Climate Models: Inaccurate?

I challenged you a couple of threads ago to provide those failed predictions (among other things you clearly think you have), but you never did. Instead you gave a weak excuse, assumed my motive, and left the thread. Maybe this time, you’ll actually provide those failed predictions?

Similarly, let’s see where this came from. Show your work, please.

Admit it. You’re writing a cookbook.

Now that’s a thread winner right there. :smiley:

And your evidence for this is what? Or is this just a supposed truism?

If I were, it would contain as much valid science as the average climate change alarmist research paper.

That is, none at all.

My cookbook, and the average climate change alarmist research paper. both contain no valid science, whatsoever.

This is great debates. When you make a claim here, you’re expected to back it up. Now would you kindly either demonstrate your assertion, or admit you cannot and retract it?

No model is perfect. If it was, it would be reality, not a model.

I’ll also grant that modern climate models are much better than the earlier models, but I found this 7 minute video compelling: Climate: What did We Know and When Did We Know it? Scientists discuss specific predictions based on the early climate models from the 70s/80s and how things turned out.

Did you look at the last set of plots in that article? When shown correctly, the data is within the range of predictions, though just barely. Which means the data is consistent with predictions.

I’ve already provided a cite debunking one of the two main claims in the OP’s link. The other is the “Holocene conundrum,” and from what I could tell, it seems like unexplained part of reconstructed data that climate change deniers pounce on. This page has some info (though not exactly a debunking).

And the news services will take one body from the 95% and one from the 5% and present them on a point-counterpoint type panel show as equals. What could be fairer than that?

Yes, I looked at them, and don’t find it a compelling argument. If we were discussing the dangers global warming presented, and I had taken just the very lowest model (which turned out to be the most accurate) and said, “see, it won’t be too bad, this one model predicts a pause”, I’m confident that I’d get a retort along the lines of “sure, but you can’t ignore the other 99% of models that predict it will be worse”. Well, can you? I don’t think so, at least not if you still want to lay claim to the word “consensus” and be taken seriously by people like me.

As they say 95% of climate models agree that the observations are wrong.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That’s just the same Spencer/Christy distortion that is the main argument in OP’s link.

The bottom line is not the very lowest model, it’s the lower bound of the 95-percentile range - i.e. the 2-sigma range around the mean.

What I have seen is that they are still much more accurate than what deniers are letting us know.

And recent readings show that after 3 years of increased heat the observations are matching the models more.

Thing that one has to take into account was something that researchers had let us know for decades and it ignored usually in popular media, actual observations of the temperature are bound to be a bit chaotic in the short range (with escalator steps going up that look flat for years but they are going up nevertheless.

One thing to notice is also one item that deniers never explain properly: why is that the cold years in those steps that the deniers use to mislead others into thinking that "global warming has stopped", the La Nina years, are getting warmer.
And: Really? Roy Spencer?

Thanks for the correction, but I don’t think it significantly changes the argument though. Do you?

Yes. If the data is within 2 sigma of a model’s prediction, I would consider that to be an accurate model. Especially since there are natural forcings that cannot be predicted in advance.

The problem with advocates is that they are advocates. They believe in the righteousness of their cause to the exclusion of all else, including the truth. One of the more important things to them is to convert the non-believers to their side. Therefore they will gladly falsify their data, exaggerate their claims and the effects of their cause, and dismiss and excuse anything to the contrary.

This is often true of advocates on both sides of the political aisle. Every few months there is an example of this that reaches the news in one form or another. The most recent that pops into my mind is the U of Virginia Rape article in Rolling Stone. Proven to be totally false.

Climate change advocates is not immune to this. They had their share of falsification of data claims. They have for years been exaggerating the claims they make on the effects to occur, and they dismiss and excuse anything that does not fit their narrative.

Keep that in mind when you view any climate models.

Some people take things on faith, I take them on doubt. :smiley:

But most scientists are not advocates for a specific scientific theory or result. Keep that in mind when reviewing science papers.