Say, Did The Climate Models Really Fail 95% Of The Time?

Alex Sen Gupta has dove into the fact that 95% of the computer models have failed, taking yet another stab from the Cult of Climastrology to protect their models in order to keep pushing their politics. Interestingly, the reviewer is John Cook, he of the utterly failed and debunked 97% consensus paper. This comes in rebuttal to Maurice Newman, AC, Chair of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, writing in The Australian newspaper, May 8, 2015.

FactCheck: Are 95% of models linking human CO₂ emissions and global warming in error?

…..

There is a saying in science that “all models are wrong, but some models are useful”. In simulating any complex system, any model will fail to reproduce all facets of the system perfectly.

Mathematical models may be imperfect but they are extremely helpful to predict the weather, design aeroplanes and even test new vaccines. They are essential to modern life. A major part of scientific research is not only developing models, but determining how they are best employed.

When asked for a data source to substantiate his 95% claim, Mr Newman referred The Conversation to research by a range of scientists including Professor Judith Curry from the Georgia Institute of Technology and Professor John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Mr Newman said these researchers had identified errors in climate modelling.

True, not all models are perfect. That said, CoC members are asking Government to pass all sorts of laws, rules, regulations, and restrictions based on the models as released by “climate scientists” and their computers. We’re supposed to change out lives, our economies, our businesses, and give up lots and lots of Freedom based on these models.

What Mr Newman described as a “well-kept secret” has actually been the subject of numerous scientific papers

These papers show that the recent discrepancy between projections and recorded temperatures is very likely due to random fluctuations in the climate system. The “problem” is clearly seen in this graph showing that modelled surface temperatures have generally tracked above observed temperatures over recent years.

Two points: first, this shows that the models fail in hindsight. They had the data, plugged it in, and the models still failed.

Second, if random fluctuations in the climate system, ie, natural variation, are causing problems with the models, why can’t those same “random fluctuations” be responsible for most, if not all, of the warming during the Modern Warm Period?

Oh, and a third problem: there were no satellites during the majority of that time period. So, how are they getting that data and labeling them?

The article then jumps into all sorts of mea culpas, moving towards the latest CoC talking point

Rather than relying on surface temperature to keep track of global warming, it is far more reliable to look at total ocean heat content or its twin, ocean sea level (which reflects ocean heat content plus land ice melt).

These metrics are far less sensitive to random fluctuations as they don’t suffer from the complications of heat redistribution. Moreover, over 90% of the additional heat from anthropogenic warming goes into the ocean, with only a small fraction going to raising surface temperatures.

So, hey, ignore all the land and air measurements (should we ignore Michael Mann’s tree rings, too?), just look at ocean temps!!!!!!

Based on these more representative metrics, there is no “pause” in either the observations or in the climate models. Indeed, both indicate increasing rates of change over time.

So, isn’t this 100% saying that the models have been utter failures? Don’t forget, again, that Governments are being told to make policy based on those models. This also goes to the whole “the oceans ate my warming” meme.

However, long-term climate simulations do not and likely never will reproduce the timing of shorter-term random fluctuations, like the recent slowdown in surface temperatures. In the long run, this fluctuation, like many before, will just be noise on a gradually increasing temperature signal.

This is just another in a long line of excuses for the Pause, categorically stating that we’re DOOMED in the future. So, ignore that the models have failed now, because they are like, you know, totally going to be right in the future, you guys!

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Say, Did The Climate Models Really Fail 95% Of The Time?”

  1. Jeffery says:

    the fact that 95% of the computer models have failed

    Perhaps you don’t know what “fact” means, or “failed”.

    asking Government to pass all sorts of laws, rules, regulations, and restrictions based on the models as released by “climate scientists” and their computers. We’re supposed to change our lives, our economies, our businesses, and give up lots and lots of Freedom based on these models.

    Will you list the 5 most oppressive “laws, rules, regulations and restrictions” being proposed?
    Will you list the 5 most significant “changes to your life, our economy and our businesses” from the proposals?
    Will you describe the “lots and lots of FREEDOM” to be given up from the proposals?

    Answering these questions would certainly bolster your argument.

    this shows that the models fail in hindsight. They had the data, plugged it in, and the models still failed.

