Full stop here, you are grossly ignoring that science is not just a single paper or study, there is a need for confirmations and many other studies, hence what science does there in the cite made, they are telling us that right now that example of yours is an ignorant point because other studies point in a different direction, hence the usual position that more research is needed to reach a conclusion that will be more supported.
First, 2 meters is not 7’. Second, putting the word “if” is automatically conjecture. Do you not understand that? I twisted nothing. I said exactly what you said. You conjecture that IF something happens, that isn’t projected to happen, then maybe, possibly, something else might need to happen. And with all that conjecture, you then want to claim climate change is dire.
Ocean rise will not stop magically after 2100
I’m a scientist (engineer) and I’m fully aware scientists disagree. It is a benefit to the system, not a bug.
Take your time responding. Whatever information you can help me understand would be appreciated.
First, I’ll say upfront again, I don’t doubt for a second temps are rising and will likely continue to rise. I’ve no doubt sea levels will rise as a result. I’m really not sure what constitutes a “denier”, but if it is about understanding those as facts, I’m not one of them.
I also understand small changes now can me huge issues later. I certainly understand that the full effects of what we do now can have huge impacts later.
I’m not so much interested in trying to understand why things aren’t bad now, I’m trying to understand the stance the models are as unmistakable as is being stated.
As I said before, in order for a model to be believed, it must first predict outcomes that are verifiable. Newtonian physics is great when talking about things on a macro scale, but it breaks down on the subatomic or relativistic scale. It took a while, but Einstein’s equations were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt through rigor and testing. I’m wondering what tests can we point to in the models for climate change that can give similar credence to their veracity?
What do the models predict that is measurable that we can look at and say, “yep, the models are right!” beyond just temps and sea level.
If the models are just about temps and sea level, what studies are there to link those changes to major upheavals?
You know there’s a whole internet out there with thousands of climate sites that can answer these questions faster than bothering a few people who are taking time out of their lives to try to help you, right?
Uh…
http://www.bu.edu/eng/about/dean-lutchen/engineering-is-not-science/
[QUOTE]
You know there post #127 exists no?
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22010070&postcount=127
Correction to previous post:
You do know that post #127 exists?
The published paper looked at how models predicted the current warming, and what is more interesting is that how (in a different earlier study) they even pointed at an error about how some temperatures were reported erroneously in the past.
I’ve tried to look for some sort of summary of the effects of global warming, what models predict, etc., but the IPCC papers are pretty hard to wade through because they tend to talk about much of it very guarded terms. Those are scientific papers which generally try to be conservative and it is difficult to get succinct answers. Yes, I’m aware such things exist. This looked like a unique opportunity to get specific questions answered in a direct way. If I’m bothering people I’m happy to go away.
I’ve been involved in engineering journals and conferences as author, reviewer, issue editor, editorial board member and program chair, and I can assure you that engineers argue just as much as scientists. There are plenty of proofs in engineering papers. Engineering journals do not only contain articles about how I built a new gizmo.
However, engineers I know understand modeling better than cmosdes appears to. We may sometimes model using simulation, but we understand the benefits and weaknesses fairly well.
I don’t recall seeing anyone saying that climate models are perfect. I’ve mostly seen that they have been too conservative.
I know, the nit there was that, as Boston University College of Engineering points out, engineers are not scientists.I’m just remembering all previous discussions when some past engineers have pontificated before about this issue.Engineers do have a different set of skills than scientists. And as Peter Hadfield has mentioned many times before, some humbleness needs to be taken into account when someone comes along that call himself a scientist when it is not really an expert on the subject, nor a scientist either.
As others say, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and I have to say that many who are not deniers have fallen for sources that seem to demand perfection but past experience shows that that demand by those sources is made precisely as a stalling tactic, so as to prevent any changes.
Here is another example of how you are twisting things. GIGObuster used the 2 meters measure, I never did. You are conflating what GIGObuster said with what I said and then attributing to me something I did not say.
Again, I am no longer playing your game.
You’re looking for a sound-bite answer to a subject that doesn’t have one. Sorry, you want your fact-based answers? You’ll have to wade through the “difficult” scientific papers.
