Maybe you can explain this better than the website does:
What did they calculate as the degree of variance between observed and modeled temps? What cutoff value did they use to argue which models were "wrong" or right"?
If you only look at the graph from 1983-2013, the models look very good to me. The worst model was only 0.5 degrees off over a 20 year period.
Do you have the courage to debate honestly about climate models?
The links to data here appear to have been deleted. Since all models express their confidence as a range, how are they defining wrong? If I could see the data, I would want to see the range that would be considered acceptable and/or reasonable accuracy of the models?
I have presented multiple articles to you that, in looking at reliable datasets, have determined a low average variance between models and observations. For some reason you have dismissed all of that data as bunk. What is it about this particular source of information that makes it reliable, but not other sources of primary scientific literature claiming the opposite?
Originally posted by wildgrass Maybe you can explain this better than the website does:
What did they calculate as the degree of variance between observed and modeled temps? What cutoff value did they use to argue which models were "wrong" or right"?
If you only look at the graph from 1983-2013, the models look very good to me. The worst model was only 0.5 degrees off over a 20 year period.
Originally posted by wildgrass The links to data here appear to have been deleted. Since all models express their confidence as a range, how are they defining wrong? If I could see the data, I would want to see the range that would be considered acceptable and/or reasonable accuracy of the models?
I have presented multiple articles to you that, in looking at reliable datasets, have d ...[text shortened]... makes it reliable, but not other sources of primary scientific literature claiming the opposite?
Future predictions are what matter. Predicting the past can be a trial and error process where an idiot could eventually get a match because of unlimited tries before they get it right. Nobody in their right mind would consider that a success.
Future predictions have to be right the first time, so past predictions should be discounted. Don't you agree?
Originally posted by Metal Brain What is your source of information?
It was your source. Your link is what I responded to. Two of the models in the analysis from the study you shared with me exactly match the actual temperature 30 years in the future. That, to me, is amazing. The conclusion from that analysis seems to be that only an exact match is right, but all the other models that are very close to actual temp, are considered wrong. Again, all models are expressed as a range of values, so that doesn't make sense. Where are the details of that analysis?
Originally posted by Metal Brain Future predictions are what matter. Predicting the past can be a trial and error process where an idiot could eventually get a match because of unlimited tries before they get it right. Nobody in their right mind would consider that a success.
Future predictions have to be right the first time, so past predictions should be discounted. Don't you agree?
No, I do not agree. Did you read any of the links I shared with you? None of your links answered my questions as to what statistic qualifies one model as right and another model as wrong.
Much of the apparent deviations in the models generated from 30 years ago to today were a result of unpredictable changes to the experimental inputs, not the outputs. Otherwise they clearly predict climate with reasonable accuracy needed to perform experiments.
Originally posted by wildgrass No, I do not agree. Did you read any of the links I shared with you? None of your links answered my questions as to what statistic qualifies one model as right and another model as wrong.
Much of the apparent deviations in the models generated from 30 years ago to today were a result of unpredictable changes to the experimental inputs, not the outputs. Otherwise they clearly predict climate with reasonable accuracy needed to perform experiments.
" None of your links answered my questions as to what statistic qualifies one model as right and another model as wrong. "
Originally posted by Metal Brain http://principia-scientific.org/top-nasa-climate-modeler-admits-predictions-mathematically-impossible/
When you look at the motivation and agenda of a site you need to understand their stance, which is climate change denier, CO2 does not contribute to rising temps and the like.
They are not doing science, just wanting to dis real climate science:
Originally posted by Metal Brain " None of your links answered my questions as to what statistic qualifies one model as right and another model as wrong. "
The same applies to your links.
NOOO! This is a categorical falsehood. Read the articles. There is data and statistics and error bars. They explain the methodology and important variables. Your article links provide none of that, just blanket statements that climate models are wrong, without any context for what they're talking about. For articles that attempted to show data, the links were broken.
You asked for an honest debate. None of your evidence indicates that climate models are inaccurate. Your sources provide no definitions as to what accuracy would even look like. One link claiming 97% wrong showed that models predicted the exact temperature of the planet 15 years into the future (years 1983-1998). I understand there is variation/fluctuation etc. among models, but how is that wrong? And it appears you have not read any of the evidence I have provided. Is this what you meant by an honest debate?
Originally posted by wildgrass NOOO! This is a categorical falsehood. Read the articles. There is data and statistics and error bars. They explain the methodology and important variables. Your article links provide none of that, just blanket statements that climate models are wrong, without any context for what they're talking about. For articles that attempted to show data, the links w ...[text shortened]... u have not read any of the evidence I have provided. Is this what you meant by an honest debate?
MB is part of a cadre of anti 'scientists' who care not for the truth, only to what they have been paid to say or being the disciple of an avowed climate denier, the net result is a loss of political will to actually do something about climate change, natural or manmade, just ignore it basically till it's too late to reverse, with the atmosphere at 1000 PPM, one part per THOUSAND of CO2. But those deniers will be long gone by then and won't even know the destruction there obstructions will have caused. By that time there will be no deniers left alive, only people who have heard the history of it longing for a time machine to come back an hack off the heads of each and every one of them for destroying the genetic diversity through massive extinctions and the loss of land mass and the uninhabitability of a large portion of the planet as well as humans going from 10 billion or so in 50 years to a few hundred million in 200 years through massive starvation. No bid deal though, right? I am just a stupid alarmist.
Originally posted by wildgrass NOOO! This is a categorical falsehood. Read the articles. There is data and statistics and error bars. They explain the methodology and important variables. Your article links provide none of that, just blanket statements that climate models are wrong, without any context for what they're talking about. For articles that attempted to show data, the links w ...[text shortened]... u have not read any of the evidence I have provided. Is this what you meant by an honest debate?
"There is data and statistics and error bars."
You know what kind of data I have been talking about. I mean all of the measurement data to those not following this debate closely. You are being deliberately dishonest as usual. If you had the data I have been asking for you would be eager to provide it.
Originally posted by Metal Brain "There is data and statistics and error bars."
You know what kind of data I have been talking about. I mean all of the measurement data to those not following this debate closely. You are being deliberately dishonest as usual. If you had the data I have been asking for you would be eager to provide it.
Why do you continue to use sites with a clear anti-climate change agenda? This is not independent reporting. It is in fact, independent politics with a political agenda having nothing to do with truth in science.
You have posted nothing from truly independent sites. Everything you have posted comes from sites with a built in bias against climate change being caused by mankind.
Find sites that do the same but are truly independent.
Originally posted by sonhouse Why do you continue to use sites with a clear anti-climate change agenda? This is not independent reporting. It is in fact, independent politics with a political agenda having nothing to do with truth in science.
You have posted nothing from truly independent sites. Everything you have posted comes from sites with a built in bias against climate change being caused by mankind.
Find sites that do the same but are truly independent.
Yes.... and.... the links I've followed don't actually say what they claim to say. I don't understand when there's a site claiming that all of climate models are wrong, but the actual data presented on that website seems to support the accuracy of the models. Isn't it ludicrous say that the models are wrong, using the data as "proof", and the data is wrong, while using the models as proof?
I'm an open-minded person, but I have yet to see a legitimate scientific argument that anthropogenic climate is not significant or actionable.
22 Apr '17 17:261 edit
Predicting the past
Back to Top