    Absolute nonsensical bullshit from you. Did you look at the graph? Please point out at what point the models failed?

    if random fluctuations in the climate system, ie, natural variation, are causing problems with the models, why can’t those same “random fluctuations” be responsible for most, if not all, of the warming during the Modern Warm Period?

    Yes, it could all just be random. But why only random “up”, just as the models predicted (and you continue to lie about)?

    there were no satellites during the majority of that time period. So, how are they getting that data and labeling them?

    Thermometers. An old, tried and true technology. This is probably data that you, as a Denier, never see, since Tony Watts and Load Monckton only show RSS data.

    So, hey, ignore all the land and air measurements (should we ignore Michael Mann’s tree rings, too?), just look at ocean temps!!!!!!

    So not only are the land and sea surface temperatures going up but so too the deeper oceans! More supportive data.

    categorically stating that we’re DOOMED in the future.

    Not DOOMED. DOOM, Catastrophic, We’re All Gonna Die! are just more right-wing silliness.

    The Earth is warming and the data support that CO2 from fossil fuels is the cause. Far right-wing nutjobs say to ignore the data, that global warming won’t be so bad. Hope you’re right.

  2. Liam Thomas says:

    There is some concern in the scientific community that the modeling is not accurate. I have been showing these people that the reason the modeling is not accurate is because they are doing it in 1 dimension and at times 2 dimension modelling.

    The only way to get this right is 3 dimensional modelling which is much more difficult and would require the cultists to look at other things besides Temperature graphs and co2 measurements.

    Once they begin accurate 3 dimensional modeling they will get right most of the time the real impact 500 ppm of co2 will have on the world and pretty much at what point in time this will occur.

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    The Earth is warming and the data support that CO2 from fossil fuels is the cause.

    Well at least 95% of the failed computer models support that claim.

  4. Liam Thomas says:

    “Economic and population growth are drivers for emissions and they have outpaced the improvements of energy efficiency,” said Ottmar Edenhofer, economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and co-chair of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Edenhofer spoke at an April 13 press conference in Berlin, where IPCC’s Working Group III released its report on the subject of how to mitigate the climate problem.

    Nations worldwide have to make major change in energy supply, soon, if they are to restrain climate change to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, Edenhofer and others said. That is a threshhold beyond which serious harm is likely to occur to human civilization as well as the natural world, by the IPCC and other’s scientific judgment.

    Geoengineering will probably also be required to solve the planet’s global warming pollution problem, Edenhofer and the report noted. The world will also need a crash course in technologies to capture carbon dioxide—the primary greenhouse gas— from the atmosphere to restrain global warming. Without such CCS hopes of restraining climate change to no more than 2 degrees C warming are “no longer feasible,” Edenhofer argued.

    *!*!*!*! “In the end, two degrees means the phase out of fossil fuels without CCS entirely in the next few decades.”!*!*!*

    Okay lets say for example we figure out how to implement Carbon capturing. The costs of goods and services will be so expensive as to be unaffordable by 99 percent of the worlds population. Additionally because of this we will need to totally phase out all fossil fuels leaving the world plunged into darkness and unable to farm to eat.

    An example of this is my electricity bill went up 40 percent the instant Obama passed his I HATE COAL EPA pen around the room….Imagine when 1/3rd of the electricity produced just in the USA goes off line? This is not a problem in your eyes?

    So Jeffery the solution to our co2 problem is the complete….COMPLETE dismantling of fossil fuels in the next couple decades.

    Even though the climate models are not 3d and do not take into consideration that the shelf life of co2 is 5 years and totally ignore any co2 being released by means other then fossil fuels.

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    Once they begin accurate 3 dimensional modeling they will get right most of the time the real impact … yada, yada, yada…

    So according to little jeffy and retarded johnny the 95% failed computer programs were not accurate (just wrong, oops!) but you just wait you right wing deniers because, because you’re rightwing deniers who hate black people and science and puppies, so there…

  6. Liam Thomas says:

    This was surprisingly easy to do. The model would say that 79% of emissions are removed by fast processes with mean T half of 17 years, all gone after about 85 years. 21% hang around for a long time until a new equilibrium is reached.