For cmodes:
Here is a very small sample of studies that have shown models producing accurate predictions to real-world events. I could easily post hundreds more, but A - I don’t have that kind of time and B - I do not want to overwhelm you. Overall, based on what you seem to be looking for I would consider reading Chapter 10 of the IPCC reports (again, not necessarily the whole thing but the summary, and whatever pieces are of interest to you). I did not cite any of the IPCC reports below preferring instead to look at individuals models and reports.
Ackerley, D., Booth, B. B., Knight, S. H., Highwood, E. J., Frame, D. J., Allen, M. R., & Rowell, D. P. (2011). Sensitivity of twentieth-century Sahel rainfall to sulfate aerosol and CO2 forcing. Journal of Climate, 24(19), 4999-5014.
Stott, P. A., Christidis, N., Otto, F. E., Sun, Y., Vanderlinden, J. P., Van Oldenborgh, G. J., … & Zwiers, F. W. (2016). Attribution of extreme weather and climate‐related events. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(1), 23-41.
See Figure 1 lines D and E.
Rahmstorf, S., & Coumou, D. (2011). Increase of extreme events in a warming world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(44), 17905-17909.
Note, that models also show when anthropogenic climate change is not a significant factor.
Peterson, T. C., Stott, P. A., & Herring, S. (2012). Explaining extreme events of 2011 from a climate perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93(7), 1041-1067.
Peterson, T. C., Hoerling, M. P., Stott, P. A., & Herring, S. C. (2013). Explaining extreme events of 2012 from a climate perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94(9), S1-S74.]
FYI. The searches I did in Google Scholar were:
climate change model accuracy
climate change attribution <---- this wasn’t specific enough
climate change attribution extreme weather
I tried to focus on highly cited works; however, if you do these searches you will find hundreds and hundreds of papers on a wide variety of subjects.
I didn’t conflate anything. You were talking about a hypothetical where if sea levels rise 7’, then Miami or NY might need to be abandoned.
I said 7’ was a pretty wild speculation, and GIGObuster was trying to defend you by saying the models have 2 meters as a possibility by the end of the century.
I was pointing out that 2 meters is not 7’, so his trying to defend your hypothetical was still off.
2 meters is 6.74 feet. As pointed before, close to 7, so not walk on the park for Floridians. And ocean rise will not stop magically after 2100. The point here is that once again gambling by expecting a better result when little is being done is reckless when one looks at what is plausible
IPCC: Climate Models and Their Evaluation
CSSR: Climate Models, Scenarios, and Projections
CarbonBrief: Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers Climate Change and Land
Good summaries of models and their predictive values.
They mention in the paper several times “forced response.” Is that a reference to anthropogenic contributions or is that referring to things like volcanoes and other large events?
In the final paragraph, there is this:
This is clearly indicating most of the drought was through natural causes, but at least part of it was due to athropogenic causes. Obviously man made influences are having an effect on these weather patterns, as shown by this paper and the others you have linked to.
I think what I’m taking from this is that using models scientists haven able to demonstrate with high confidence when climate change has been a significant contribution to weather pattern changes and when those changes have been more due to natural variation. In the first paper. there seems to be some room (as always, it is science) for the effects to have been due to natural variation, but the conclusion is overall it looks like it was due to anthropogenic causes.
That would seem to answer the question of whether the models are tested and showing good alignment with observed recent weather events. So thanks for that.
My next question is what general climate changes are being predicted in the next 10 to 15 years?
GIGObuster has said the hurricane question is unsettled, so any change in that type of weather event will be uninformative until that science is settled. But what other weather patterns can we use as benchmarks in the next 10 years to gain further confidence that what is predicted in 50 years is less speculative?
I never wanted to claim climate models need to be perfect. I’m actually trying to find out just how accurate they are. When I run modeling programs the first thing I do is compare them to known results. If they don’t come up with the same answer as the known results, either the inputs to the model are wrong or the model itself is wrong.
If I was going to try to convince someone there is something really, really, horrifically bad going to happen in 50 years, I’d first want to demonstrate that whatever means I’m using to base that on have a high accuracy for things that are already known. That seems to have been demonstrated by the information BeepKillBeep is providing.
Now I’d like to know what they predict in the near future, to once again measure their accuracy.
Maybe that makes me a denier, I don’t know.
Thanks. I will go through these.