Discussion > Let's get real about climate models
Explain what? I have no idea.
I can't disentangle the rest of what you said. Your confused state of mind is doubtless another symptom of whatever causes you to claim to see a "pause", while claiming not to draw conclusions about data that you reject. See a doctor.
Raff
Raff - could you please point me to a climate science definition of "a projection"?
I think it means something like "This is what we predict will happen, if x,y,z also happen". A sort of conditional prediction. The dictionary (I know you like quoting the dictionary) does not make a very clear distinction between 'a projection' and 'a prediction'. [projection: an estimate or forecast based on present trends.]
It would be quite helpful to have a definitive explanation of what the word means in climate science contexts.
Martin A
Simon Hodgkinson, Radical rodent
You seem to have missed the difference between a projection and a prediction.
A projection is a possible future conditional on the behaviour of humanity. The climate crisis I mentioned is one such, if continued high fossil fuel burn continues.It is contingent on a worldwide political victory by the sceptics. If the sceptics lose there is less chance of the crisis happening.
A prediction is a more definite statement that something will happen regardless of what anyone does.
Entropic man
EM, like the other the catastrophic global-warmers, you give skeptics more credit than we are due. I would venture that most in people in China, India, and, err, most of the rest of the world simply ignore the ranting and raving. They don't car. They are too busy struggling to improve their lives and western greens are simply not helping them, only hindering.
Your global war on carbon dioxide is lost. I'm just hoping we can reduce the foolish damage and unnecessary hardships inflicted domestically by the über-greens.
michael hart
spelling. should be "They don't care", of course.
They will continue to car, in increasing numbers.
michael hart
Okay, EM (but curious to note that it is conditional solely on the behaviour of humanity; no other conditions apply, then?). So what climate crisis on you projecting? And, what are you basing your projection of this climate crisis on, as, to date, all climate change that we have experienced has been, on the whole, beneficial?
Radical Rodent
Are computer models reliable?
Yes. Computer models are an essential
tool in understanding how the climate will
respond to changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations, and other external effects,
such as solar output and volcanoes.
Computer models are the only reliable
way to predict changes in climate. Their
reliability is tested by seeing if they are able
to reproduce the past climate, which gives
scientists confidence that they can also
predict the future.
But computer models cannot predict the
future exactly. They depend, for example, on
assumptions made about the levels of future
greenhouse gas emissions.
(From "Warming a guide to climate change", Met Office, October 2011)
Martin A
Maybe Stoat can help :-/
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/23/projection-prediction/
Raff
Raff,
You are well out of order with your "confused state of mind" and "see a doctor" remarks.
jolly farmer
FICTION
Climate models can't be trustedClimate models consist of complex equations which represent the process that occur in our weather and climate. By running these models through a supercomputer we get forecasts of what will happen in the future. Although making climate models is a major part of our work, we'd be the first to admit they aren't perfect. But we do check models for accuracy by running them from points in the past and checking their predictions against what actually happened (called hindcasts).
From this we know they represent the past climate accurately so we can have confidence in them for the future climate (the forecasts).
The fact that lots of different models, put together by scientific organisations from all over the word, agree on the general forecast of a changing climate increases our confidence in the predictions.
Met Office pamphlet created 2/7/2009
Martin A
Endoscopic Man:
Simon Hodgkinson, Radical rodentYou seem to have missed the difference between a projection and a prediction.
Not even slightly.
Simon Hopkinson
jolly farmer
Raff,You are well out of order with your "confused state of mind" and "see a doctor" remarks.
Yeah but it's Raff. Consider the source. LOL
Simon Hopkinson
Forgive my impertinence, EM, but could you please answer my simple question: what climate crisis is it that you feel is being, erm, projected?
Jolly Farmer: I wouldn’t waste your breath, if I were you.
Radical Rodent
Since 2000, the 19th century has got colder. And 2000 has got warmer. (1968 stayed about the same)
Raff, EM - I'm really curious. Do you think this rewriting of climate history...
- Did not (and does not) take place?
- Corrected data that previously was wrong and is now correct and confirms human caused climate change?
- It's a sceptic hoax?
- Other?
- ...?
Martin A
Entropic man
Do you want to you want to pop over to Paul Homewood's Not A lot of People Know That and explain why it's all nonsense or shall I link to your comment here?
SandyS
Sandy S
Link it.
