Study shows those who claimed climate debate over were wrong

[Ender]

No one claims the models are perfect. The only question is if they are accurate enough for the purpose to which they are put. Vague terms like “well-understood” and “properly modeled” are not quantitative enough to answer that question.

If the scientists do not understand the physical processes involved they cannot be properly modeled. That is, if you don’t really know what’s happening then models purporting to predict the outcomes of those poorly understood processes cannot be trusted. There is simply no way to know whether their predictions are valid or not. “Using these results we expect substantial changes in the formation rates of cloud seeds…” It is hardly a vague notion to assert that if something is changing substantially now it was clearly not well understood before.

If I assert there is life on Mars I may in fact be right, but, like the theory of AGW, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If the scientists do not understand the physical processes involved they cannot be properly modeled. That is, if you don’t really know what’s happening then models purporting to predict the outcomes of those poorly understood processes cannot be trusted. There is simply no way to know whether their predictions are valid or not. “Using these results we expect substantial changes in the formation rates of cloud seeds…” It is hardly a vague notion to assert that if something is changing substantially now it was clearly not well understood before.

If I assert there is life on Mars I may in fact be right, but, like the theory of AGW, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other.

Ender

“Understanding the physical processes involved” is a matter of degree. There has been, for a long time, a considerable degree of understanding of those processes. That understanding is sufficient for modeling many things, and perhaps insufficient for other things. The understanding that leads to the current projections of climate change are much more explicit than the understanding of life on Mars.

 

[Theo520]

I heard “more focused”. I did not hear that the mean target range would necessarily be reduced. Tell me how many minutes and seconds in I should go to hear that.

And they didn’t say the model assumptions were wrong. Just that they were not as precise as they could be.

This research wipes away a third of the model projected warming, the range will be reduced.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This research wipes away a third of the model projected warming, the range will be reduced.

Where did you get that one third figure?

 

[Theo520]

Where did you get that one third figure?

I can’t find my recollection but found this analysis from one of the researchers. We’ll need to wait for the updated ECS projections, but they will be lower.

blogs.reading.ac.uk/weather-and-climate-at-reading/2016/1053/
Radiative forcing is a measure of the imbalance in the Earth’s energy budget caused by perturbations external to the natural climate system, such as the emission of aerosols into the atmosphere by human activities. Our preliminary [research] estimate of radiative forcing due to aerosol-cloud interactions, based on satellite observations of aerosol amounts and cloud reflectivity, is –0.6 W m−2. The negative sign indicates a loss of energy for the climate system. The estimate of climate models for the same radiative forcing is stronger, typically larger than –1 W m−2. What causes that discrepancy? Over the past few months, I have discussed with experts in aerosol-cloud interactions, and there are reasons to expect that aerosol-cloud interactions are weaker than simulated by climate models – and perhaps even weaker than the preliminary [research] estimate.

 

[adamhovey1988]

dailysignal.com/2016/05/27/study-shows-those-who-claimed-climate-debate-over-were-wrong/?

Study shows those who claimed climate debate over were wrong

I’m pretty sure there’s still a debate.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

“Understanding the physical processes involved” is a matter of degree. There has been, for a long time, a considerable degree of understanding of those processes. That understanding is sufficient for modeling many things, and perhaps insufficient for other things. The understanding that leads to the current projections of climate change are much more explicit than the understanding of life on Mars.

Computer models require quantitative data to be plugged in.

Numbers.

And that requires numerical (name removed by moderator)uts.

Your quote: *** "There has been, for a long time, a considerable degree of understanding of those processes. That understanding is sufficient for modeling many things, and perhaps insufficient for other things. "***

You need much more than “understanding”.

You need data.

So, they have produced numerical results … output … results.

And, now we know that the output results are WRONG.

Totally wrong.

They have spent BILLIONS of dollars and decades of effort … and the data they got out was only …

Nothing insulting … that’s what systems people call it.

Their understanding was wrong.

And their data was/were wrong.

And the output results were wrong.

The models failed.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Computer models require quantitative data to be plugged in.

Numbers.

And that requires numerical (name removed by moderator)uts.

Your quote: *** "There has been, for a long time, a considerable degree of understanding of those processes. That understanding is sufficient for modeling many things, and perhaps insufficient for other things. "***

You need much more than “understanding”.

You need data.

So, they have produced numerical results … output … results.

And, now we know that the output results are WRONG.

Totally wrong.

They have spent BILLIONS of dollars and decades of effort … and the data they got out was only …

Nothing insulting … that’s what systems people call it.

Their understanding was wrong.

And their data was/were wrong.

And the output results were wrong.

The models failed.

To the extent necessary, the climate models have been confirmed with real data.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The prediction that New York would be underwater by the year 2000 is based on earlier studies that proved false.

therightscoop.com/tpm-pushing-1969-nixon-memo-that-predicted-10-ft-water-rise-underwater-cities-cited-pornographer-expert/

And it was not the Playboy Hugh Heffner.

You can look it up yourself.

Nixon EPA by 2000 underwater.

The pervasive beliefs of that time period and the disproportionate influence is public information.

The link I provided includes a copy of the White House Memo.

CERN’s work is proving to upset a lot of previously held beliefs.

The modeling being used until now is proving to be totally unreliable.

Reread it, it says “could” twice

 

[Theo520]

Reread it, it says “could” twice

“could” has been oft presented as “would” by the media.

The media also ignores presenting the balance that warming “could” be as little as 1C with CO2 doubling.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“could” has been oft presented as “would” by the media.

The media also ignores presenting the balance that warming “could” be as little as 1C with CO2 doubling.

