Climate models have accurately predicted global heating, study finds

OrbitalDawn

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
47,645
Reaction score
9,314
Location
Aboard the Nostalgia For Infinity
www.theguardian.com

Climate models have accurately predicted global heating, study finds

Findings confirm reliability of projections of temperature changes over last 50 years
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Climate models have accurately predicted global heating for the past 50 years, a study has found.

The findings confirm that since as early as 1970, climate scientists have had a solid fundamental understanding of the Earth’s climate system and the ability to project how it will respond to continued increases in the greenhouse effect. Since climate models have accurately anticipated global temperature changes so far, we can expect projections of future warming to be reliable as well.

The research examines the accuracy of 17 models published over the past five decades, beginning with a 1970 study and including 1981 and 1988 models led by James Hansen, the former Nasa climatologist who testified to the US Senate in 1988 about the impacts of anthropogenic global heating. The study also includes the first four reports by the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC).
Click to expand...
 
rambo919 said:
No one denies that climate changes mate.....
Click to expand...
Sorry what I mean to say was, that man-made climate change is an issue and that climate change, whether man-made or not, is an issue currently that needs to be dealt with.
 
ArtyLoop said:
Global heating, is that now the PC term for it?
Click to expand...
Are you daring to assume her temperature?

oh dear I assumed gender now....

EDIT: The earth is the top of the head of a fabulous faggot riding a war unicorn, down with the turtle lies
 
First, it was Global Warming ..... but that term was compromised by the SJWs, the Pseudo Scientist Brigade and even the CC lot themselves.
So, one way out is to come up with a new term, in an attempt to leave the baggage behind.

Call it what you like, the debate will continue.
 
Geoff.D said:
First, it was Global Warming ..... but that term was compromised by the SJWs, the Pseudo Scientist Brigade and even the CC lot themselves.
So, one way out is to come up with a new term, in an attempt to leave the baggage behind.

Call it what you like, the debate will continue.
Click to expand...
Special snowflakes gonna snowflake
 
The headline:

Climate models have accurately predicted global heating, study finds.
Click to expand...

“We found that climate models – even those published back in the 1970s – did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred,” said Zeke Hausfather, of the University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of the paper.
Click to expand...

How is there a correlation between the headline and the actual statement?
Now, which of the models do you think the AR reports focussed on in the past? The 14 that "did remarkably well"?
Or, the 3 that were more sensationalist and played into the ACC brigade sing-song?

Go and have a look for yourselves.
 
Geoff.D said:
The headline:





How is there a correlation between the headline and the actual statement?
Now, which of the models do you think the AR reports focussed on in the past? The 14 that "did remarkably well"?
Or, the 3 that were more sensationalist and played into the ACC brigade sing-song?

Go and have a look for yourselves.
Click to expand...
My retard-2-english translater works full time... sorry. It is also running upstream of my click-bait 2 sensical translater daemon.
 
In nearly half of the model projections examined in the paper, the input scenarios were significantly different from the real-world changes in greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, projected temperature changes were only consistent with observed global warming in 10 of the 17 models, with four projecting more warming and three projecting less than subsequently occurred.


However, the study authors addressed these inconsistencies by evaluating the change in temperature per change in “radiative forcing” – the global energy imbalance caused by the increased greenhouse effect and other factors – in models against what happened in the real world. This metric reveals whether the climate models are accurately producing the temperature response to a given emissions change – in essence, whether are accurately simulating the physical response of Earth’s climate system. With this factored in, 14 of the 17 models were accurate.


“The rate of warming we are experiencing today is pretty much exactly what past climate models projected it would be,” said Hausfather.
Click to expand...

In other words, the original analyses done using the models were only correct in 10 of the 17 models used. When a more rigorous analysis of the data is undertaken, the "accuracy" for the model results improved.
So, is this a"feather in the cap" of the scientists involved? Not in my book! Their work is bad, has been bad and will continue to be bad until they themselves do it properly, which will remove the "loopholes" which are then exploited by whoever wants to challenge the conclusions and future predictions.

So, far from being a feather in the cap of the CC scientific community, the report is an indictment and a sarcastic comment on the outcomes of their work!

The real underlying message is "Get your heads out of your arses", and do the job properly if you ever want to get to a point where your work will not be challenged. Then and only then will all take you seriously.
 
rambo919 said:
Are you daring to assume her temperature?

oh dear I assumed gender now....

EDIT: The earth is the top of the head of a fabulous faggot riding a war unicorn, down with the turtle lies
Click to expand...

It is very telling how quickly issues of this nature reduce to fragile masculinity. Instead of protesting too much you should maybe explore your feminine side instead of allowing it to terrorise you like this. It's kind of sad to watch.

Geoff.D said:
In other words, the original analyses done using the models were only correct in 10 of the 17 models used. When a more rigorous analysis of the data is undertaken, the "accuracy" for the model results improved.
So, is this a"feather in the cap" of the scientists involved? Not in my book! Their work is bad, has been bad and will continue to be bad until they themselves do it properly, which will remove the "loopholes" which are then exploited by whoever wants to challenge the conclusions and future predictions.

So, far from being a feather in the cap of the CC scientific community, the report is an indictment and a sarcastic comment on the outcomes of their work!

The real underlying message is "Get your heads out of your arses", and do the job properly if you ever want to get to a point where your work will not be challenged. Then and only then will all take you seriously.
Click to expand...

What is your threshold for challenging a scientific finding? I mean, the scientific method insists on this anyway so I'm only asking to humour you but in the case of climate science the findings are challenged by less than 2% of scientists. I doubt that 100% consensus is realistic so what is your threshold then?
 
SlinkyMike said:
It is very telling how quickly issues of this nature reduce to fragile masculinity. Instead of protesting too much you should maybe explore your feminine side instead of allowing it to terrorise you like this. It's kind of sad to watch.
Click to expand...
My feminine side is a fierce raging lesbian..... she mostly agrees with me
 
Geoff.D said:
In other words, the original analyses done using the models were only correct in 10 of the 17 models used.
Click to expand...
And not only that, the inputs weren't accurate ("In nearly half of the model projections examined in the paper, the input scenarios were significantly different from the real-world changes"). So, just over half the models gave accurate data with about half of them having inaccurate inputs. So, was the half that gave the correct outputs the same half that had the incorrect input assumptions? Doesn't exactly sound very conclusive to me. But that's the Guardian for you, a headline that blares one thing, with detail that describes pretty much the exact opposite.

I'm not sure what the methodology was, whether they were looking at historical predictions as they were made back in the 70's, or taking the models from the 70's and re-running today them with different inputs until they got the results they wanted.
 
SlinkyMike said:
What is your threshold for challenging a scientific finding? I mean, the scientific method insists on this anyway so I'm only asking to humour you but in the case of climate science the findings are challenged by less than 2% of scientists. I doubt that 100% consensus is realistic so what is your threshold then?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by threshold?
You think science is a democracy thing?
 
SlinkyMike said:
What is your threshold for challenging a scientific finding? I mean, the scientific method insists on this anyway so I'm only asking to humour you but in the case of climate science the findings are challenged by less than 2% of scientists. I doubt that 100% consensus is realistic so what is your threshold then?
Click to expand...

You seem confused. Where in the scientific method does it say have all scientists vote on the facts as if it is somehow a democracy and once you reach 90% it is now the "truth"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X