That’s questionable, I’ve not seen a climate model correctly show the drop in average global temperature observed in the 1880-1900 time interval. If the model doesn’t give results that fit the data, there’s something wrong with the model.
Here is a chart which purports to compare an average of 2007 climate simulations with temperature history according to GISS. As you can see, it’s a very very good fit.
Does anyone want to bet that the fit between 2007 and 2025 will be just as good?
Perhaps, but if the model’s results DO fit the data, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the model is valid. It could have been tuned and tailored to fit the data.
Also, if the model fits the data too well, it is strongly suggestive that the model is bullshit.
As always, the acid test is bona fide predictions.
Hold one there, that chart looks nothing like the observed data. Where did your data come from? As you can read on the NOAA data, they got theirs from trained professional meteorologists reading a precision thermometer and writing down the results.
I’m asking for a model that correctly shows the observed data, these GISS and IPCC model results do not.
Lol, adjust the scaling.
GISS. By the way, I don’t necessarily accept that GISS is accurate. In fact, if one assumes that it is inaccurate, the case against the models is even stronger. Because it’s even more of a coincidence for a model to match an inaccurate record of history.
It’s not that simple or easy to figure what the average global surface temperature was in the 1880s. There were not “trained professional meteorologists” all over the world measuring the temperature with precision thermometers.
But let’s do this:
Which, if any, of the leading temperature indexes (GISS, HADCRUT, UAH, BEST, etc.) do you accept as being reasonably accurate and why?
No, the scale has to remain the same across the whole graph. Just look at the curve-forms, they are different. The only way to get those two graphs to line up is to change the data.
My bad, I should have said “where did the GISS get the data” … and please don’t say remote sensing by satellite.
It’s not simple or easy to figure average global surface temperature in 2014 either.
You got a problem here, do you have a citation that the British didn’t send meteorologists to all their colonies, which were all over the world? I know for a fact that the Dutch had a meteorologist and instruments in Jakarta in 1883. It was the barometer there that went crazy when Krakatoa blew that whitie first learned of the event.
Thermometers themselves were available in a primitive form in the 3rd century BC in Greece. Galileo Galilei use one extensively such that he is incorrectly credited with it’s invention. We have recording thermometers by the mid 18th century.
Late 19th century is considered where these meteorologists with thermometers were distributed around the world enough to start getting accurate data.
What do you mean by “temperature index”. If you’re asking about observed data, then the NOAA set is generally considered the best and most accurate. If you’ve a citation that says it’s not, please post it.
I understand this is inconvenient, but I insist … show me a climate model that correctly returns a drop in average temperatures for 30 years, rising temperature for 30, flat lined for 40, rising for 20 and then flat again for 20. If your climate model doesn’t show this, then your model is wrong.
No, Round 1. I referred to several articles and studies that show that models have been accurate. That’s the statement, and I cited references (articles referring to studies, and the studies themselves which are linked in the article) to back it up.
You made several claims against the articles and studies and have not proven any of them. You referred to one sentence from one of the abstracts to prove your point, but it turned out that you did not read the subsequent sentences from the same abstract which counters your views.
Once you are able to refer to studies to back your claims, then we’ll have Round 2.
Finally, you are probably referring to IPCC 1990 FAR, which is discussed with subsequent reports here:
“Contrary To Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate”
The 1990 report has been shown to be accurate. Please read the recent article shared and earlier ones for details.
I also shared several studies, and some refer to subsequent models.
I don’t understand your last sentence. Are you claiming that the 1990 report was published years later?
Finally, you need to stick to the topic and back up your claims (e.g., the articles reported incorrectly, the findings given in the studies are wrong, etc.).
Climate models use equations, which means up and down movements cannot be shown.
We can see such movements in the chart featured here:
What should be considered is the red trend line.
There is a reference and chart to AR4 models in the “Further Reading” section of this article:
That is, the average of the AR4 models vs. GISS data from 1880 to the present.
