Climate modeling continues to fail

from JoeUser Forums

As discussed here, the climate models that predicted a rapidly warming earth continue to be way way off.

 

image

The measured results and the projected results are way off.

I’ve received a lot of grief over the years from friends, family and colleagues because I’m a global warming “skeptic” (particularly about AGW). 

Now mind you, I drive an electric car powered by a solar array and live in a house heated and cooled through Geothermal and had a gold rating from the NAHB.  I personally fall into the “the less impact I can have on the environment, the better” line. But there’s a big difference between what I voluntarily do and what the government tries to coerce me and other people to do and when it comes to AGW, I don’t think the evidence is compelling enough to justify a world wide economic depression.

6 years ago, I wrote an article called “What happens if the Earth starts cooling?” which speculated on what would environmentalists say if their predictions turned out to be wrong. 6 years later, the measured temperatures for 2012 are less than those of 2006 which in turn were less than 2005 which where less than 2003 which were less than 1998.  I’m not arguing a trend down but now that global temperatures have gotten highly politicized, the measured temperatures are now much more scrutinized than they used to be (which is why I take the precision of temperatures in say 1950 with a grain of salt).

What should be reasonably irrefutable at this stage is that the climate models are wrong. By a lot.  According to the models, the mean atmospheric temperatures should be well over almost 0.50 degrees higher than they were in 2000.  Instead, it’s within the margin of error of being the same. 

None of this should mean that we shouldn’t try to reduce our impact on the environment. But hopefully people will start to decouple their political beliefs from their scientific beliefs. Skepticism isn’t a bad thing.

 

IMG_00100

I’d like to think I’m doing my part but I did this voluntarily.

51,905 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

And good onya for doing so.  And I'm with you in being completely against coercion (taxation) in the name of a (literally) non-existent threat.  Al's got enough money.  Just ask BO ("At some point, you have enough money.")

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not all climate models are wrong.  But those used to promote a meme of AGW always are.  The reason is simple.  It is not science.  It is a conclusion chasing data.

 

I have made an extensive study of the claims.  The problem is that the proxy data is exactly what they accuse the skeptics of doing (cherry picking - MBH98 is based on a single Tree in Yamal). 

 

Many dismiss the CG emails because no illegal activities were proven by them.  But then the corruption of science is not a legal issue.  They did prove that the authors were subverting science to advance their conclusion.  So they can call it whatever they want, but the reality is, it is not science.  It is pure faith.

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

We can't even figure out what the weather will be tomorrow.

To look ahead and say, we can predict this, and then it doesn't happen as you predicted, makes me question the ability of scientists to look at something today and understand the past from it as well. 

I'm very skeptical.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

This!

I personally fall into the “the less impact I can have on the environment, the better” line. But there’s a big difference between what I voluntarily do and what the government tries to coerce me and other people to do and when it comes to AGW, I don’t think the evidence is compelling enough to justify a world wide economic depression.

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

Gah... I try to avoid the argument all together with...

"Pollution is bad, stop polluting."

Take care of the easy things 1st I guess.

Regardless, go read "Sea Sick" if you really want to see what the impact of pollution is having. It paints a pretty grim scenario with the ecosystem buffers because of stupid human nature.

Basically, we can create enough pollution right now to damage the oceanic eco-systems directly, but the natural buffers temporarily mitigate that. The problem is that the buffers are an accumulating deficit, so when they are breached we are well past the point of no return. Human nature is that we generally do not take action until we notice a problem. (for the economy etc...).  

 

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting LORD-ORION, reply 5
Regardless, go read "Sea Sick" if you really want to see what the impact of pollution is having.
End of LORD-ORION's quote

Pollution is bad - just look at Beijing.  However CO2 is not pollution. It is an essential life gas for the planet.  We are at roughly 400ppm right now.  Should that drop by 60%, plant life stops.  Without plants, you have no herbivores.  With no herbivores the carnivores die.  Etc. etc. etc.

 

The false argument is against CO2, not pollution.  And that is why the models are always wrong.  The basic premise is wrong.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Omnivore plants live forever.

