“The models predict there is going to be more rain.”
We are dryer.
“That’s okay, these things can go in long cycles so don’t worry that the actual performance isn’t matching the models…”
Why should I believe the models that predict there will be extremes in 20 to 50 years when the models are wrong now?
I’m not arguing against climate change. Not in the least. I’m saying there is room for doubt. Saying it is perfectly okay for the actual performance to diverge from the all knowing models by such a large degree isn’t going to help the climate change folks calling for drastic changes now.
The models are matching the data, in that the models show these cycles, just like the data. If the models didn’t show the cycles, I’d be worried (and “showing the cycles” is one of the actual diagnostics for whether a model is working).
The models predict will be wetter in the future because of the underlying change. But there will be cycles then, too.
We are dryer now because we are in a dry part of a shorter cycle.
Oh, I see. Wait, no I don’t. The year that is an anomaly isn’t an anomaly at all, apparently. Is this year an anomaly or not? Because before it was an anomaly and now it perfectly matches with the models.
I knew at some point people in the US were going to have to start surrendering land to the sea, and it was likely to start in Florida. And here we are.
Sorry about the folks who own property in the affected area, but part of owning real estate is the fact that natural disasters can happen. Even if this is sort of an unnatural man-made disaster. Perhaps they can sue Big Oil and Big Coal. Or, more likely, they’re just out of luck.
I’m not sure what this whole tangent about Eugene OR is about. There are a lot of climate models in a lot of diverse research areas. Some models have been more accurate than others. For example, the models for global average temperature has been very accurate. Models for arctic ice levels have been quite good. Models for estimating crop yield effects from climate change have been very good. Models for simulating clouds have been not so great. So overall, the climate models have been quite good at making predictions, while obviously they could be improved. Overall, the models predict a rapidly approaching crisis of extreme proportions to the planetary ecology and to humanity.
See Chapter 9 of the 2018 IPCC report for a more complete discussion of climate models.
The tangent with Eugene is because “the models” apparently predict wetter weather for this area. The models are wrong. When pointed out the models are wrong, the story changes and now the models are dead on accurate, apparently.
“The models” are what is being used to talk about all the dire situations we will be facing in 20 to 50 years. If the models aren’t being shown to be accurate today, how can you convince people they are right about what will happen 50 years from now?
What you are trying to do here is to not see the forest for the trees in Eugene.
Now the issue is that at higher resolutions (what will be the weather in very specific places) there is still work to do, but ignoring the overall trend is reckless.
Did you read Chapter 9 of the IPCC report as recommended? At least the summary?
I went back through the thread and cannot find any link to this supposed model for Eugene, Oregan. The main thing I found doing my own search was [1], which deals with very long-range predictions. The other study I found was [2], which on pg 11 seems to suggest that the past few years would be relatively dry compared to wetter years.
But let’s say that the Eugene OR model is totally bogus. Completely 100% wrong. There’s still hundreds and hundreds of other models in diverse research domains that are making very good predictions, and the models at a global level have been quite good. So while, it is possible, and in fact probable, that some models at granular enough levels are more wrong than others, the global trend is clear, that the world*, as a whole, is heading to catastrophe.
[1] Retallack, G. J., Gavin, D. G., Davis, E. B., Sheldon, N. D., Erlandson, J. M., Reed, M. H., … & Mitchell, R. B. (2016). Oregon 2100: projected climatic and ecological changes. Bulletin of the Museum of Natural History, University of Oregon, (26).
[2] Jaeger, W. K., Plantinga, A., Langpap, C., Bigelow, D., & Moore, K. D. (2017). Water, economics, and climate change in the Willamette Basin, Oregon. Oregon State University, Extension Service.
Of course, the “world” will be fine. The rocky body known as Earth will keep on keeping on. The ecosystems not so much.
No, I’m not going to read a 126 page scientific paper that purports to study the accuracy of climate models. The entire part of this thread started because squidfood made the claim “the models” predict the PNW would be getting wetter and warmer. When he (she?) was presented with data that showed recent weather data was counter to that, it was claimed that was an anomaly. When further data was presented that shows that single data point was an outlier, the claim then because the single year data isn’t an outlier at all but rather is in perfect alignment with “the models.”
If you can’t see the gymnastics in that string of events I don’t know what to tell you.
Again, that is just demanding accuracy that is not there yet for specific places; now, since they are very accurate about ocean rise and the overall warming (and that is more relevant on the summer time) you are still like the one demanding perfection when it is the enemy of the good. In this case the implied good about doing something about the issue instead of not stopping to treat the atmosphere as a sewer.
Personally, I need more evidence things are as dire as many are trying to make this sound, but I’m certainly open to discussion about it.
I get that looking at a single city isn’t the same as looking at an entire region and my data from that single city was not conclusive in any way. PDX actually has been wetter. I hadn’t checked Seattle.
So, I’ll just leave this for now. If you want an open discussion about what it would take to convince someone like me this situation is as much of a crisis as others are claiming, I’m happy to share my views. But this is an emotional topic and I’d rather approach it without that baggage.
Thing is that if this was gymnastics, you are acting like a judge that would give a 10 for one specific move while the anomalous gymnast stumbled around, while giving an excellent overall gymnast a 6, just because it did not perform your favorite move.
read the IPCC report summaries (they aren’t that long),
read other scholarly material; or,
accept expert analysis/opinion.
So, please, tell me what it is you want. I mean it, tell me, and I’ll do my sincere best to provide it, because I honestly have no idea what it is that you’re looking for when you say you need “evidence”.
Here’s the reality. Climate change extremists have been telling us that the climate is going to kill us Real Soon Now for over 50 years. Ever hear the tale of the boy who cried wolf?
Propaganda from denier sources likes to use that to mislead people. In this case the one being wrong is Paul Ehrlich, whom many experts do not look as one to follow.
Going for “the science was wrong before” is a logical fallacy too.
If the claim is that PNW is getting wetter, that must mean that if you average all the places within the PNW they average out to wetter. That starts by looking at the individual places in the PNW and seeing if they are, in fact, getting wetter. I assume we both agree on that. If not, tell me what I’m doing wrong thinking that way.
So, I started with a city near me, because, quite frankly, I live near that city and our last summer was unbelievably temperate (cooler than I remember most summers being) and the last several rainy seasons (October through May) have had many, many beautiful, dry days. Way more than I remember. I fully realize my own experiences in a small corner of the world don’t mean jack on a larger scale, but, as I said, in order for the entire region to be wetter that must come from the average of many smaller regions. And, please, if that is wrong, correct me.
Knowing the predictions that this area is supposed to be wetter, I checked to see if it was a perception bias on my part and that Eugene really was wetter and I was biased for some reason. But no, it wasn’t just a perception bias. It really has been drier.
All that to say, if the models are predicting wetter weather for the PNW, then other areas not near me must be getting WAY wetter because where I am is demonstrably drier, as proved by both my own experiences and those as measured by official channels. Maybe PDX, SeaTac, Spokane, Boise, Salem, Olympia, and the rest of the places around here are all wetter and this really is just the outlier for some strange reason.
So I get what you are saying that looking at a single city in the region doesn’t really discredit the entire model. But it does start to point to a trend that is curious given that models say it should be wetter. No, the models can’t say Eugene, specifically, should be wetter, but Eugene is definitely in the PNW and maybe there is some 2nd order effect that is making it drier, but to a first order there is no discernible reason Eugene should be drier. But clearly it is.
But that underlines what I pointed already, models from the past were very effective in predicting were we are now in general terms, for specific areas that was less reliable, when someone comes willing to toss all out because of that item that has been acknowledged many times before one has to conclude that your sources are ignorant or willful misleads that do demand to toss out the slightly dirty water with the baby too.
Then one notices that a position like the one you take also depends on ignoring the march of time and technology, there are now more researchers able to tackle higher resolutions in modeling.
Did you look at either of the two papers I cited? They’re aren’t that long and they’re both open source. You say you want evidence but you refuse to look at the evidence and analysis presented by experts.
Here’s the reality. You’re very wrong. While there are certain people I think can be reached (e.g., cmosdes), you are not one of them. But I’ll tell you what, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that I’m wrong about you. I’ll make you the same offer I made cmosdes. Tell me what evidence you would except that would prove to you that you’re wrong and I’ll find and present it.
In exchange, if I present such evidence you have to promise to post that you were wrong, and furthermore you must promise never to deny either the existence of climate change or the dire nature of the crisis.
I did read the summaries, or at least the headings on the paragraphs. This paper seems to be an assessment of how the models are improving and in what areas. I didn’t dig deeper because the topic I was discussing had to do with precipitation in the PNW. If there is something specific in that paper that talks about precipitation in the PNW please point to it.
I’m willing to read scholarly material and have gone through other reports on climate change. I’m really hoping this is where you can help me out because I don’t mean to be obstinate and I’m totally, completely, honestly, looking for some help understanding this.
Most of what I see when I read the reports are certain things that are indisputable:
The world is getting warmer. Probably in the range of 2C to 4C.
The result of the warming will be polar ice cap melting and sea level rise.
Those two things I fully accept. I’m not sure if that is a big part of the controversy or not.
Beyond that, it would seem the rest is trying to determine the impact of that warming and sea level rise on the planet. Models can be used to determine what impact global warming will have.
This is where, I think, I struggle. Sometimes the models predict things that are of biblical proportions, with millions being displaced as a result of crop failure or cities like Miami or other coastal places being flooded. I’ve no doubt the sea level will rise, but I’ve also no doubt humanity will adjust. Sea walls can be built, people can move, etc. Is that really so dire we need to spend billions or trillions to prevent it? I’m not sure about that. Again, please, don’t just scream at me I’m a denier. I’m trying not to be and I’m open to hearing the facts.
As for crop failures, obviously that is another thing altogether. If that prediction is true, then yes, we need to do something. Crop failures happen from time to time and humanity has adjusted. If we can avoid it, though, we should keep millions from starving or suffering. But this is an extraordinary claim and needs extremely high confidence the prediction made by the models is accurate.
In order for someone like me to have that confidence, I’d need to see the predictions made by the models demonstrably proven. For example, the higher frequency of Cat 5 hurricanes is exactly as predicted (I think). That gives higher confidence about the models. Brutal NE winters with more severe storms is again a huge boost to the models as those types of weather extremes seem to match with what I’ve heard the models predict. These are both measurable and factual events that we can use to gauge the accuracy of the models.
Here is where you can help me. Can you give me examples of actual, measurable, weather pattern changes that were predicted 10 years ago from the models or that present models demonstrate that show the models are as accurate as claimed? I’m not talking about just warmer temps, but I’d be looking for climate changes that aren’t just continuum of climate from the recent (last couple hundred years). The hurricanes and extreme weather in the NE are good examples for what I’m trying to understand.
As a counter is the discussion about the weather in the PNW. It is demonstrably drier in my little part of it, so that calls into doubt the accuracy of the models. As has been discussed, that could be just a weird data point in much bigger picture in which things really are wetter, but my point is simply that I can point to some counter examples of where the models seem to get it wrong, or the effects were grossly overblown, and that makes me wonder about the accuracy of the models.
TL;DR version:
I’m looking for measurable, demonstrable examples (hurricanes, extreme weather) of climate/weather events that are strong evidence the models being used now are accurate to the point of removing any reasonable doubt. I’ve no doubt the world is getting warmer and sea levels are rising.
I’ve been hoping someone could help me understand. Hopefully we can discuss this and you can help me get there.
