LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Please do so without quoting an obviously biased website.
A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why not? You took wattsupwiththat at its word.
Warming.
I think you are conflating media reports with scientific findings. Media loves to exaggerate to sell papers.
Counting all predictions as equally significant or relevant to the theory is a fallacy.
I could say the same thing about wattsupwiththat, and yet people continue citing them here.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
From past experience using Wikipedia in other areas, I have found it to be very accurate and generally unbiased. It makes sense that if it has proven to be accurate in other areas it is more likely to be accurate in this one.
It is independent of the other committees. It’s director may have been appointed by President Obama, but the majority of the people working there are career non-partisans. Even if you assume Obama to be a corrupting influence (which I do not), it is hard to get an agency to turn out a corrupted report just by appointing a director. I have more confidence in people than that.
Did the Inspector General develop that assessment all by himself?
Same response as for the EPA. (And it is independent of the EPA, and the UK committees).
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why does this graph show only these balloon and satellite measurements? Add the surface station measurements and then see how much the models conform. Or, if you are going to leave out the surface measurements, at least give an objective scientific reason for doing so - other than “it does not support my point”.
Also please comment on the validity of graphing the average of 102 Climate Model runs and treating that average as representative of the model itself. What variance was there between runs? What simulated (name removed by moderator)uts were changed to produce those different results? Are some simulated (name removed by moderator)uts more appropriate than others?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I looked at a few of them at random and it does not appear that all the predictions cited are actually predictions that have already objectively failed. How about a somewhat smaller list of clearly failed predictions?
J
josie_L
Guest
I would call it biased but not extremely so, likewise I can call AGW sites/blogs obviously biased as well.
But if you’re so offended by it then I’ll extract them from another site:
dpreview.com/forums/post/51731384
manicbeancounter.com/2016/10/09/failed-arctic-sea-ice-predictions-illustrates-degenerating-climatology/
thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything
cfact.org/2016/02/26/hiatus-confirmed-as-scientists-finally-admit-climate-model-fail/
stallinga.org/Climate/IPCCpredictions.html
J
josie_L
Guest
Many are, as in they were supposed to happen but they haven’t (fixed date), but I’m not expecting anyone to rely completely on that one site, i.e., there is tons of information regarding failed climate predictions/failed climate models and such.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Well, when a list of “failed predictions” is presented, to show the unreliability of climate science, they should all be “failed predictions” not just sort-of failed, or indefinite, or deficient is some other way. We were talking about accuracy, after all.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I agree with you. That is why I have not referenced them.
…a discussion thread. Hardly the best place to go for hard info.
…a blog by Manic Bean Counter. Who is he?
…wholly owned by the John Birch Society. Yeah, totally non-biased.
From their own website:
“In 1985, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) was founded to promote a much-needed, positive alternative voice on issues of environment and development. Its co-founders, David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, strongly believed the power of the market combined with the applications of safe technologies could offer humanity practical solutions to many of the world’s most pressing concerns.”
By their own admission they have an agenda - to present an alternative voice. The founders have stated that have an ideological belief in the power of the market to solve the world’s problems.
The website of one Prof. Peter Stallinga.
When I asked for an unbiased site that said climate science has largely failed, I didn’t know it would be so hard.
T
Theo520
Guest
Leaf, are you feigning ignorance to deflect? Why didn’t you read the link I provided.
Do you think the IPCC doesn’t average the model projections?
CMIP5 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
Didn’t you know
Do you think the IPCC doesn’t average the model projections?
CMIP5 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
Didn’t you know
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
When I try to follow that link I get:
“An error occurred during a connection to cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov. SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length. Error code: SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG”
And no, I am not feigning ignorance. I really don’t know to what extent the IPCC uses averages of runs. Nor do I know if those 102 runs cited are the same 102 runs that the IPCC cites in their reports.
Also, I asked why surface measurements were left out of the comparison graph.
T
Theo520
Guest
Link works fine fore me. Here it is unembeded
judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
The article goes into detail on why they are comparing the troposphere projections and not the usual surface temperatures. It’s another way of looking at the models, the article is fairly short but too long to post in it’s entirety.
judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
The article goes into detail on why they are comparing the troposphere projections and not the usual surface temperatures. It’s another way of looking at the models, the article is fairly short but too long to post in it’s entirety.
J
josie_L
Guest
I’m fine with you not accepting any of the failed climate predictions (which were sourced by the way) on any of these sites.
p.s. And yes, it is rather hard to find failed climate predictions on an “unbiased” site, I wonder why that is??
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Surface stations, when audited, have been shown to read high … by as much as five degrees.
www.surfacestations.org
It’s old news, but it is news nonetheless.
J
josie_L
Guest
Sort of failed, is still a fail, i.e., it definitely doesn’t support the climate predictions made, but if you wish to be accurate, then admit that there are by far many more failures than scientific successes when it comes to the theory of AGW.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
…nor does it contradict the theory.
How could we possible establish that claim unless someone compiles a list of AGW claims that have come true? You can’t claim that A > B just by showing that A is a “whopping big number” which is essentially what the list of failed predictions attempts to do.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
When audited by whom? That independent agency called surfacestations.org ?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Thank you for the link. It works now.
As I recall, we were trying to establish how model simulations are averaged and, more importantly, why the comparison graph omits the surface temperature readings.
I don’t think I can honestly judge if the scientific details discussed in that link are valid, because I am not a climate scientist. But I do know that calibrating satellite readings to measure air temperature from miles away has its own set of problems, which the article does not mention - although it does take the time to mention problems associated with surface temperature readings. That omission is troubling for a “scientific” report.
Regardless of everything else in that article, the article does say:
*
“Since 2011, at lleast 14 studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature provide strong evidence that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—how much the earth’s average surface temperature will rise under a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration—lies near the low end of the IPCC estimates”*
That sounds like an admission that the IPCC estimates, which are based on those pesky totally failed models, include a range that overlaps with reality - albeit at the low end of the IPCC estimates. This is a far cry from claiming “the models have totally and utterly failed.” So it seems that your supporting references are not taking quite as strong a position as that which is taken by you, Poptech, and josie.
J
josie_L
Guest
The failed ones contradict it and the others do not support it, need I say more.
Someone compiled a list for failed climate predictions, so why not one for those that have come true? Or I can just continue researching the Internet for any climate predictions/models that would support AGW, thus far, however, I’ve encountered a discrepancy between what’s been predicted and reality.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, wonder about that a little more. And then consider Occam’s razor, which has been formulated in popular terms as:I’m fine with you not accepting any of the failed climate predictions (which were sourced by the way) on any of these sites.
p.s. And yes, it is rather hard to find failed climate predictions on an “unbiased” site, I wonder why that is??
** “the simplest explanation is usually the correct one” **
So what is the simplest explanation for why unbiased sources do not have long lists of failed climate predictons? That would be because there is no such list. That is certainly simpler than some conspiracy theory that binds all unbiased sources from revealing the truth.
- Status