Reply #8 from LittleTinyFrogs Forums Top

 

This chart is directly from Wikipedia.

Now, I want to point out that according to this chart, between 1975 and 2001 the measured temperature supposedly increased by 0.80C. That's a pretty abrupt increase. Of course, people weren't really paying attention back then and having some familiarity with how scientific readings are often taken (especially at the university level) I have some skepticism on the accuracy of the readings that came out BEFORE the IPCC report.  

After that report, people really started to pay attention and the readings started to get scrutinized prior to being recorded to make sure there weren't various other influences on the temperature reading. So what happened? The temperature readings stopped trending any particular way. 

I want to point out again: Before 2001, the temperature was going up at an alarming rate.  After 2001, when the "deniers" started scrutinizing how the data was being collected, the "warming" abruptly stopped.

Reply #9 from LittleTinyFrogs Forums Top

http://ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/vuositilastot 

The data is in Finnish and from Finland. From this data it's obvious that there is at least local (country level) warming trend in Finland. Extreme weather is also more common now days than it was in my childhood, as a personal observation.

It is often predicted that melting ice caps counter the global warming effect. That might or might not be true; what is true is that Greenland will soon be worthy it's name: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Frogboy, I would not use any climate data from wiki.  Google William Connelly to find out why, especially in the area of Climate Science, Wikipedia is worthless.

The information you seek is available from other sources, and gives a slightly different picture.  A more honest one.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Boogeytroll, reply 9
what is true is that Greenland will soon be worthy it's name: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html.
End of Boogeytroll's quote

Doubtful.  As the temperatures have not gone over freezing.  And unless you know of a way for 10th century vikings to farm permafrost, then Greenland got its name legitimately and was warmer during the MWP.  However, if you have a theory on how midevel farmers could farm permafrost (explaining the historical data from both the Vatican and physical evidence left by the former occupants), I think the scientific world would be fascinated to hear how it was done.

Quoting Boogeytroll, reply 9
It is often predicted that melting ice caps counter the global warming effect.
End of Boogeytroll's quote

There is no hypothesis that describes such a scenario.  Indeed, the worst case scenario of the alarmist is that the ice cap on Greenland and Antarctica (which is actually growing colder over the past few years) would melt completely and raise sea levels by about 60 feet.  However, that hysteria fails to take into account that Greenland is actually bowl shaped, and more likely, if the entire cap melted, would create one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world.

 

Reply #12 from LittleTinyFrogs Forums Top

@dr, I know but even using their datto you notice that as soon as the tempersture readings started to get closely scrutinized that the temperature miraculously stabilized.

moreover, tsees same groups had predicted that the temperature would be o.50c warmer by 2011 (10 yealate after the IPCC report) when in fact according to their own readings it was cooler.

Reply #13 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 11

Quoting Boogeytroll, reply 9what is true is that Greenland will soon be worthy it's name: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html. 

Doubtful.  As the temperatures have not gone over freezing.  And unless you know of a way for 10th century vikings to farm permafrost, then Greenland got its name legitimately and was warmer during the MWP.
 
End of Dr's quote

 

According to folklore, which is believed to be correct, Grænland got it's name as a marketing device. Greenland has been for the past 100.000 years mostly frozen, in fact most of that ice is over 15 million years old.

Quoting Dr, reply 11

Quoting Boogeytroll, reply 9It is often predicted that melting ice caps counter the global warming effect. 

There is no hypothesis that describes such a scenario.  Indeed, the worst case scenario of the alarmist is that the ice cap on Greenland and Antarctica (which is actually growing colder over the past few years) would melt completely and raise sea levels by about 60 feet.  However, that hysteria fails to take into account that Greenland is actually bowl shaped, and more likely, if the entire cap melted, would create one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world.
 
End of Dr's quote

Jiping Liu's (and METOffice UK's) scenario is quite often referenced when talking about current winter conditions. 

