Climate models aren't good enough to ...

Climate models aren't good enough to hindcast, says new study

There are 41 comments on the NorCalBlogs story from Mar 25, 2013, titled Climate models aren't good enough to hindcast, says new study. In it, NorCalBlogs reports that:

Models use systems of differential equations based on the laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry, and use a coordinate system which divides the planet into a 3D grid.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NorCalBlogs.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1 Mar 25, 2013
Why would deniers interfere with science tools? Because they fear science progress in future climate-change understanding.

.. all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-model...

More in:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
PHD

Overton, TX

#2 Mar 26, 2013
The above should join the scientific science fiction comedy club. In its own words the spacedoutblues says itís a "prediction". I predict if you buy 10k worth of lottery tickets your going to win a few dollars. See why no one responds to most of your useless scientific science fiction post?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#4 Mar 26, 2013
Why did you respond?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#5 Mar 26, 2013
Lol.

Whatatwat.

It's not global models, it's models of rainfall in China.

It's not a peer reviewed "study", it's a Phd thesis.
PHD

Overton, TX

#6 Mar 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Why did you respond?
More and more thatís all the "spac3edoutblues" has more and more diarrheas.
PHD

Overton, TX

#7 Mar 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Lol.
Whatatwat.
It's not global models, it's models of rainfall in China.
It's not a peer reviewed "study", it's a Phd thesis.
What do you contribute fairy lame more useless scientific science fiction babble. Well big mouth of the west do post your peer reviewed published work that cut and paste thing you do is worn out.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#8 Mar 26, 2013
Two things. The troll needs to learn (1) a post is a post and (2) a bathroom is somewhere else. And stay there.
PHD

Overton, TX

#9 Mar 27, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Two things. I the troll needs to learn (1) a post is a post and (2) a bathroom is somewhere else. And stay there.
More and more thatís all the "spacedoutblues"have more and more diarrheas.

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

formerly Nuneaton

#10 Mar 27, 2013
More fun & games.

All models were run on the Jason model climate mode#2

None of them are "brute force" so the recent change to climate mode#3 and subsequent severe winter weather in China will not be able to show up.

Good news is that climate mode#3 still produces strong monsoonal flow over the S.Himalayas into SE.China and will be at least as vigorous as previously. Monsoonally fed squall lines will continue to create real fun for the southern Chinese in mode#3 even if winter weather gets drier & colder in the NE, & Mongolia borders in particular.

We need a more up to date climate modelling regime.

Even brute force models are not fine enough to produce climate MODE variability over long time intervals of varying global temperature.

The climate MODES do exist. they show up in long term changes to vegetation patterns over full glacial and interglacial cycles and repeat repeatedly per cycle. Can argue with computer models, Can't argue with natural fossil records!

Have a nice day: Ag
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#11 Mar 27, 2013
You are nice, Adrian but not mathematical.

Have a nice day.
PHD

Overton, TX

#12 Mar 28, 2013
Look at that the spacedoutblues calling the kettle. One difference the spacedoutblues couldn't be nice in its wildest dreams.
litesong

Everett, WA

#14 Mar 28, 2013
fetid feces face flip flopper fiend wrote:
.... couldn't be nice in its wildest dreams.
Can't be nice, if any AGW advocate wants to tell the truth about 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend'.

'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' can't ask a proper scientific question because it never had science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Of course,'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' never had any other science or mathematics training.

At least,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' tried math calculations, tho only a few attempts ended in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' has never attempted math calculations, which prove that its proficiency in math is worse than that of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver'.
PHD

Overton, TX

#15 Mar 29, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't be nice, if any AGW advocate wants to tell the truth about 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend'.
'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' can't ask a proper scientific question because it never had science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Of course,'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' never had any other science or mathematics training.
At least,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' tried math calculations, tho only a few attempts ended in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' has never attempted math calculations, which prove that its proficiency in math is worse than that of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver'.
More and more thatís all the "pinheadliteout"have more and more diarrheas.
litesong

Everett, WA

#16 Mar 29, 2013
"fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' flops:
diarrhea.......
//////////
litesong wrote:
Can't be nice, if any AGW advocate wants to tell the truth about 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend'.
'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' can't ask a proper scientific question because it never had science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Of course,'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' never had any other science or mathematics training.
At least,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' tried math calculations, tho only a few attempts ended in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' has never attempted math calculations, which prove that its proficiency in math is worse than that of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver'.
PHD