This does not address the core of Joie de Vivre’s point, which was a refutation of Monte RCMS’s claim that scientists could not be trusted because they had been so wrong in the past. Joie de Vivre showed that the citation used by Monte to prove the point was inapplicable to that question. It showed that scientists did not really say that NY would be underwater by 2000. Joie’s claim is that this is a case of sloppy reporting by the media. Now we come to your point, which seems to be that the media is unreliable, replacing words here and there, and leaving things out. Far from refuting Joie’s original point, this point of yours actually supports Joie’s. You both are saying the media is unreliable. And Joie’s refutation of Monte’s claim about scientists being unreliable stands unchallenged.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This does not address the core of Joie de Vivre’s point, which was a refutation of Monte RCMS’s claim that scientists could not be trusted because they had been so wrong in the past. Joie de Vivre showed that the citation used by Monte to prove the point was inapplicable to that question. It showed that scientists did not really say that NY would be underwater by 2000. Joie’s claim is that this is a case of sloppy reporting by the media. Now we come to your point, which seems to be that the media is unreliable, replacing words here and there, and leaving things out. Far from refuting Joie’s original point, this point of yours actually supports Joie’s. You both are saying the media is unreliable. And Joie’s refutation of Monte’s claim about scientists being unreliable stands unchallenged.

Regardless, the model results have been WRONG.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Regardless, the model results have been WRONG.

If someone says based on their calculations there is a 60% chance of something, if it does not happen does that make their calculations wrong?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

If someone says based on their calculations there is a 60% chance of something, if it does not happen does that make their calculations wrong?

Yeah, pretty much.

[What does that mean … exactly … a 60% chance of something?]

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yeah, pretty much.

[What does that mean … exactly … a 60% chance of something?]

It means this.

 

[Theo520]

This does not address the core of Joie de Vivre’s point, which was a refutation of Monte RCMS’s claim that scientists could not be trusted because they had been so wrong in the past. Joie de Vivre showed that the citation used by Monte to prove the point was inapplicable to that question. It showed that scientists did not really say that NY would be underwater by 2000. Joie’s claim is that this is a case of sloppy reporting by the media. Now we come to your point, which seems to be that the media is unreliable, replacing words here and there, and leaving things out. Far from refuting Joie’s original point, this point of yours actually supports Joie’s. You both are saying the media is unreliable. And Joie’s refutation of Monte’s claim about scientists being unreliable stands unchallenged.

Perhaps there is a juxtaposition between a scientist saying ‘could happen’ with emphasis and the media strongly implying it ‘will happen’ unless we change our ways and convert to Gaia.

The scientists are culpable in not explicitly correcting the media misrepresentations on risk.

 

[magnet]

If someone says based on their calculations there is a 60% chance of something, if it does not happen does that make their calculations wrong?

If they said that something has a 100% chance of occurring, and it does not happen, then they are wrong.

Weather forecasts are commonly given with probabilities. If there is a 10% chance of rain, and there is no rain, that leaves 90% chance there would be no rain. Either way, nobody is right or wrong.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Perhaps there is a juxtaposition between a scientist saying ‘could happen’ with emphasis and the media strongly implying it ‘will happen’ unless we change our ways and convert to Gaia.

The scientists are culpable in not explicitly correcting the media misrepresentations on risk.

And how exactly are they supposed to do that? Scientists don’t have superpowers to compel journalists to publish corrections equal to the claim.

If they said that something has a 100% chance of occurring, and it does not happen, then they are wrong.

Weather forecasts are commonly given with probabilities. If there is a 10% chance of rain, and there is no rain, that leaves 90% chance there would be no rain. Either way, nobody is right or wrong.

I was checking to see the grasp Monte RCMS had on probability, it turns out it is quite poor.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Perhaps there is a juxtaposition between a scientist saying ‘could happen’ with emphasis and the media strongly implying it ‘will happen’ unless we change our ways and convert to Gaia.

The scientists are culpable in not explicitly correcting the media misrepresentations on risk.

The culpability of scientists in correcting reporting was not the question. Just to review, in post 73 Monte claimed that predictions of scientists regarding the climate have been historical incorrect, citing claims that “New York would be underwater by 2000”. Joie corrected Monte pointing out that the article Monte quoted said “could”. Then in post 90 you blamed the misreporting on sloppy media, a point on which I also agree. But in post 91 I pointed out that this blaming of the media did nothing to prove that scientific projections of climate have been historically wrong. Talking about the accuracy of the media is irrelevant to that question, as is talking about the responsibility that scientists have to correct the media.

To that last question, as irrelevant as it is, I can say this: It is not the job of scientists to monitor all popular media and correct all misreporting. If they did that they would have no time for research, because there is always going to be some media report that could be corrected. The channel that scientists have for mass communication is academic journals. They publish through that channel rather than trying to commandeer some popular media. Unless you are Bill Nye or Neil Degrasse Tyson or Stephen Hawking, you are not going to get Time Magazine to give you the time of day. So even if the average researcher did want to “correct” the media reporting of his work, he would find that most difficult.

As for the original question about the validity of climate models, they major climate models have been experimentally verified with real data to the extent necessary for use made of these models.

 

[Ender]

As for the original question about the validity of climate models, the major climate models have been experimentally verified with real data to the extent necessary for use made of these models.

This is not a claim the scientists themselves are making.*according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) – a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem…

If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.*(Der Spiegel interview with Hans von Storch, 2013)
We are very close to the point where even AGW proponents will be forced to concede that “something is fundamentally wrong” with their climate models.

Ender