a city being under water would carry with it assumptions like "if no mitigating action".

Science IS what the OP describes. Basically peer-reviewed STUDIES. Everything else are models, technology, calculations, .... whatever you want. But they are NOT science!

Models would be used within peer reviewed studies.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Actually you are doing science when you use models.

You could be doing science. You could be doing the morning weather forecast. Or you could be showing the possible paths of a Hurricane.

Just like when you use a calculator. You could be doing science, you could be adding the cost of your shopping list....

AGAIN: models are a TOOL.

And you are missing the point. We don't know yet whether these models will consistently give accurate predictions with a given assumption.

They WON'T!!!! That is NOT the purpose of models. YOU are missing the point.

They are NOT supposed to give an accurate prediction of ... ANYTHING.

AGAIN: "Models are always wrong...." J.P. Box

Thay was a bad example. Models would predict thenlevel of sea rise.

No they can't! A model can give an approximation. A large number of models can tell you that over the next ten years, the average sea level will be higher than the average it is today. But they WON'T tell you HOW high. In the end NOT A SINGLE ONE of those models will be accurate! However, they will be USEFUL to know if that average keeps increasing or decreasing.

That's it! And it's exactly THE SAME for AGW. We KNOW the surface temperature of the Earth is increasing. And we know that will cause a rise in global temperatures. How much and when... they can only give an approximate average.

And if the sea rose what they predicted it wasn't "wrong".

If you are talking about tomorrow's tides, the estimation might be more or less accurate (though not exact). Less accurate for the day after tomorrow and even less for next week. In order to do that, you don't have ONE model. You have dozens of models. And what you hear on the Weather Channel are the AVERAGE of all those models. But NONE of those individual models will be spot on.... EVER!

In any case, they are not science. They are technology! In other words, applied science. They are just a mathematical calculation. Which is BASED on established science. But the calculation is not in and of itself science.

Any prediction of a city being under water would carry with it assumptions like "if no mitigating action".

Exactly! And that is the purpose of ALL AGW models. And there are ALL kinds of models. For example, models if we reduce carbon emissions by 1% or by 5% or by 10%... But NONE of them will be completely accurate because carbon emissions are NOT the only factor that determine if sea levels. But they will be useful to understand when the models "flat-line". ie at which point reducing MORE carbon emissions make no difference.

Clearly this is waaaay more complicated than you thought.

Models would be used within peer reviewed studies.

Model can be used IN peer-reviewed studies. Just like a calculator can be use. Or like a thermometer measurement. Or a barometric pressure measurement. Or a typewriter to put it on paper... But none of those ARE science. Only the complete peer-reviewed studies themselves are.

 

[Simpletruther]

You could be doing science. You could be doing the morning weather forecast. Or you could be showing the possible paths of a Hurricane.

Just like when you use a calculator. You could be doing science, you could be adding the cost of your shopping list....

AGAIN: models are a TOOL.

Exactly

They WON'T!!!! That is NOT the purpose of models. YOU are missing the point.

They are NOT supposed to give an accurate prediction of ... ANYTHING.

AGAIN: "Models are always wrong...." J.P. Box

Orwrry Sure you're conflatibg perfect accuracy with accuracy. models are absolutely useless if they have no level of accuracy whatsoever.

No they can't! A model can give an approximation.

Of course has to be a reasonably accurate proximation to be useful.

A large number of models can tell you that over the next ten years, the average sea level will be higher than the average it is today. But they WON'T tell you HOW high. In the end NOT A SINGLE ONE of those models will be accurate!

see above.

However, they will be USEFUL to know if that average keeps increasing or decreasing.

Which necessitates a level of accuracy.

That's it! And it's exactly THE SAME for AGW. We KNOW the surface temperature of the Earth is increasing. And we know that will cause a rise in global temperatures. How much and when... they can only give an approximate average.

And we do not yet known if the approximation are accurate enough to be useful.