Round 9
Please link to the model results … not articles, not papers, but goddamn model results … You say something is accurate, but you wouldn’t fucking produce what is supposed to be accurate.
Round 1.
The model results are cited in the papers. The papers are linked in the articles. The papers explain why the models are accurate. That’s it.
Now, I recall that you claimed that the articles reported incorrectly, and that the findings of the papers are wrong. Please prove those two points by citing papers, and we’ll be able to move to Round 2.
Which article … which paper … which section …
Please, your citation again … and be very very specific about exactly where the model results are.
“Progress in science is often built on wrong theories that are later corrected. It is better to be wrong than to be vague.”
- Dyson
It has been very hot in Oregon this summer. Stupid warmists.
Not hot, but extremely humid … we’re talking double digit RH’s … still need a sweater in the mornings, though.
You will find which models are mentioned by reading the articles and the studies. The latest article shared refers to IPCC 1990 and others.
Right, there’s no match to NOAA data … try again.
More on the methane I mentioned before.
(Yes, yes, liberal blog, but if you have any argument with any actual substance in the article, the articles it cites, or the comments, please offer. I’d love for the feedback loop civilization ending fears to be wrong, but I haven’t seen any evidence that it is.)
Yes, I’ve been following this news story and I appreciate you adding it to the thread. Let me start by reminding everyone that this is a news story right now, and the Nature article provides us with what seems the only observed data. If we start with this ordinary evidence (9.6% CH[sub]4[/sub] concentration, greater than 70 m depth and water at the bottom), we can make the ordinary claim that this was caused by a methane “eruption”. If you are asking for a substantiated claim of an extraordinary nature, then we’ll need more data … what little we have is all very very ordinary. If we carefully read the Nature article, we find the words used as: probably caused, conjecture, might be to blame, speculates, could become more common, may be less able … and the grand finale “To confirm what caused the crater, Plekhanov says that another visit is needed”. All this in the Nature article are valid and correct scientific statements, as this publication values such correctness.
Now let’s turn to the NBC News article. This starts by saying we have an answer, it absolutely was cause by a methane eruption and it is absolutely a result of man-kind’s activities. Here we see an extraordinary claim made based on what I’ve pointed out above is strictly ordinary evidence. NBC News does not value scientific correctness, rather they value advertising dollars. Things go downhill from here, but your question isn’t about what is incorrect in the NBC News article.
Your question is about a possible “tipping point” and this is only mentioned in the liberal/hippy/commie McGovernik blog. Here we find an extraordinary claim based on no evidence at all. Noteworthy is the author’s scientific credentials seem to be non-existent, and his opinion that global warming is more disastrous than, say, the fall of the Roman Empire or the Black Death to mention a couple of things that occurred just on one continent this current epoch. There is an ongoing search for evidence of this “tipping point”, with one focus that I know of on the Permian Mass-Extinction event. But just looking for evidence doesn’t imply that this “tipping point” will happen, we need to actually find evidence first.
You’ve asked someone to substantiate that this “tipping point” will not happen. Without any evidence that it has ever occurred, then there is no scientific argument available to either side. Our answer then must philosophical:
Fuck you goddamned humans, go die and be quick about it. Bunch of hairless rodents that got short changed by evolution, your job is to feed worms and that’s given you more respect than you deserve.
Disagree, they are pretty close. Note that there is in fact a dip in temperature as you observed in the other series.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html
Agreed.
It’s not my burden to demonstrate a negative, particularly when it goes against common sense.
I mean a series of numbers which purport to represent average global surface temperatures, over regular time intervals, for a long range of time.
For example, GISSTemp; HADCrut; BEST; and UAH.
Now please answer my question: Which of these temperature indexes to you accept as being reasonably accurate?
I am not aware of any. On what do you base your assertion that NOAA is generally considered best and most accurate?
Why? Do you dispute that generally speaking, climate simulations match history?
Agreed, but so what?