It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I don't claim to be an expert in climate change models so I'm interested to know what ATS thinks of this. Even without expertise in the models, I do know that they are extremely complex, and that climate scientists seem to be tweaking and fiddling with them a lot to get them to match observation, so I'm open to the idea that a lot more tweaking is needed. Frankly though I didn't expect such an idea to come from a pocket calculator climate model

Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models


Near-term global warming projections (brick-red region) on[0.13, 0.50] K decade-1, compared with observations (green region)that fall on [0.0, 0.11] K decade-1, and the simple model's 21stcentury warming projections (yellow arrow), falling on 0.09 [0.06,0.12] K decade-1. Credit: Science China Press



A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.


I'm not trying to push this view as correct so feel free to attack the paper if that's justified...I won't take it as a personal attack, as long as you attack the paper and the research rather then the messenger (me). I'm only interested in the truth and don't have any strong bias on this subject. So, what say you, ATS? Any validity to this peer-reviewed model saying there is no climate crisis?

My guess is, none of the models are completely accurate, yet.




posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I don't believe that they can model the climate due to lack of data and too many variables. In my opinion, I don't think this model is any more valid than the models done by 'climatologists'. I do appreciate you sharing this with us. I just don't buy this anymore than the other corrupt models.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
It's been known for a while that none of the major models match. And when they do match in their predictions, none of them can accurately hindcast the past, not one. When they are tweaked to be able to accurately hindcast what we know happened in the past ... then none of the match each other going forward and none of the them have been able to actually match what has actually been happening, either.

In conclusion, it seems that no matter how complex they are, they still either aren't complex enough or they're flat out wrong in their complexity.

And when someone tells me they believe in Global Warming based on the models ... I can't quite take them seriously since the models themselves can't really be taken all that seriously.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Don't tell climate changers that their data "might" be wrong. You must just accept their conclusions blindly.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Not really suprised...their models have never worked.

When I was a kid in the 80-90s they said by now there would be feet of sea level rise.

They claim the world is going to go into out of control warming.

There is no evidence that this can even happen.....yet plenty of evidence it has been much warmer with way more co2 and no out of control warming......

I can't take any of the backers serious....they completely ignore historic evidence that easily contradicts the out of control warming bs.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I hope it's true, it would be very welcome news... I'm just not buying it, I wish I could. Here's what concerns me, without getting into the math of it which is beyond me.


The assumption that "temperature feedbacks" would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.

Read more at: phys.org...


Bolding mine.

May is an awfully big word in this situation. It is stating that calculations are wrong but not looking at actual climate science in order to determine if that's even viable to stand on. So even though the IPCC lowered the estimate for climate sensitivity by half a degree they didn't factor it in to the long-term projections but they did factor it into short term projections.

And the authors of the paper... good grief. Granted the character and history of the authors isn't enough to debunk their science but in this case it sure does make me think this is a prank of some kind.
edit on 1/24/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I hope it's true, it would be very welcome news... I'm just not buying it, I wish I could. Here's what concerns me, without getting into the math of it which is beyond me.


The assumption that "temperature feedbacks" would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.

Read more at: phys.org...


Bolding mine.

May is an awfully big word in this situation. It is stating that calculations are wrong but not looking at actual climate science in order to determine if that's even viable to stand on. So even though the IPCC lowered the estimate for climate sensitivity by half a degree they didn't factor it in to the long-term projections but they did factor it into short term projections.

And the authors of the paper... good grief. Granted the character and history of the authors isn't enough to debunk their science but in this case it sure does make me think this is a prank of some kind.


Why?

Not one single prediction of the climate change gurus has come true in the last 20+ years.

Why would you believe anything they say at all?

I don't understand your mindset....how can you blindly trust people that are always wrong?



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I hope it's true, it would be very welcome news... I'm just not buying it, I wish I could. Here's what concerns me, without getting into the math of it which is beyond me.


The assumption that "temperature feedbacks" would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.

Read more at: phys.org...


Bolding mine.

May is an awfully big word in this situation. It is stating that calculations are wrong but not looking at actual climate science in order to determine if that's even viable to stand on. So even though the IPCC lowered the estimate for climate sensitivity by half a degree they didn't factor it in to the long-term projections but they did factor it into short term projections.

And the authors of the paper... good grief. Granted the character and history of the authors isn't enough to debunk their science but in this case it sure does make me think this is a prank of some kind.


You omitted the other cited errors in the IPCC models:

The assumption that "temperature feedbacks" would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.

The Bode system-gain equation models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits, but, when complex models erroneously apply it to the climate on the IPCC's false assumption of strongly net-amplifying feedbacks, it greatly over-predicts global warming. They are using the wrong equation.

