Failed Predictions from the man made Global Warming Community

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MichaelJoeWilliamson, Aug 28, 2013.

  1. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    We had a post over on the Global Cooling thread about failed predictions. I had started this thread several months ago, but it was pruned. So, in addition to the failed ice estimates, let's start to publish others.

    If course, the most damaging failure has been the predictive nature of the models.

    An article printed by Nature Climate Change and authored by John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett & Francis W. Zwiers titled; Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years discusses this very thing.

    It is behind a (significant) paywall, but Judith Curry is kind enough to provide us with excerpts



    Dr Curry provides us with her insight;

    Oh, again from Dr Curry, a few words about the authors. Jon Fyfe and Nathan Gillett are Canadian climate modelers. Francis Zwiers literally wrote the book on climate statistics (w/von Storch): Statistical Analysis in Climate Research. Fyfe was a lead author for the AR4; Gillett is a lead author for the AR5 Chapter 9; Zwiers is Vice Chair for WG1 of AR5.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    This is not precisely a failed prediction, but it IS interesting

    [​IMG]

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/another-climate-embarrassment.php
  3. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    That's a lot of information to digest.

    The second graph on 100+ degree temperatures is very interesting too.
  4. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    Why is there such noticeable difference between simulated models and observed rates? Is it the formula or computing power used for climate models? Maybe the ocean really is "eating it".
  5. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    I was scolded in another thread for starting this thread. That somehow, illuminating the efficacy of hypothetical predictions for a particular branch of science is "tribal thinking."

    One wonders then, if this is true, if doing this is tribal thinking, what then IS science?

    Take global warming. Models using primarily CO2 forcing have overestimated temperatures for sometime now. What is causing that inaccuracy?

    One explanation is that the climate are a lot less sensitive to CO2 than what was initially hypothesized. If CO2 concentrations continue to increase, and they have, yet temps do not continue to increase as predicted, does it seems reasonable to suggest that, in fact, there is a lot less sensitivity? I am not sure why suggesting this is "tribal thinking" or "science denying." Especially since the magnitude of the error is so large.

    Others explanations proffered by other folks concern the role of the oceans, with them acting as temporary temperature sinks for the increasing warmth. If that is true, it is yet to be determined, as there is still a raging debate as to the mechanics of this happening and when temps will continue their climb. This particular issue is at the very core of climate change science. Being able to predict the impact of various inputs on climate change. If they can't get this right, then the hypothesis has to be altered.

    But where a lot of criticism comes in is the the ancillary predictions. All kind of famous failed predictions have occurred here. Polar ice melts, glacier melts, more hurricanes, more ferocious storms, drought, floods, rising oceans, etc. etc. None of these prediction have come close to happening. This is where much of the ridicule comes in. Deservedly so.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    This is what I believe to be true.

    It is funny how the Leftists use storms and weather patterns (see last years storm in NE) to point to global warming/climate change. They still need that lie to be b$ught and payed for by our citizen suckers/sheeple.
  7. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    It is definitely never my intention to "scold" you MJW. I was just pointing out the link between the beholder and results of data. You don't start threads on "Predictions that scientists got right" or that "Skeptics got wrong", so if we want to see those data, we need to rely on someone else. This other person is unlikely to start your kind of threads. At that point, we have two separate groups of groups of people pushing their separate data, without reference to that of the other's groups. Doesn't this sound a bit more like a debate than a scientific analysis?

    Maybe the scientists are no different. Perhaps they only advertise the data that they want to see. I hope that we can hold our scientists to higher standards, but it seems to be your claim that we cannot. Maybe. But then if we admit that the entire scientific community is blindly biased, how can trust skeptics to be any different? I am just more comfortable with a method that attempts to consider the whole. If you like, it is certainly your right to prefer to analyze one side. But I hope that we can agree that breaking us up into advocate teams and pitting these teams against each other isn't necessarily our most productive avenue.
  8. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    Check the number of "Rightists" that have used the few cool days of the recent past to point to lack of climate change. Neither "directionist" has a monopoly on this type of reasoning.
  9. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    Yes the "Rightists" have been guilty of this gamesmanship as well. However wrong it still changes nothing with regards to the models of GW/CC not jibing with empirical data.

    The climate modeling science kind of reminds me of The Linear Equation used to predict rogue waves in the oceans... and how The Linear Equation turned out to be an inaccurate scientific predictor (equation/formula) of rogue waves.
  10. malligator
    Offline

    malligator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,230
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ahwatukee
    Ratings Received:
    +265
    I've definitely noticed a difference this year. This is my 5th summer in Phoenix. Once it gets above 100 in June/July I'm used to it staying there until late Sept, early Oct. We've seen many days this summer in the 90's. It's still hot, but it's not 115 hot.