Overton, TX

#18 Mar 30, 2013
litesong wrote:
"fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' flops:
diarrhea.......
//////////
litesong wrote:
Can't be nice, if any AGW advocate wants to tell the truth about 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend'.
'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' can't ask a proper scientific question because it never had science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Of course,'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' never had any other science or mathematics training.
At least,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' tried math calculations, tho only a few attempts ended in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' has never attempted math calculations, which prove that its proficiency in math is worse than that of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver'.
More and More Diarrheas from the ďpinheadlitesoutĒ.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#20 Mar 30, 2013
See posts #14, 15, 16, or 18.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#21 Mar 31, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Why would deniers interfere with science tools? Because they fear science progress in future climate-change understanding... all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes.
The climate models don't work because they haven't been reconciled against experimental data. As for the hindcasting test; that assumes a linear system and Earth's climate system has chaotic, non linear components that may be more significant than climate's linear aspects.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong.
There's every reason to wait and test all forecasts, past and present. Some models have been programed to get the past right, they have history tables. Those models were programmed to force a new man made carbon dioxide emission variable. The models are programmed to create the desired outputs based on the inputs.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model.
[Forcing] is a verbal technique by which a magician appears to have a particular outcome, when in actuality the outcome is one of several alternatives. "In essence equivoque is the process of psychological forcing combined with double entendre"

Not only hasn't man made greenhouse gas emissions been experimentally tested against atmospheric levels of those gases or temperature; no climate feedback has been experimentally tested with man made emissions or captures of a greenhouse gas.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years.
That's what the models are programmed to output. Now, let's reconcile those results against real world emission or capture experiments.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.[URLs deleted]
The forces are unknown, that's why it can't "explain that rise".
PHD

Overton, TX

#22 Mar 31, 2013
litesong wrote:
See posts #14,and 16.
More and More diarrheas from the "pinheadlitesout"
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The climate models don't work because they haven't been reconciled against experimental data. As for the hindcasting test; that assumes a linear system and Earth's climate system has chaotic, non linear components that may be more significant than climate's linear aspects.
.
<quoted text>There's every reason to wait and test all forecasts, past and present. Some models have been programed to get the past right, they have history tables. Those models were programmed to force a new man made carbon dioxide emission variable. The models are programmed to create the desired outputs based on the inputs.
.
<quoted text>[Forcing] is a verbal technique by which a magician appears to have a particular outcome, when in actuality the outcome is one of several alternatives. "In essence equivoque is the process of psychological forcing combined with double entendre"
Not only hasn't man made greenhouse gas emissions been experimentally tested against atmospheric levels of those gases or temperature; no climate feedback has been experimentally tested with man made emissions or captures of a greenhouse gas.
.
<quoted text>That's what the models are programmed to output. Now, let's reconcile those results against real world emission or capture experiments.
.
<quoted text>The forces are unknown, that's why it can't "explain that rise".
If I called you nonlinear, you would not like it.

There's no basis for your blabber. Probably new to you:

An increasing summer thaw of ice on the edges of Antarctica, twinned with less than expected snowfall on the frozen continent, is also adding slightly to sea level rise in a threat to low-lying areas around the world.
PHD

Montalba, TX

#24 Apr 1, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>If I called you nonlinear, you would not like it.
There's no basis for your blabber. Probably new to you:
An increasing summer thaw of ice on the edges of Antarctica, twinned with less than expected snowfall on the frozen continent, is also adding slightly to sea level rise in a threat to low-lying areas around the world.
So prove it with your peer reviewed published work.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mathematics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
.. Golf League Apr 20 Sam 1
News Respected professor accused of arson - Hawaii News (Jul '09) Mar '16 District 1 6
News Mayor Fischer attends discussion on Latinos' st... Mar '16 Dude 1
News Standardized Tests Are a New Glass Ceiling Mar '16 MaltaMon 1
News Gov't report: 8 states had significant drop in ... Feb '16 tarp survivor 67
News Hottest average global temperature ever recorde... Jan '16 Earthling-1 21
News Unfold the invisible - The myth of "model minor... Jan '16 Aussie Bob 1
More from around the web