Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Let's get real about climate models

A fascinating illustration of Climateball(TM). Willard would be most impressed. Golf makes an assertion. I ask Golf to back up his assertion. Golf avoids answering the question and instead claims I've confirmed various things about which I haven't actually said anything. Brilliant. I think, today, you win the internets.

Jan 12, 2016 at 2:20 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

aTTP Your recollection and honesty is there for all to see.

As is your consistency with double standards. How long have you know thete was something wrong with Mann's Hockey Stick?

Climate DodgeBall is your speciality.

Jan 12, 2016 at 3:09 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

aTTP, Jones et al (including Karl) stated that UHI was not a factor in recorded temperature rises.

Jan 12, 2016 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"aTTP, Jones et al (including Karl) stated that UHI was not a factor in recorded temperature rises."

GC, that's not strictly true, as before they said it accounts for some farcically small increase (0.05 Degrees ?).

Jan 12, 2016 at 3:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterNial

Nial, thank you for the correction! With Nial's correction, my original response remains.

Jan 12, 2016 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Raff,
Seeing as you've taken aTTP's part, and he as with his type is unlikely to answer for himself I wonder if you read what I wrote in its entirety?

as you will come back with that doesn't count because because because,

Your response of

Sandy, your link is to a US newspaper. Temperatures are probably in F no C. And newspapers have a poor reputation for getting the story right, so whether Hansen really said that I doubt.

covers the three becauses.
QED

As it happens the 'F/'C is irrelevant as it hasn't done what was predicted whichever you use.

Jan 12, 2016 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

SandyS: as the goalposts have been moved so much in this discussion by raff et al, does that count as a goal by you, or an own goal? It can be rather confusing when your opponents goal-posts are so mobile.

Jan 12, 2016 at 5:35 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Moving goalposts? Okay, let's get back to what I asked on page 1: If there were no models of climate, would you suggest:

a. models should be written to see whether anything can be learned;
b. no models should be written.

And if models are written and something is learned, why would you exclude that from policy discussions?

And then you can have a go at discussing the comparison between reality and models using actual, not estimated, forcings, which shows good agreement. Remember that a model cannot predict the sun, human behaviour (changes in aerosol levels, rates of increase in CO2) or volcanoes, nor El Niño/La Niña, the AMO, the PDO or whatever oscillation, but might still be able to explain temperature variations if given those cycles as inputs.

Jan 12, 2016 at 6:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Nice try, raff, but no cigar!
If you want us to take you seriously try not linking to someone who ignores the satellite datasets and sticks only with the dubious ones.
And if you don't understand why we have reservations about those sets, GISS especially, then there really is no point in continuing because there is simply no meeting of minds here.
And that graph! Drawn to look scary, or what? The guy is a propagandist, at least in that post he is, and nothing he says changes the facts and everything he says marks him out as a True Believer. Why should I believe a word he says? Because he's an expert? Because he's a scientist? Because you agree with him?
I think you ought to pay a quick visit to WUWT; there's an excellent post up today about graphs and how to lie with them. Go and have a look.

Jan 12, 2016 at 8:15 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Remember that a model cannot predict the sun, human behaviour (changes in aerosol levels, rates of increase in CO2) or volcanoes, nor El Niño/La Niña, the AMO, the PDO or whatever oscillation, but might still be able to explain temperature variations if given those cycles as inputs.

And exactly what use is a climate model, that cannot predict these things, in informing policy?

A climate model may have a use in exploring the limitations of our own understanding of the climate, but that's all. It is delusional to believe that a climate model which it is known to be non-informative of future climate to be used for predicting precisely that, or for informing policy predicated on it.

Knowing the limitations of climate models and yet still promoting their use in informing policy is, therefore, a mark of extreme dishonesty.

So.. who was it promoting the use of climate models in informing policy? Lemme guess.

Jan 12, 2016 at 8:37 PM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

"And if models are written and something is learned, why would you exclude that from policy discussions?"

What has been learned?

You and ATTFizziks have already admitted you need to know future forcing values for these to be any use.

I'll answer my own question, what's been learned is that the models should have no input to policy discussions.

Jan 12, 2016 at 8:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterNial

Of course aTTPs speciality is Theoretical and Computational Astrophysics. He has something of a vested interest in preserving the status of computer models.

Computational planets don't have Little Green Men living on them, to point out any errors or discrepancies, so he believes his modelling to be superior.

Jan 12, 2016 at 9:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

MJ: and it would be the most supreme irony if Don Easterbrook is soon proven right, which remains a real possibility, despite the ridicule heaped upon that notion.

Jan 12, 2016 at 9:26 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent
I guess it must be an own goal. Mind you my prediction was more accurate than Hansen's :-)

Jan 12, 2016 at 10:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Mike, that WUWT post is about as dumb as "skeptics" get. If you plotted the last million years at the scale the author suggests is a "normal view" the glaciations would look like tiny wobbles in temperature. Idiotic doesn't cover it. As I said, it seems you are so scientifically illiterate that you really are impressed by nutty blog rhetoric.

