“sometimes you seem to be intentionally obtuse in your comments”
That’s because he is.
Andrew
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Bad Andrew
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Philip Lee
The key: “Model results that confirm earlier model results are perceived more reliable than model results that deviate from earlier results.”
News flash — Newton’s law of gravity rejected by climate modellers for not confirming earlier models based on epicycles.
The key above is an admission of scientific corruption of the first order.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Rob Starkey
Joshua
I have been consistent in what I have written. I evaluate your position based on what you write–not because there are other alarmist who write unsupported positions. The US needs to seek to balance its budget. That needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating realistic alternatives.
A poor model provides very little useful information. I don’t see how the outputs of the current GCMs are any better than merely looking at historical records and taking into account expected popuilation changes.
Joshua–How about writing specifically what policies you think the US should enact in response to AGW in the next 5 years???
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Joshua
Look, I disagree with mosher on many things, but I don’t think that it could be said that he’s intentionally obtuse.
:-)
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Wagathon
<blockquote>The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected... In other words, for at least the next two decades, solar and wind energy are simply expensive, feel-good measures that will have an imperceptible climate impact. ~Bjorn Lomborg</blockquote>
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Matthew R Marler
Steven Mosher: Unless you have an alternative, you dont get to play the game.
Luckily, we have many alternative models. And we are blessed to live in a republic where everyone can vote, or correspond with elected officials, or otherwise “play the game”..
Besides that, we have the cautionary tales from history of the best available models being (catastrophically) wrong, as was the case with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and the model-based projections of Malthus and the neo-Malthusians. The “precautionary principle” tells us that we should not trust the models before they have been shown to be accurate.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Matthew R Marler
Fabius Maximus, thank you for the link.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by R Graf
“..15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees …”
Data uncertainty? Year-year fluctuation; decade-decade; century-century ?
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Matthew R Marler
Steven Mosher: wrong.
Details please. I’d take Rud Istvan’s authority over yours any day. So if you think he is wrong, please provide the details. For example, you could quote text from the sources he cited proving that he misinterpreted them.
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by kneel63
Joshua:
” Shortcomings, like the huge biases and ignorance of potentially important mechanisms, have been routinely and dutifully reported…
Because it doesn’t quite fit with the standard “skeptic” narrative. The standard narrative being that biases and ignorance of potentially important mechanisms are routinely and dutifully ignored or hidden, Try to find a single thread in the “skept-o-sphere” where that standard “skeptical” narrative isn’t asserted!
Hmm, “routinely…reported” and “routinely…ignored” are not mutally exclusive. If “huge biases and ignornce of…mechanisms” is “routinely…reported” in the literature, and IPCC AR’s are “our best summary of the work”, why are the “huge biases” not noted in the AR’s? “ignorance of potentially important mechanisms” could perhaps be defended as present in the AR’s, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone acknowledge, let alone defend, this “ignorance of …mechanisms” being missing from the ARs.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by mosomoso
A model is a great Gothic cathedral of complexity which has been built on foundations of assumption, extrapolation and simplification…then plugged with bias and guess.
In short, not something for adults, which is why we’re in the present mess.
Need adults, so badly.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Beta Blocker
AFOMD, let’s take the simple approach to becoming ardent fans of more discourse:
Climate scientists have moved the goalposts for evaluating the predictions of the climate models by adopting a new approach to GCM verification. Rather than using the central tendency of the GMT mean, they are, for all practical purposes, now using the trend in peak hottest years which occur every four or five years as their basis for GCM verification: 1998, 2005, 2010, 2014 etc.
Gavin Schmidt: “With the continued heating of the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, 1998 is now being surpassed every four or five years, with 2014 being the first time that has happened in a year featuring no real El Niño pattern.” Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next time a strong El Niño occurs, it is likely to blow away all temperature records.
With that as background, please tell us in 100 words or less why — while CO2 is currently increasing at the higher RCP8.5 emission scenario — there is now a dramatic slowdown in global warming in progress. Tell us in simple, understandable words why there is not an AGW Credibility Gap developing, as is illustrated on this graph:
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Rud Istvan
KenW, I could find no such evidence. If you go far upthread, you will find a tuning discussion with references and explanarions and examples on what I did find. The models are parameterized for processes they don’t simulate. For NCAR CAM3, these expressly include (technical manual references) 4.5 Prognostic Condensate and Precipitation Parameterization and 4.7 Parameterization of Cloud Fraction. Both are important feedbacks.
The CMIP5 experimental design called for submitting 10, 20, and 30 year hindcasts. Think of this as in sample model math and parameterization verification. Then it called for using the RCPs to submit (IIRC) 30 year projections. All in the ‘near term’ experimental design half; long term is > than a century. Think of these ‘near term projections’ as enabling out of sample validation. And the 18 year pause means CMIP5 has now failed validation by the >17 year temperature divergence criterion Santer established in his 2011 paper.
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Antonio (AKA "Un físico")
Alexander, I have no time to read your full thesis: only your abstract. I hope you find time to read at least my abstract at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2TWRnRVhwSnNLc0k/edit . Please focus in the idea (A.c). Very few scientist are aware of that idea, but time-scales are key for getting climate change statistically-valid predictions.
I agree with your thesis: CMIP5 models have no predictive capacity. But I bet you could not defend that thesis in the ETHZ (in Switzerland) as it is the domain of Reto Knutti.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by R. Gates
“There is no valid physics which can explain any warming of Earth’s surface by water vapor or carbon dioxide.”
______
I realize now why I’ve been staying away from CE. Thank you for the reminder!
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Bob Ludwick
@ Dr. Curry
“I seriously doubt that such a thesis would be possible in an atmospheric/oceanic/climate science department in the U.S. – whether the student would dare to tackle this, whether a faculty member would agree to supervise this, and whether a committee would ‘pass’ the thesis.”
Using ‘seriously doubt’ in the same context, I ‘seriously doubt’ that if I climb up on the roof of my house and jump off, my demise will be precipitated by asphyxiation as I pass through the stratosphere en route to the moon.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by nickels
And only a mildy chaotic system to boot (planets).
Many chaotic systems show exactly this kind of behavior: long term stability (and linear error growth) follow by regions of chaotic instability and exponential error growth.
Statistics? What exactly is your claim?
pure drivel, sorry.
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by nickels
“Conclusion General circulation models (GCMs) are not presently, and never have been, generally regarded as providing the strongest scientific evidence for the accelerating reality and harmful consequences of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).”
I mean, scroll down a bit FOM. On the same thread you are both conceeding that GCM are not accurate and then here you go claiming they are accurate.
Logic fail.
GCM’s are accurate. Statistics of GCM’s are accurate.
Yeah and God is the tooth fairy.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Rob Starkey
KenW
I suggest rules #3, #7, #12, and #13 are critical.
Imo, the issue is whether AGW is going to cause the climate to be significantly worse for humans and where, and when. The changes will not occur at the same time. Imo, we have no reliable data to know the answers today.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Willard
Makes no sense.
Makes no sense to me.
Spot the difference.
As bender would say,
Next.
***
Since I’ve been hailed, Pat’s claim might be more interesting if he’d quote the relevant argument. I suspect the usual one against parametrization.
↧