    Also, we've had many more monsoons this year. When it's too hot any monsoon that makes it's way over Phoenix is quickly burned off by the extreme heat radiated back by the city (what they call a heat island). That's not happening this year so we're actually getting a lot more heavy monsoons.
  11. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    You are right. I haven't started those threads. By all means, please do so, since it seems such an important thing for you.

    That said, extraordinary claims require good evidence. The claim that mankind *solely* or even primarily is going to cause catastrophic climate change is indeed an extraordinary claim.

    Methinks the burden of proof lies with those that make those claims

    I fail to see the difference. All scientific analysis is couched in the form of debate.

    i.e.

    1.) This is my hypothesis
    2.) This is my evidence proof

    Right now, in the case of AGW climate science, the evidence only weakly supports the hypothesis.

    I agree that we should hold scientists to high standards. They have to agree to that standard though. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. For a variety of reasons

    Rade, we are saying the same things! At the end of the day, it does not matter what side of this debate one is on. The measurements will either support the hypothesis or they will not.

    AND THE WAY TO SUPPORT A HYPOTHESIS IS FOR THE PREDICTIONS TO BE MOSTLY ACCURATE!

    The skeptics certainly have an easier job. But that is true anytime a scientists or group of scientist render a hypothesis. The skeptics get to pick they hypothesis part without offering one of their own. They merely have to disprove the original claims.

    That process seems to frustrate you. (And others.) But then, you have chosen to take the view of the scientist rendering the hypothesis.

    If the hypothesis stands up, it becomes theory. If it does not, they hypothesis has to be changed. Debate is the very nature of science.
  12. tegator80
    Offline

    tegator80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,916
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Ratings Received:
    +1,786
    And my obligatory AGW (or not) post of the week: anyone who espouses AGW (or cooling) as fact can NOT be called scientists. They have given up their professional obligations for an agenda. I won't belittle them for their choices but I will NOT call them scientists.
  13. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    Shouldn't it be an important thing for all of us? I read a headline once that said "600 pregnancies despite contraceptive implant". It sounds outrageous, right? In the fourth paragraph, however, we learn that 1.4 million women had used the implant. Wouldn't that be a good thing to know before highlighting the 600 pregnancies? I mean, a 0.04% pregnancy rate makes the implant one of the most effective ever.

    I definitely agree that the burden of proof lies with those that make claims, and I think everyone would like to know when these claims are inaccurate. All I am saying is that if we following the partisan blog model, like that of wattsupwiththat, we increase our probability of adopting an inaccurate view of the science. Many people on here believe that most papers refute, rather than support, AGW, but this is simply not true. It is not even close. Now it might be that all those supporting papers are wrong, but to not know that they exist is a result of a potentially damaging bias. If we appoint ourselves as advocates of our "side", I argue that we tend to reinforce this type of bias.

    I never thought that you and I were saying extremely different things, but I do think that we have a difference in confidence that stems from a difference our perceived role as an observer. You would probably say that my confidence is too high in the models, but I would counter that your confidence might be too high in the skeptic arguments. I don't believe that either you or I are really qualified to independently evaluate the complex scientific analyses. Therefore, we must rely on proxies, like Curry or Mann, to know if the "hypothesis stands up", so our views end up not so much as critiques of the science. Instead, they are more like critiques of explanations, which can be quite different.

    To you, the evidence is weak, but where do you get this view? You might say "science", but the science is so complex that I think we need to be mindful of our own limitations. It is your claim that you are able to read the evidence, and thus as you say, the burden is now on you to defend this claim. You might then point to a good paper that backs your view. But then I may point to two other papers that contradict your view. And then we are back to where I think we've been the whole time: how do we, average people on a message board, evaluate the relative strengths of these complex arguments? This question needs an answer. And it can't be a one word answer like "evidence" or "science". It is a much richer concept.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    That's weather, and city sprawl... The more concrete in and around a city, the hotter is gets and feels. FACT.
  15. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    I think that you may have misread malli's post. :)
  16. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    68,154
    Likes Received:
    3,984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +7,878
    since the mid 70's these EW idiots have been predicting the end of the world-none of their predictions have come true-but they have attracted a lot of other EW idiots to their cause
  17. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    And they say the same of deniers.
  18. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    You are attempting to compare uncomparable things. The inaccuracy of AGW models far greater than your example

    I understand what you are saying here. But partisan critiques cuts both ways, does it not? That is why it is important to follow the science. Do the measurements back the hypothesis?


    Agree. That said, measurements are almost outside the probability range of current models. No matter who is doing the interpretation, that is significant.

    Given the above, I am astonished anyone can ask this question

    Completely agree. Then why do many AGW sceitists and policy makers advocate draconian measures?

    At the end of the day, the hypothesis is either predictive or it is not.
  19. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    Don't think so.
  20. malligator
    Offline

    malligator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,230
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ahwatukee
    Ratings Received:
    +265
    I'm pretty sure you did.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page