Modellers have failed to cut their central estimate of global warming in line with a new, lower feedback estimate from the IPCC. They still predict 3.3 °C of warming per CO2 doubling, when on this ground alone they should only be predicting 2.2 °C - about half from direct warming and half from amplifying feedbacks.

Though the complex models say there is 0.6 °C manmade warming "in the pipeline" even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases, the simple model - confirmed by almost two decades without any significant global warming - shows there is no committed but unrealized manmade warming still to come. There is no scientific justification for the IPCC's extreme RCP 8.5 global warming scenario that predicts up to 12 °C global warming as a result of our industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.

Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 °C but 1 °C or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 °C warming would result.

Read more at: phys.org...


In other words, you missed the entire point of the article.

The previous models were proven absolutely wrong. We know that. We now have the data.

The new simpler model identified that the feedback equation was incorrect, and the newer, simpler model is in line with the historical temperature changes, and projects a completely non-catastrophic future temperature gain.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
A second concern:

The paper cites the IPCC projected linear trend as .28 degrees per decade when the actual number is .17 degrees per decade.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder

The predictions you mock in your first post weren't predictions scientists ever made.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
And your qualifications to make such a statement? What scientific background do you have?
a reply to: Metallicus



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Colbomoose
And your qualifications to make such a statement? What scientific background do you have?
a reply to: Metallicus



It doesn't take a "scientist" to understand science...that is the point of science.

Who are you to question his opinions?

What is your scientific background to question his questioning?

Easy to be a troll isn't it?



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: infinityorder

The predictions you mock in your first post weren't predictions scientists ever made.


Yes they did.

They predicted doomporn would be hitting right now in fact...........

How close were they?

Or was I more accurate using historical data?

There has never once occurred this doom they say is coming...yet many times in earths history temps and co2 concentrations have been much higher than now....guess what happened and what didn't?


Life flourished...this is a fact...

No out of control warming....this is also a fact.

I will stick to facts...you know like science suggests...not conjecture based off of ...what exactly?.......there is no evidence this can even happen at all.

None...not one single scrap.

Out of control warming is completely made up.

It has never happened even with thousands if times the greenhouse gasses we have in the air right now it didn't happen.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
A second concern:

The paper cites the IPCC projected linear trend as .28 degrees per decade when the actual number is .17 degrees per decade.
So you were able to access the paper? What link did you use? I tried downloading the pdf from this page and it doesn't seem to be working:

www.scibull.com:8080...#


originally posted by: Kali74
And the authors of the paper... good grief. Granted the character and history of the authors isn't enough to debunk their science but in this case it sure does make me think this is a prank of some kind.
Please elaborate.

I know this view isn't popular with some mainstream scientists, and that the lead author Lord Monckton is a controversial figure, but he's actually cited the work of others to support his views, as in this video where he says 20 years of research by professor Richard Lindzen at MIT show what is wrong with the IPCC climate model:

Lord Monckton Debunks Climate Change & Global Warming

Monckton says that based on Lindzen's research the expected increase in temperature would be 1 degree C, not 7 degrees C,
and that the small increase might actually be beneficial.

I honestly don't know who is right and who is wrong, or maybe nobody is right, but for now I'm skeptical of most of the views on this topic on either side and I'm not sure who to believe about the models.

The data itself doesn't seem to be that controversial, in that it shows that warming has essentially stopped.

Dr Lindzen is referred to as a "credible climate skeptic" in this NY times article saying the question revolves around whether clouds will save the day or not, and there seems to be uncertainty on this issue:

Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters

“Clouds really are the biggest uncertainty,” said Andrew E. Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M. “If you listen to the credible climate skeptics, they’ve really pushed all their chips onto clouds.”

Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the leading proponent of the view that clouds will save the day. His stature in the field — he has been making seminal contributions to climate science since the 1960s — has amplified his influence.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You may find some of my post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
They are about the IPCC's boss, they may help you to evaluate credibility of everything made by the IPCC.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

It's down at the moment but you can try this later.

ETA But you can also see it on the graph at your link. The IPCC line in the graph sits at .37 degrees.
edit on 1/24/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
"Lies, damn lies and statistics"- Benjamin, Disraeli 1st Earl of Beaconsfield ("Dizzy") 1804–81, British statesman and novelist: prime minister 1868, 1874–80.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: PeterMcFly
There does seem to be some politics going on at the IPCC, though I don't really follow all the logic. The part I do follow is that people like Al Gore who have a carbon credit business stand to gain from the carbon credit market and can't be seen as unbiased for that reason.

a reply to: stormbringer1701
I'm used to looking at more pure science, or relatively unbiased engineering, but there does seem to be some politics going on in this field, in addition to the science, doesn't there?

a reply to: Kali74
Thanks for the link! That one worked.




top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join