Climate Models Can Never Work, Says Computer Modeller

[AProudLefty]

Much more than that, they cannot model clouds to any great extent and that's a huge drop off if you can't do that then your model is next to useless.

Well I understand that. The more data they have over time, the more accurate the prediction will be.

The lottery machine comparison is wrong because there is NO data to make any kind of prediction for the next numbers.

However, Greg made a better analogy.

Consider a shotgun. When the trigger is pulled, the pellets from the cartridge travel down the barrel, but there is also lateral movement of the pellets. The purpose of the shotgun barrel is to dampen the lateral movements and to narrow the spread when the pellets leave the barrel. It’s well known that shotguns have limited accuracy over long distances, that the shot pattern that grows with distance from the muzzle.

The history-match period for a climate model is like the barrel of the shotgun. So what happens when the model moves from matching to forecasting mode?

Let's take that analogy further. The more pellets (data sets) you have, the more accurate it will be over a distance.

 

[serendipity]

BTW, why are the images too small to see?

I don't know, they are a tad small but not unreadable.

 

[AProudLefty]

I don't know, they are a tad small but not unreadable.

This is unreadable.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I get the argument. It is based on the number of stations. Apparently it is not enough data to make an accurate prediction.

That would be statisticians' job.

It's not as simple as that. Not only is there not enough data to model the Earth's atmosphere, there are still many unknowns involved. It's like trying to model volcanic activity without knowing about plate tectonics and hot spots.

 

[AProudLefty]

It's not as simple as that. Not only is there not enough data to model the Earth's atmosphere, there are still many unknowns involved. It's like trying to model volcanic activity without knowing about plate tectonics and hot spots.

See that where a lottery machine would make a sort-of good analogy.

Core samples and in depth temperature measurements and such would give you data.

As I have stated, do not start your argument with a very bad fallacy. You're a self described expert on fallacies so you should know.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

See that where a lottery machine would make a sort-of good analogy.

Core samples and in depth temperature measurements and such would give you data.

As I have stated, do not start your argument with a very bad fallacy. You're a self described expert on fallacies so you should know.

It isn't a fallacy. In fact, a proof the models are badly flawed can be made in the models produced by the very same people about the hole--well, no holes--in the ozone layer. These same climate scientists told us that if we didn't rid the world of CFC's to heal the hole in the ozone layer, we were doomed or something. Well, we listened to them, and ridded the world of CFC's. Now some 10 + years ago the hole should have disappeared according to their predictions. It's still there, roughly the same size, and now they've found some new ones.

The same goes for the world's average temperature. The modelling is horrible and inaccurate. Yet, we are supposed to upend our lives entirely to "save the planet" yet again based on modelling that isn't accurate and probably isn't even measuring the correct stuff.

 

[AProudLefty]

It isn't a fallacy. In fact, a proof the models are badly flawed can be made in the models produced by the very same people about the hole--well, no holes--in the ozone layer. These same climate scientists told us that if we didn't rid the world of CFC's to heal the hole in the ozone layer, we were doomed or something. Well, we listened to them, and ridded the world of CFC's. Now some 10 + years ago the hole should have disappeared according to their predictions. It's still there, roughly the same size, and now they've found some new ones.

The same goes for the world's average temperature. The modelling is horrible and inaccurate. Yet, we are supposed to upend our lives entirely to "save the planet" yet again based on modelling that isn't accurate and probably isn't even measuring the correct stuff.

It's a non sequitur.

A lottery machine has no data to predict the next numbers. Therefore the fallacy destroys the entire argument.

The author saved face by using a better analogy:

Consider a shotgun. When the trigger is pulled, the pellets from the cartridge travel down the barrel, but there is also lateral movement of the pellets. The purpose of the shotgun barrel is to dampen the lateral movements and to narrow the spread when the pellets leave the barrel. It’s well known that shotguns have limited accuracy over long distances, that the shot pattern that grows with distance from the muzzle.

The history-match period for a climate model is like the barrel of the shotgun. So what happens when the model moves from matching to forecasting mode?

The moral of the story? Never make a retarded statement or a fallacy before starting your argument because it will be dismissed outright.

 

[serendipity]

This is unreadable.

So you can't go to the IPCC website and look for yourself?

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/climate-models-and-their-evaluation/

 

[AProudLefty]

So you can't go to the IPCC website and look for yourself?