Entropic man
Sandy, the sonde data Homewood posted show a clear upward trend at all altitudes except 40000ft, as I commented over there. I don't see how this supports a "skeptic" world view in any way. Neither does it verify the satellite view. What are you seeing in the graphs that I am not?
Martin, what do you make of it? Do you take one look and say "fraud"? Or do you still have any skepticism left in you? Be skeptical of your gut reaction for a short while and find out the context in which the two images that make up the picture were originally presented and the description of what went into generating the images, the corrections etc. Maybe you'll find that there really is fraud, although I doubt it. But at least you'd be exhibiting some critical thought instead of just reacting to a dog whistle.
Raff
Raff - I have no reason not to believe that both images were presented by NASA and that the temperatures were changed for what seemed to the people making the changes correct, rational and useful improvements in the quality of the data.
But changes like that seem always to involve the past being made cooler and recent times being made warmer. In anything that involves subjective judgements, it is very hard - impossible really - avoid preconceptions of what the data should show from affecting the way it is changed. Things that turn out as you expect them to turn out ten to be accepted much less critically than things that turn out the opposite of waht you expect. It's how the human mind works.
Martin A
Raff, I note that you didn't reply to the question with what YOU thought of it, you just asked what Martin thought of it and then added your usual TROLLOLOLOL innuendo and insult. Obviously an oversight on your part.
Do you have the integrity (no, I know, but play along anyway) to examine the graphs, see the source for yourself and then call it as a fraud when it transpires that these were indeed sourced from GISS and suggest malfeasance? DO you have it in you? I am pretty damn sure I know the answer but heck, I don't have a problem adding one more to your list of myopic shortfalls.
Simon Hopkinson
find out the context in which the two images that make up the picture were originally presented and the description of what went into generating the images
Oh do tell us, Raff, what possible NARRATIVE change between these representations of, supposedly, the same data displayed in the same way could justify the disparity?
You wanna talk about motivated reasoning? Really?? LOL! You really need to put up or STFU, Raff
Simon Hopkinson
Endoscopic Man, Radical Rodent asked:
could you please answer my simple question: what climate crisis is it that you feel is being, erm, projected?
You keep commenting in the thread and yet somehow keep missing this very straightforward question. In fact there's a string of questions that, for some really strange reason, you keep forgetting to cover. 'Tis a funny thing.
Simon Hopkinson
I find myself considering new vocabulary to describe you. Most of them are synonyms for "senile old fool" (...) Are you seriously suggesting that the output of thousands of scientists over 200 years is a deliberate plot by "them" to control the world? If so, " senile old fool " seems entirely inadequate.
Jan 22, 2016 at 1:02 PM Entropic man
EM - I asked you "Could you please remind me where I said such a thing?"
Probably, due to my foolishness and my senility, I missed your reply. If so, perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to it or to re-post it?
Otherwise, I'll have to assume it is just another thing that you have imagined (such as your stating that I don't know how to do O-level physics specific heat calculations).
While you are at it, here is a scientific calculation you might like to do: calculate the mean rate of global warming from 1880 to 2000, using the so-called 'global temperature' graphs presented by NASA in (A) 2001, (B) 2016. Is the difference between (A) and (B) 'statistically significant'? (I know you have an ability to come up with statements about statistical significance despite having nothing more to work with than a short record of a time series, so I imagine you can easily give us that information.)
the past is getting cooler - but after 1964, the past is getting warmer (NASA)
Martin A
Maybe Stoat can help :-/
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/23/projection-prediction/
Jan 22, 2016 at 7:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff
Raff, I find it quite painful to look at the mustelid's web site - it's the same sort of experience as watching a badly injured dog struggling in the road. But I gritted my teeth and followed your link. He seems to be saying he is buggered if he can make out what is the difference between a projection and a prediction (a bit like the COD).
Perhaps a thread listing where Climate Science uses terminology differently from the rest of physical science might be illuminating.
Martin A
Martin A
Courtesy o Eli Rabbett, combined post 1880 temperature data. The raw NOAA data is the pale blue line.
Note that the postwar data has hardly changed, but the prewar adjusted data is much warmer than the raw data.
Your climate conspiracy has fiddled the result to REDUCE the warming rate.
Entropic man
Okay, I'll be a little more fair to Raff. Yes, this is the heart of the discussion. The misuse of model projections by warmists, presenting them as predictions when they're truthfully inadequate to that task.
So yes, Raff, you're right, the historical data is being abused by those using it to model a future with more claimed certainty than can be fairly assigned. That's the heart of the matter. I apologise, you were right, and the models are wrong.