    This is established using the Bern Model for the half life of CO2 decay in the atmosphere.

    What this implies is that with each passing year 5 percent of the emitted co2 is sinked. About 21 percent of co2 in the atmosphere is of a different molecular nature and requires slower processes to remove.

    It is these differing molecular carbons that Modeling fails and lumps together with fossil fuel co2 which is why the models tend to always fail when predicting.

    The AGW scientists are in such a hurry to prove were all going to die that they have not carefully, thoughtfully and analytically thought through the entire process of modeling co2 in the atmosphere given the different molecular makeups of carbon, the other sources of carbon and the means by which radiant venting is actually affected from various differing sources.

  7. Jeffery says:

    little puppysucker,

    the 95% failed computer programs

    Since Teach won’t, can you please point out on the graph that Teach supplied where the models failed 95% (whatever that means).

    Or do you guys just repeat what you read on Tony Watts’ blog without thinking?

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    Little jeffy, could you please point out why having sex with your grandkids is okay (whatever that means).

  9. Jeffery says:

    Little puppy,

    You stupidly claimed the models have failed 95%. Point out on the graph what that means. According to Teach’s graph, the models appear pretty much spot on.

    And what’s with your fetish about young children?

  10. drowningpuppies says:

    I don’t have fetishes for young children like you do. Why haven’t you denied it?

    From the article:
    I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).

    Oh, guess I forgot that Dr. Spencer is a right wing denier who hates black people and puppies.
    So please little jeffy prove him wrong.
    Oh, and leave the grandkids alone.

  11. Jl says:

    “90% of the additional heat from anthropogenic warming goes into the ocean……” How very convenient, considering the fact that the “settled science” of global warming said that the troposphere was supposed to heat up first.

  12. Jeffery says:

    j,

    Why wouldn’t you expect the oceans to warm too? The troposphere is warming.

  13. Jeffery says:

    sickpuppy,

    Ol’ Roy lied to you. Google “Roy Spencer’s Latest Deceit and Deception” for the explanation.

    He manipulated the data to deceive his readers.

    Please explain how the graphic that Teach supplied illustrates that the models fail 95%.

  14. Liam Thomas says:

    Ol’ Roy lied to you. Google “Roy Spencer’s Latest Deceit and Deception” for the explanation.

    This is why 98 Percent of the worlds scientists believe in global warming.

    Because if you challenge it. You are smeared, slandered and most likely lose tenure, your job and all the work you’ve spent your lifetime achieving.

    I have often asked colleagues what they believe and they say……nothing…..I have no comment. I cant afford to have a position…I like to eat more then I like politics.

    I post here under a false name using a proxy server because I would most likely lose my job, career and self worth if it was ever discovered what I really think.

    The climate cultists are hitlers. They are Goebels. They are Nazis. They hate, loathe and despise anyone who disagrees with them. The truth…their truth is the only truth.

    This scares me more then any actual global warming. The fact that these people would destroy your life for daring disagree with them is extremely frightening.

    Good Job guys.

  15. jl says:

    “Why wouldn’t you expect the oceans to warm, too?” It’s not relevant what I expect, but the theory was that the troposphere would warm- the ocean “ate the heat” theory is to cover for the trop not warming. Anyway, it proves nothing as to why they are “allegedly” warming.

  16. Jeffery says:

    j,

    You can’t be expected to keep up, can you. That’s typical for Deniers – the recycling of zombie lies.

    Here’s a lay interpretation of troposphere warming, concentrating on the latest data. I predict you’ll Deny that it’s relevant.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/15/new-study-finds-a-hot-spot-in-the-atmosphere

    The Earth’s surface is warming, the seas are warming, the troposphere is warming and the lower stratosphere, cooling.

    Stop moving the goalposts. One zombie lie at a time please.

  17. Jeffery says:

    the fact that 95% of the computer models have failed

    Did anyone look at the graphic that Teach posted?

    I assume you did, and that’s why no one will address the obvious. This graph of temperature (Hadcrut and Gistemp) vs time is consistent with the models.

Bad Behavior has blocked 15985 access attempts in the last 7 days.