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/climate-models-and-their-evaluation/

Thank you. But I don't see that graphic there.

 

[Bigdog]

This is unreadable.

Here is a version you can enlarge ... https://i.stack.imgur.com/KT60Z.png

The spaghettis are the 73 Models and the solid black line is their mean.

The black circles are the avg of 4 balloon datasets and the blue squares are the avg of 2 satellite datasets from observations.

 

[AProudLefty]

Here is a version you can enlarge ... https://i.stack.imgur.com/KT60Z.png

The spaghettis are the 73 Models and the solid black line is their mean.

The black circles are the avg of 4 balloon datasets and the blue squares are the avg of 2 satellite datasets from observations.

Thank you.

 

[AProudLefty]

Here is a version you can enlarge ... https://i.stack.imgur.com/KT60Z.png

The spaghettis are the 73 Models and the solid black line is their mean.

The black circles are the avg of 4 balloon datasets and the blue squares are the avg of 2 satellite datasets from observations.

So the balloons and the satellites are on the bottom in the chart.

Where are the data from the stations?

 

[AProudLefty]

Here is a version you can enlarge ... https://i.stack.imgur.com/KT60Z.png

The spaghettis are the 73 Models and the solid black line is their mean.

The black circles are the avg of 4 balloon datasets and the blue squares are the avg of 2 satellite datasets from observations.

BTW I didn't mean to ask where the stations' data are. I mean there's clearly is an increase in something (the mean, median, average). So clearly something is increasing.

 

[Bigdog]

BTW I didn't mean to ask where the stations' data are. I mean there's clearly is an increase in something (the mean, median, average). So clearly something is increasing.

Apparently, all the modeling and observations are tropospheric, not surface temps. The models are in disagreement with real world observations.

We can't really be sure of much the gov't agencies are telling us. Ever read about "tree ring divergence"?

" Abstract
An anomalous reduction in forest growth indices and temperature sensitivity has been detected in tree-ring width and density records from many circumpolar northern latitude sites since around the middle 20th century. This phenomenon, also known as the “divergence problem”, is expressed as an offset between warmer instrumental temperatures and their underestimation in reconstruction models based on tree rings. The divergence problem has potentially significant implications for large-scale patterns of forest growth, the development of paleoclimatic reconstructions based on tree-ring records from northern forests, and the global carbon cycle."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818107000495

This demonstrates the problem with comparing instrument data to proxy data.

So the Past may have been warmer than what we are told.

 

[Bigdog]

A few of the other things that can not be predicted over the next 100 years ...

ALL Sun activity
Volcanic activity
Meteor and Comet strikes
Nuclear Winter
Plankton cloud formation

 

[Bigdog]

 

[Yakuda]

There is no need to read the rest because the first sentence invalidates the whole article.

"If you cannot make a model to predict the outcome of the next draw from a lottery ball machine, you are unable to make a model to predict the future of the climate, suggests former computer modeller Greg Chapman, in a recent essay in Quadrant."

1. Lottery numbers are 100% random.
2. What does a computer modeller know?
3. If it is useless, how are the meteorologists able to make predictions?

Right a lottery machine isn't "guessing" what the lottery number will be. It is using a finite amount of data and models still cant predict what the lottery number will be but we are supposed to unquestionably believe models that predict something as unpredictable as the weather. There may be factors that influence the climate that we may not even be aware of but believe the climate models right?

 

[AProudLefty]

Right a lottery machine isn't "guessing" what the lottery number will be.

Correct.

It is using a finite amount of data and models still cant predict what the lottery number will be but we are supposed to unquestionably believe models that predict something as unpredictable as the weather.

We do have data such as temperatures, pressures, wind speeds and so on.

Consider this - this board starts with balls at the top. There is no data. It is all random like the lottery machine. Now let's see what happens.

Wow! As predicted EVERY TIME!

There may be factors that influence the climate that we may not even be aware of but believe the climate models right?

Scientific theories are not beliefs.

 

[Into the Night]

Because models are not like a lottery machine. It's an idiotic comparison.

A lottery machine is a randR generator.
A climate model program is a randU generator.

Both are random number generators. Just different types of random numbers.

 

[Into the Night]

There are plenty of data sets. It is clear you have no clue how computer modelling works.

There is no data set. A computer model is not data. Random numbers are not data either.