Failed Predictions from the man made Global Warming Community

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

  1. northgagator
    Offline

    northgagator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    7,941
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Metro Atlanta Ga Gwinnet County
    Ratings Received:
    +134
    I understand you statement and in general terms it is accurate.

    However that quote is a major understatement (no offense intended)..

    Years ago I did some work with computer modeling and since then I have kept tabs on that technology.

    There are several components to computer models. Each component if misused (knowingly or unknowingly) can easily generate in accurate results. The following is a short list of those components:

    Data reporting sites: This component can be considered the first step of computer modeling. It is the first place were the inaccuracies can begin. In a lot of the computer models today are using data from years ago. This data is suspect of being flawed. Flawed in the what, way, where, how, when, and who collected the data. These factors can are very capable of contributing corrupted data. Thus we have the old adage, "Garbage in Garbage out".

    Hardware: The hardware used to make and collect measurements is more accurate today than it was years ago. Example: the zero Celsius measured in 1940 may not be the same Celsius yesterday of 2013.

    The same can be said of the data generate by models. The hardware for running models today is way more capable in generating more data with greater accuracy then the hardware we were using 30 years ago.

    Software design: it is an understatement to say the modeling software of today is way better that it was 30 years ago. But even today are no where near the level of advancement to accurately model the weather five years from now much than 20 years from now.

    Probably factors: This item is a major component. If this component is not exactly was is needed for the task than the accuracy of the output is automatically in question. These factors are generated by random number generators. The output of these generators represent the probability of an event, the outcome of an event, the kind of an event, the number of events, and the time of and event. The methodology of the random number generators is based on the probability formula that is used by the random number generator. The probability formulas are a product of statisticians and actuaries. There are multiple formula and there are input variables for these formulas. The accuracy of the formula and the input variable is very critical for accurate modeling.

    Computer Model builders: These people are usually pretty bright people but they are human and are at risk of making an error, being bias, and being corrupted. As with the other components there is a good risk of inaccurate data.

    Another item in the modeling process is the design. What input to put in (and to omit), what causes and effects to input, what probability formulas to use, what type of design, and the list can go on an on.

    Now after reading this do all of you want to bet the house on the weather and climate 20 years from now or even 5 years from now.

    Please note that the models told us a few years ago of an ice free Arctic this summer and a busy and severe hurricane season.

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/09/10/arctic-ocean-predicted-to-be-ice-free-by-2013-oops/

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...recast-noaa-sandy-prediction-weather-science/

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/13/hurricane-season-inaccurate-forecasts
    • 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
    Great stuff north.

    Another problem with computer models is they take things that show correlation and then often assume causality.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,060
    Likes Received:
    2,843
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,047
    The liberals that believe AGW live off of that assumption.
  4. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,306
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    Um, I'm thinking that you are running in different circles than the people to which you so fondly refer as "warmers", as CO2 is in the news constantly.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/climbing-co2-hurting-marine-life-from-oysters-to-coral.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/u...e-gas-emissions-by-new-power-plants.html?_r=0

    http://www.science20.com/news_artic...rtterm_mitigation_costs_say_economists-120327

    http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112939166/co2-levels-in-atmosphere-still-rising-090413/
  5. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,306
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    I was more thinking of your reference to "data winning", as there is pretty good evidence that everyone makes up their own data. The paper referenced above that suggests that the CO2 sensitivity is lower than we thought was extremely well received by the AGW detractors, seemingly without any of them noticing that they were supported a paper that claimed that AGW was very real and that the total heat budget models were pretty accurate.

    We have a bunch of people on here that insist upon using partisan blogs as primary literature. If one only reads wattsupwiththat, of course they would be convinced that AGW is not real. In fact, if that is all the data that they have, it would rational to think that climate science is akin astrology. But the Watts blog picture of climate science is so incomplete that any conclusion derived from it alone is bound to be inaccurate. As jim so astutely points out "Bad or biased info in, bad projections out".
    • Like Like x 1
  6. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    My goodness. Where to start?

    You discount the sensitivity argument. Yet you illuminate the parts about "AGW being real." What makes this behavior any different than that of WUWT?

    The sensitivity argument is really the cornerstone of AGW. If that is low enough, then AGW is, on balance, beneficial.
  7. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    [​IMG]

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/




  8. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,060
    Likes Received:
    2,843
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,047
  9. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,306
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    For one, I never discounted the sensitivity argument at all. My goal was simply to describe the selective views of others on the thread. The sensitivity argument might be right, I don't know. Although as it is increasingly looking like there is a temperature standstill, it seems less like a sensitivity issue, but I'll always defer to the climate scientists.

    I'm confused on this part. Beneficial, as in adds value to life?
  10. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    This might be one we check out in 17 years.

  11. tegator80
    Online

    tegator80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Ratings Received:
    +2,977
    That sort of reminds me of the Oral Roberts quote where he told his audience that unless he received $8 million in donations in 3 months that "God would call me home." It is amazing what some people can get away with.

Share This Page