 

 

 

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Boogeytroll, reply 13
According to folklore, which is believed to be correct, Grænland got it's name as a marketing device. Greenland has been for the past 100.000 years mostly frozen, in fact most of that ice is over 15 million years old.
End of Boogeytroll's quote

There are indeed areas of Greenland that have ice cover that old.  But there are also places, now covered with permafrost, that show farming by the ancient vikings 1000 years ago.  Which indicates they either knew how to farm permafrost, or the part now covered with permafrost (not ice sheets) was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today.  And not all records are merely geological and archeological records.  The Vatican has records of church taxes collected during that time which indicate a thriving society of about 3600-4500 people.  These are written records.

 

 

Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top

Climate Change by - Baud2Bits   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm9bV5_hEeI

Climate change isn’t all that complicated except for all the political opinions offered as somehow meaningful. Do you really care about the modeling in the face of the data collected? The simple fact is that we are altering the earth’s natural hot/cold cycles and that is undeniable, beyond that it is a flip of the coin. Is our ‘interference’ delaying the inevitable or quickening it? What is taking place now is due to what we did 50-100 years ago, not what we are doing now. That will become apparent much later in this century and because we are on an exponential curve here, the effects will be much worse (its accumulative). Most of what I hear is based on humanities survival which would be greatly inconvenienced by 5-10 degree change in global temperature but survivable but what will stabilize it then? Unfortunately most of the plants and animals on earth aren’t so adaptable which is why ~99.9% has already gone extinct. As a species we are newborns on the geological time scale and our survivability has yet to be determined. But the surest way to fail (IMO) is to ignore the impact on the ecological foundations all life on earth is dependent on … the food chain. The planet will survive and recover because that is nature’s way, but if we want to be here to experience it; well nature doesn’t GAS how intelligent we think we are and will have no problems adding humanity to the long list of species failures. The bottom line is that if we continue to do what we are doing now we will be totally screwed in the not so distant future. Don’t know where the point of no return is but I know we don’t want to get there.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

But hopefully people will start to decouple their political beliefs from their scientific beliefs.
End of quote

You should practice what you preach.

I don’t think the evidence is compelling enough to justify a world wide economic depression
End of quote

About the only thing that people should be skeptical about is what the best course of action should be. There's no golden pill to cure this one and most of the "solutions" proposed in DC are not really solutions but mostly just the products of "K" street.  Mostly one sided proposals that help protect or promote certain industries over others.

It amazes me how many college graduates still refuse to grasp the principles of the greenhouse effect. I believe this is something initially taught in grade school. If you still cannot grasp such basic principles then maybe you are the one incapable of decoupling your political desires from not only scientific belief, but perhaps reality.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 16
best course of action should be.
End of Smoothseas's quote

Don't you think that you should determine what the problem is before you start prescribing remedies?  The best way to kill a patient is to prescribe medication that does nothing for the disease.

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 16
principles of the greenhouse effect.
End of Smoothseas's quote

Except the earth's climate is much more complicated with both positive and negative reinforcing factors that have yet to be identified much less quantified.

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 16
decoupling your political desires from not only scientific belief
End of Smoothseas's quote

Perhaps you should learn about the null hypothesis and the first step in any scientific postulate.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 17
Don't you think that you should determine what the problem is before you start prescribing remedies?
End of Dr's quote

The thing is I haven't prescribed any remedies. Personally I think the problem is too vast and complicated to solve and that maybe what we should be spending our time on is finding ways to deal with the changes that are IMHO inevitable.

But this doesn't make me deny what i see happening all around me.

My political opinions on such things as energy policy have nothing to do with climate change. They are based on the constant state of conflict in an environment of ever diminishing resources, and the need to ensure safe drinking water supplies for the general population.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 18
But this doesn't make me deny what i see happening all around me.
End of Smoothseas's quote

You mean like this? http://policlimate.com/tropical/

or this? http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/tornadoes-close-to-record-low-level/

Or this? http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/torngraph-big.png

Or maybe this? http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2013/Hurricane-Atlantic-2013.htm

 

Or perhaps the fact that only 3 hurricanes  have hit the US in the past 5 years (but 26 hit during the term of one Grover Cleveland, 125 years ago).

I see a lot of changes too.  But I like some of the changes I see.