Simon, in a "skeptical" model, if you change the inputs do you get the same output? Why do you assume that changing the inputs to a climate model (e.g. intensity of the solar cycle) would not change the output? Too complicated? Probably. Even a "skeptical" model cannot compute what the solar cycles will do over the next 100 years, but its authors do know the average solar cycle and they use that as a best guess. But even for this perfect, "skeptical" model, if the actual solar cycle over the next decade turns out different, the model results will be wrong. That is clear, isn't it?

Jan 12, 2016 at 10:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Do you accept the climate models used by Dr Mears, Dr Spencer and Nick Lewis?

Jan 12, 2016 at 11:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - what do you mean "accept"? Who are you asking?

Jan 12, 2016 at 11:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

aTTP still has not responded about his view on the Hockey Stick, but remains dismissive of those without his expertise on climate science.

"Climate Science is real and important" was authored by Josh Halpern, Greg Laden, Colin Maesson, Miriam O' Brien, Ken Rice and Michael Tobis. Are these all climate scientists?

And then there is another one, "Clarity of meaning in IPCC Press Conference" by Peter Jacobs, Hunter Cutting, Stephan Lewandowsky, Miriam O'Brien, Ken Rice and Bart Veheggen.

Is aTTP a climate science spin doctor aswell? What kind of scientist would want to be associated with Lewandowsky?

Jan 13, 2016 at 12:46 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

See gc 12:46. A Peter Jacobs was co-author of the Cook 97% collaboration. Hunter Cutting works for Climatenexus.

aTTP does associate with some well connected people. What does it all mean?

International Professional Climate Collaboration? Climate science not required.

Jan 13, 2016 at 2:32 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Entropic man
As far as I'm concerned Climate Models are computerised pine-cones and seaweed wherever they come from and whoever created them.

Jan 13, 2016 at 7:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

raff
I'll grant you that up to a point. The reason I pointed you to that thread was as, shall we say, a "corrective"!
From the very beginning of the global warming furore, the warmists have used every trick in the book to convince us (and more important the politicians) just how scary everything is and if we don't ........ etc, etc, etc. We all know the next bit.
One of these tricks has been the use of variations from a selected "norm"' which they call 'anomalies' because it sounds as if they are something that shouldn't be happening — remember how everyone's hero Michael Mann eliminated the Mediæval Warm Period? — rather than just natural and without relatively recently invented sophisticated machinery impossible to measure with any accuracy.
Another is to create graphs which are scaled to make the ignoramuses (talking about politicians again but also now including journalists and the usefully idiotic enviro-hangers-on — names like Westwood spring to mind) go all weak at the knees when in reality the real temperature variation is virtually unmeasurable.
I have made the point before that I can get a temperature difference between the two ends of my kitchen window sill greater than the supposed "anomaly" which is being touted as making 2015 the warmest year ever, and that only if you ignore the satellite data and believe, as Karl apparently does, that buckets are more reliable than buoys when it comes to measuring ocean temperatures.
Time to produce some graphs that make people say "wtf is all the fuss about?", I think! I especially liked the one that appears to confirm that there has been little or no increase in Tmax and that all the so-called global warming has been the result of less cold nights and so higher Tmins. But that's not scary enough for you, is it?

Jan 13, 2016 at 9:52 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Raff

Simon, in a "skeptical" model, if you change the inputs do you get the same output? Why do you assume that changing the inputs to a climate model (e.g. intensity of the solar cycle) would not change the output? Too complicated? Probably. Even a "skeptical" model cannot compute what the solar cycles will do over the next 100 years, but its authors do know the average solar cycle and they use that as a best guess. But even for this perfect, "skeptical" model, if the actual solar cycle over the next decade turns out different, the model results will be wrong. That is clear, isn't it?

I didn't think my questions were difficult but apparently you weren't able to latch. So let's try a simple Yes/No question:

Are you one who believes the complexities of the climate system can be sufficiently accurately modelled and projected by climate models such that their output is informative to policy?

Jan 13, 2016 at 11:36 AM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Mike climate science skepticism is odd, anomalous even, in that it likes to believe words have one true meaning. Your journalistic experience should tell you that is not true and that 'anomaly' might possibly have more than one. Your dictionary might tell you that in astronomy, an anomaly is "the angular distance of a planet or satellite from its last perihelion or perigee". But your CS skepticism tells you that no, this isn't scientific language but that it describes "something that shouldn't be happening" and forever after you view astronomers as heretics who believe that planets shouldn't move from perihelion.

Simon, yes. Now answer mine. In a "skeptical" model, if you change the solar forcing (for example) do you still get the same output? Why do you assume that changing the inputs to a climate model (e.g. intensity of the solar cycle) would not change the output?

Jan 13, 2016 at 1:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

You make inaccurate and groundless assumptions, Raff. There is nothing to answer. Unlike you, I don't have trust in models to represent reality. There is no basis upon which to base trust.

Jan 13, 2016 at 1:54 PM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

raff
Sidewinders wriggle less than you do.
The use of "anomalies" is intended to make the situation look and sound worse than it is. You're surely not naive enough to believe that the scaremongering about temperatures would be given any sort of credence even by the hard-of-thinking greenies if the best the scientivists could do was say that last year the average temperature of the world was 14.2 degrees and this year it was 14.8.
"The global anomaly for the year was 0.69 which makes it the highest it's ever been" is much more likely scare the shit out of the sheeple.
Which is why they do it.

Jan 13, 2016 at 2:07 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson