Just one small part in the puzzle. Operative term in that sentence being "more closely" that doesn't equate to "models accurately matched observations" for a start (what's the margin of error?). But even if that were the case, what next? My point is that even if the models are correctly predicting changes in global surface temperatures our climate models are entirely unable to accurately predict what that will actually mean in any given region of the planet in the long term. Except, as I stated, in the grossest terms.
Climate Change over-egged
- Thread starter cliffpatte
- Start date
Just one small part in the puzzle. Operative term in that sentence being "more closely" that doesn't equate to "models accurately matched observations" for a start (what's the margin of error?). But even if that were the case, what next? My point is that even if the models are correctly predicting changes in global surface temperatures our climate models are entirely unable to accurately predict what that will actually mean in any given region of the planet in the long term. Except, as I stated, in the grossest terms.
djftw
Heterodox Member
Complex iterative modelling cannot be accurate, indeed chaos theory would suggest it can be no more accurate than random guesswork... In this case the 'greenhouse effect' is as proven as anything can be, but accurately predicting the effects of greenhouse gas emissions is just not possible, the feedback mechanisms are enormously complex and poorly understood; any model will rely on assumptions so the outcome of modeling is often the one the designer expects.
I don't think climate science has done itself any favours on the PR front by frequently failing to differentiate between the hard science and the outcomes of modelling which really should be qualified with 'assuming x,y & z this might happen'.
I don't think climate science has done itself any favours on the PR front by frequently failing to differentiate between the hard science and the outcomes of modelling which really should be qualified with 'assuming x,y & z this might happen'.
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
You're referencing something I wrote two and a half years ago. What I was referring to at the time was the media jumping on the bandwagon and over-egging what the climate change lobby were saying.
However your post is concerned with the models themselves. And even picking one newspaper they don't seem clear one way or the other on which climate scientist is saying that climate change is paused, or which one is saying that climate models are broken (by not considering oceans and trade winds) - and in the case of one scientist he just aspires to the "community" needing to have confidence in them - well that seems unlikely unless they all say the same thing and then the measurements over a significant period match the predicted ones. And they don't match for that past 25 years or so.
Greg
2t5b
is this statement really true?
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html
Paul R
pfm Member
Models and measurements.
It's deeply unsatisfactory that the AGW campaign is predicated on the impact of CO2 assumed by those models. It's a valid process if you have a complete model that you can demonstrate confidence in but it's abundantly clear that we don't.
(Sorry it's a big picture)
Paul
It's deeply unsatisfactory that the AGW campaign is predicated on the impact of CO2 assumed by those models. It's a valid process if you have a complete model that you can demonstrate confidence in but it's abundantly clear that we don't.
(Sorry it's a big picture)
Paul
Paul R
pfm Member
I'm not going to pay to read the paper. But the abstract is enough. It offers a theory, and the evidence in support of that theory is that models adjusted by the output of theory now match reality. This says nothing about the actual validity of the theory. Not science.
(And, unless they can clearly show that their trade wind theory is independent of the rest of the climate, they are invalidating AGW. Which probably isn't their intention.)
This is the kind of paper that is produced for PR purposes, it gets reported in the main-stream media and then forgotten. A year or so ago the theory that fixed the models was unpredicted aerosol emissions from China.
And if you understood the fundamental case for AGW theory it would help.
Paul
(And, unless they can clearly show that their trade wind theory is independent of the rest of the climate, they are invalidating AGW. Which probably isn't their intention.)
This is the kind of paper that is produced for PR purposes, it gets reported in the main-stream media and then forgotten. A year or so ago the theory that fixed the models was unpredicted aerosol emissions from China.
And if you understood the fundamental case for AGW theory it would help.
Paul
Paul R
pfm Member
It could be, but there are many other sources that show much the same thing, including in IPCC final drafts. And what that graphic shows is in principle tacitly accepted by the England paper, given it's their premise. Otherwise they wouldn't be seeking another forcing to correct the models.
Paul,
If I had to guess, the reason the figure you posted starts in 1983 is because of the large El Nino that year. Similarly choosing 15 years as the period used to calculate a trend (or lack thereof) conveniently starts with another huge El Nino.
Paul
Ok if global warming, ho yes I forgot they change the name to climate change is real, then why has all the extra tax we are paying doesn't seem to be making any difference at all, and where has all the money gone?
If it is real we would do better to adapt to the conditions rather than try and influence nature, surely.
What was happening 200 years back that the recent floods are the worst for 200 years? No cars or as many people back then.
If it is real we would do better to adapt to the conditions rather than try and influence nature, surely.
What was happening 200 years back that the recent floods are the worst for 200 years? No cars or as many people back then.
Trouble is I'm bloody freezing here.
Greg
2t5b
Paul R
pfm Member
There is nothing that the UK or even US can do unilaterally that will change AGW. That doesn't mean it isn't right to lead rather than follow. And more importantly burning fossil fuels when there is an alternative is just plain stupid. We make stuff from oil, stuff we need. What we do now is like burning your house to stay warm. And assuming you can build a new one each spring.
There is, so far, no known causation between climate change and extreme weather. When politicians and bureaucrats start referring to it in the context of recent rain they are dissembling from their lack of preparedness for a predictable and inevitable event.
How do you measure 'worst for 200 years'? The rain fall over the last three months isn't that unusual. We have short memories, a couple of cold dry winters and warm wet summers and we start to think it's usual. 10 years ago a prominent climate scientist was bemoaning that modern children would seldom experience snow.
The view from 2000, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Paul
That was awesome. Especially when played through the main HiFi.
Last edited by a moderator: