1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Climate change modelling "a fools paradise".

Discussion in 'Personal' started by lexus300, Mar 19, 2019.

  1. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    Not sure 'belief' is a word I would use in this context, but I recognise the methods NASA & MIT (and others) use to do the research, designing the measurement methodologies to collect and how to process it. I have used many of their tools/methodologies in my own work and have no reason to doubt the methods and tools they have developed to study the effects of human activity on climate. I cdrtainly wouldn't doubt their integrity as organisations.

    As for modelling historical accuracy:

    Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

    While some models projected less warming than we’ve experienced and some projected more, all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not too far off from what actually occurred, particularly when differences in assumed future emissions are taken into account.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

    How reliable are climate models?

    Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

    https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm


    As for your claim that CO2 makes little difference to climate, it appears it is a tired anti-AGW myth:

    Here’s what real science says about the role of CO2 as Earth’s preeminent climatic thermostat

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...t-role-of-co2-in-climate-change/#.XL7aRIWcFrQ
     
  2. JL48

    JL48 Star commenter

  3. cherie_alamayonaika

    cherie_alamayonaika New commenter

    'Cuckoo' is an apt expression for what passes as science from the IPCC - and funnily enough they have their HQ in Switzerland - famous for the chalet style clock you show us:)
     
    lexus300 likes this.
  4. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    The only problem with modelling is that it has underestimated warming.
     
    Maths_Shed likes this.
  5. cherie_alamayonaika

    cherie_alamayonaika New commenter

    Modelling is fatally flawed, as are dire warnings of impending doom. Watching the yuppy XRs yesterday, I was reminded of the madcap religious zealots parading the streets at weekends, waving banners proclaiming "The is nigh".
     
    lexus300 likes this.
  6. cherie_alamayonaika

    cherie_alamayonaika New commenter

    "world" (perhaps it is)
     
  7. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Show the evidence if you can.
     
  8. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Lead commenter

    They show a decreasing delta 18 O in foraminifera shells in the recent past up to now, indicating increasing temperature in their formation. Not a decreasing temperature as you say (present day is on the left not the right of the graph).

    Para 31 talks about how Marine Isotope Stage 11 could be analogous to our present interglacial relating to similar eccentricities in the Earth's orbit. That this interglacial stage lasted a double precession.. They then go on to propose why you can rule out a double precession interglacial now (in the Holocene) without human influence.
     
  9. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Are you now describing data tampering as "process it"?
    They have most definitely made the data fit their desired output.
    Errors of +30% to -28% and cases in between(if they are true) defines modelling at best as a guessing stick.
    There is evidence that co2 on its own contributes around 6% and we contribute a part of that small part.
     
  10. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    The pleistocene was a long time ago and the graph inclines to lower temperatures at the present.
     
  11. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    All measured data needs to be processed; Metrology 101.

    Outliers maybe, but NASA, MIT & Caltech models have been consistently more accurate.


    CO2 contribution closer to 20%, however what your simplistic assessment lacks is Earth's sensitivity to CO2 concentration; if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere global temperatures would be ~23C cooler

    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/

    Very small changes in CO2 will account for +/-1C.
     
  12. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Nah, the modelling works well and has made decent predictions on the whole. They have been on the low side though.

    We are in for an unpleasant time. If you don't understand why, having made an attempt to get your head round the science, that's fair enough. I won't labour the point.
     
  13. JL48

    JL48 Star commenter

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    You can look at reported scenarios in past IPCC reports or do some googling. If you can't be bothered I'll do it for you later.

    I note you seem to accept reported temperatures from centuries ago with little quibbling but not those made now with state-of-the-art equipment..

    Funny, that.
     
  15. JL48

    JL48 Star commenter

    Why are you talking to climate change deniers like they are normal rational human beings? They are loony tunes - along the lines of flat earthers, and should be ridiculed as such.
     
    Maths_Shed likes this.
  16. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    I would generally agree with your sentiments as those anti-AGW tendencies ‘cannot be reasoned out of a position they weren’t reasoned in to’. However, if their nonsense isn’t challenged, then passive observers may think they have a point. It is for that reason why such ideas, that affect us all, need to be challenged.
     
    Scintillant and CheeseMongler like this.
  17. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Lead commenter

    Are you saying that at some interglacial period in the recent past the global temperatures were warmer than they are now? If so that's true, however they are not comparable to the present due to differences in the astronomical alignments. The closest approximation to the past is MSI 11 (see previous post for conclusion they make in the paper, that man is artificially increasing temperatures)
     
  18. JL48

    JL48 Star commenter

    Oh it needs to be challenged - but not with any sense of respect for their 'point of view'. This neo-American import should be ridiculed - as should the people who spout it.
     
    Maths_Shed likes this.
  19. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Occasional commenter

  20. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    The new growth contains water. More growth, more water in the tissues. More growth more photosynthesis to fuel it so more water used in reactions.
     

Share This Page