Climate models have accurately predicted global heating, study finds

[Geoff.D]

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.

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?

And that is the other fallacy hanging around ---- the so-called 97% support claim. It has been thoroughly discredited and documented in another thread already. It has been shown to be nothing but some more mathematical manipulation which I called mathematical masturbation.
As students, we were past masters at getting our experimental results to agree with whatever we were supposed to prove, come what may. All this "stuff" smells of a bunch of students in science manipulating data until it fits their preconceived and pre-determined conclusions.


The outcome is no one knows what to believe. Which side is right which one is wrong?

 

[The Voice]

So what did they find? Are we all going to die in 12 years? Again?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

And that is the other fallacy hanging around ---- the so-called 97% support claim. It has been thoroughly discredited and documented in another thread already. It has been shown to be nothing but some more mathematical manipulation which I called mathematical masturbation.

By "discredited" you mean reinforced and substantiated by multiple studies.

The outcome is no one knows what to believe. Which side is right which one is wrong?

No, most people know - just you guys that are struggling.

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.

This is a very silly post, which shows you very obviously don't understand the first thing about the complexity involved in this work, but more importantly - you aren't interested in understanding it.

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.

No, that's not what it says. It literally says right there the remaining ones (i.e. not the 10/17) projected slightly over and slightly under. They accounted for this, bringing it up to 14/17. 82% accuracy is incredible for something this complex and far ranging.

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.

You can read the linked paper, but of course you didn't bother because you'd rather fire off incorrect assumptions that suit your ideology.

Error - Cookies Turned Off

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

 

[Geoff.D]

By "discredited" you mean reinforced and substantiated by multiple studies.

/snip

Way ahead of you on this one. Read that paper long before it was pounced upon by The Guardian and posted by you.

The CC brigade has one hellava lot to answer for in their shoddy work in the IPCC studies. They ARE almost entirely of there own doing responsible for the cloud of confusion, mistrust and outright BS about Climate Change and the links to man-made pollutants in the atmosphere. The paper published illustrates and shows how utterly shoddy their work has been in the past! NOTE: to avoid ALL doubt, I am not attacking the authors of the paper referred to in the Guardian, at all, BUT the CC scientists who originally failed to ensure their data selection was correct AND then their analyses and their conclusions all aimed at producing what the IPCC and other bodies wanted to hear. If they had just stuck to the facts and done the Science properly, the door would not have been opened so wide for the anti-ACC lot to get through!

Andf BTW, I have now read every single word of the AR reports from AR-1 right through to the latest one and most of the papers produced so far in preparation for the 2020 IPCC which will produce the next AR report.

CC is a fact --- there has never been any doubt about that, CC is and will continue to happen on this planet until this planet dies.
ACC, on the other hand, is where all the issues arise --- the cause-effect relationships are NOT at all well understood and explained ---- yet.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Way ahead of you on this one. Read that paper long before it was pounced upon by The Guardian and posted by you.

The CC brigade has one hellava lot to answer for in their shoddy work in the IPCC studies. They ARE almost entirely of there own doing responsible for the cloud of confusion, mistrust and outright BS about Climate Change and the links to man-made pollutants in the atmosphere. The paper published illustrates and shows how utterly shoddy their work has been in the past! NOTE: to avoid ALL doubt, I am not attacking the authors of the paper referred to in the Guardian, at all, BUT the CC scientists who originally failed to ensure their data selection was correct AND then their analyses and their conclusions all aimed at producing what the IPCC and other bodies wanted to hear. If they had just stuck to the facts and done the Science properly, the door would not have been opened so wide for the anti-ACC lot to get through!

Andf BTW, I have now read every single word of the AR reports from AR-1 right through to the latest one and most of the papers produced so far in preparation for the 2020 IPCC which will produce the next AR report.

CC is a fact --- there has never been any doubt about that, CC is and will continue to happen on this planet until this planet dies.
ACC, on the other hand, is where all the issues arise --- the cause-effect relationships are NOT at all well understood and explained ---- yet.

Pretty low energy concern trolling, man.

 

[Ponderer]

Pretty low energy concern trolling, man.

You know more about the topic than Geoff.D?
I think his analysis is accurate and objective.
Unlike you, he actually knows what he is talking about.

 

[rietrot]

Pretty low energy concern trolling, man.

I love this reply.

 

[Ponderer]

I love this reply.

Yeah - same here.

Viva "scientism".
Viva.