 

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 19
Or perhaps the fact that only 3 hurricanes  have hit the US in the past 5 years
End of Dr's quote

You can "selectively" use whatever data you wish in an attempt to backup your ignorance. Doesn't really matter to me.

 

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Since appeal to authority is order of the day, I suppose these guys are all just ignorant rubes.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 20
You can "selectively" use whatever data you wish in an attempt to backup your ignorance. Doesn't really matter to me.

End of Smoothseas's quote

None of it is selective. ACE is global.  Tornadoes are all over as well.

I am more concerned with ending poverty than fattening the pockets of clowns like gore and mann.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 22
None of it is selective
End of Dr's quote

Everything you pointed out is selective. You're selecting single or specific years in most of your cases and noting specific weather events as opposed to climate. Once you realize that certain cyclical factors like solar activity and el nino are in play maybe you will realize where your thinking process is failing you.

Quoting Dr, reply 22
I am more concerned with ending poverty than fattening the pockets of clowns like gore and mann.
End of Dr's quote

So what exactly are you saying? That your disagreement with carbon taxation leads you to have doubts that 7 billion (and counting) humans could possibly effect changes in climate? The last estimate I saw for co2 emissions from the use of carbon based fossil fuels worldwide was approximately 2.5 million pounds per second.

And if you are truly concerned about ending poverty maybe you should look up the word "drought".

   

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 23
Everything you pointed out is selective. You're selecting single or specific years in most of your cases and noting specific weather events as opposed to climate.
End of Smoothseas's quote

No, I am showing you current events.  In relation to recorded history (pre-recorded will have to wait for Mr. Sherman's wayback machine).  I am not selective anything.  This is TODAY.  NOW.  As in the worst period in the history of the earth time.

How long is the sun cycle?  Does it last longer than 60 years? (I heard it is 11 years, but then all those Solar Scientists could be wrong).

Sorry, if I was showing you say 1998, or 2005, that would be cherry picking.  I picked nothing.  I showed you today.

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 23
That your disagreement with carbon taxation leads you to have doubts that 7 billion (and counting) humans could possibly effect changes in climate?
End of Smoothseas's quote

Go back and read all my comments.  You will see that I fully acknowledge Man has an impact.  I never claimed otherwise.  What I said was I have no urge to support a bunch of charlatans when my money goes a lot farther, and does a lot more good to help those less fortunate than me.  Many of which are more susceptible to freezing to death than to dying from heat.

regardless of what we wish for, the simple fact remains.  Limited resources.  You can waste it all making the charlatans rich, or you can use it to better the lives of George Obama and people like him.

And if you truly want to know about "drought", I would suggest you check out the precipitation records over the last 60 years.  And then show me your rain making machine.

 

What you can do versus what you wish for.  I go for what can be done, not a hand full of wishes.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 24
No, I am showing you current events.
End of Dr's quote

You pointed out US hurricane landfalls for one specific high point and another low. Thats quite specific. Now I could be very specific on the other side of the argument if I wanted too. How about last years midwest drought? What about this years drought in Brazil? Maybe Ill add more specifics like the increased incidents of severe flooding in Venice. Pick today all you want. How many glaciers are melting slower today than 60 years ago? 

You were as narrow-minded as an ant. You looked exclusively at "weather" events as opposed to climate.

Quoting Dr, reply 24
And if you truly want to know about "drought", I would suggest you check out the precipitation records over the last 60 years.
End of Dr's quote

Chances are worldwide they have increased. That is generally the trend with higher temps. But then again we all know that climate change mean more droughts for some and more floods for others. Probably even means fewer extremes for other locations. In my locale for example we now increasingly have more precipitation in summer and less in the winter. Substantial differences compared to 40 years ago. The changes are quite noticable. 

Quoting Dr, reply 24
What I said was I have no urge to support a bunch of charlatans when my money goes
End of Dr's quote

It really doesn't matter which side of the fence you live on. We are all subsidizing both sides. And BTW US co2 emissions are currently declining.....Amazing that a "do-nothing" congress can actually get some things done.