8 ms·
None of the models have performed very well. You probably won't find a scorecard because it's embarrassing.
by natermer 11y ago
None of the models have performed very well. You probably won't find a scorecard because it's embarrassing.
- ThisIBereave 11y agoCitation needed.
- cholantesh 11y agoProbably a long list of ExxonMobil shill sites.
- jasonkester 11y agoHere's a good one: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-... 44 Climate Models all fighting to out-panic one another, not a single one guessing low enough to predict the actual values for 2012 (when it seems the dataset in question ended) ... and a seemingly more reputable one showing roughly the same thing: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator...
- Roodgorf 11y agoThe first graph on that second link is a bit confusing and seems pretty disingenuous. It has the "observations" region stretching to 2050. The rest of the article seems much more factual and interesting, but why start with something so misleading if your supposed goal is to debunk misleading projections?
- cholantesh 11y agoI wouldn't call a paper whose lead author is a well-established denier with no scientific training (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Visc...), and which is co-authored by a known practitioner of large-scale scientific fraud for pay (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon) particularly reputable.
- marcus_holmes 11y agoad-hominem. Who cares who wrote it, what does it say?
- cholantesh 11y agoReally? You think it doesn't matter that the primary author on a paper about climate science doesn't even have an undergraduate-level education in the subject? That the second one credited has a history of accepting large sums of money to write papers endorsing spurious claims DIRECTLY RELATING to climate change?
- Aloha 11y agoAre you going to tell me that every person who has ever written a paper on computer science needs to have a degree in it? While I won't question this guys qualification might be questionable - making a blanket statement that someone must be specifically educated in a subject to write a good paper on it is specious.
- cholantesh 11y agoHow often does it happen that a layman manages to get published in a well-regarded journal? Out of all the papers that laypeople publish anywhere, how many survive scrutiny from experts in the paper's problem domain? And out of those, how many that actively seek to overturn a paradigm succeed? Based on this metric alone, it is highly unlikely that Monkcton is qualified to discuss climate change, and as it happens, his published work tends to be published by fairly obscure journals whose standards of review are questionable, and when they pass the desks of career climatologists, the result is generally unfavourable to him.
- Aloha 11y agoThere is a difference between "layman", "well known expert in their field", "so and so with a degree in $field" "well known expert in their field with a masters in $field" If you read my reply, I don't question the guys qualifications, I was objecting to the blanket statement of "you must have a degree in $field, to be expert" - many papers in technology, are written by people without degrees in that field.
- themgt 11y agoDo read this criticism of Roy Spencer's methods, which to me do not appear credible: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-decei... http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/roy-spencer-grows-even-wearier.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/roy-spencer-grows-even-we...
- replicatorblog 11y agoNot the most credible looking site, but the graphic seems well cited: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-...
- cholantesh 11y agoSpencer is pretty out there. He's gone on record to say that warming proponents are advancing an argument that will lead to more deaths than the NSDAP's policies did, and is a signatory to the Evangelical Declaration on Climate Change, which suggests that this is largely a matter of faith for him...
- dnautics 11y agoHe does also maintain one of the satellite records, which does show global warming over the period 1960-2000 (not so much the last 10 years because of the global warming hiatus).
- cholantesh 11y agoAnd other records do not show such a hiatus (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-slowing-its-speeding-up.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-slowing-i...).
- dnautics 11y agoDid you even read the article? look at the university of York dataset, which clearly shows the 1960-2000 warming followed by the 2000-2010 hiatus. Note the York dataset is strictly observationally independent of the UAH dataset.
- cholantesh 11y agoEvidently we were reading different articles,because the author emphatically doesn't concur with your interpetation of the York dataset.
- wnewman 11y agoI think http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/ http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-m... is a reasonably representative informed article on this.
- Retric 11y agoDepends, overall predictions from the mid 1980's where high and a lot of research has gone into why. A significant part of the difference disappears if you adjust for CO2 produced vs predicted. Granted, you can argue that the older models needed to account for both, but what we want to validate is predictions of impacts not predictions of fossil fuel use. It's extremely disingenuous to show a single line as the 'prediction'. There have been plenty of projections that include possible reductions in temperature. As well as a wide range of types of measurements. PS: You can also do a lot of cherry picking on both sides: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html http://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
- hackuser 11y agoGreat points. To add a little more detail, predicting the results of greenhouse gasses in the atmosephere is science. Predicting the amount of gasses in the atmosephere requires predicting human economic activity in detail (how much, in what form, etc.), which is impossible, especially on longer timescales (imagine how many investors would love to know how to do that!) The predictions I've seen, at least in the IPCC reports,[1] show not lines but confidence intervals that widen over time. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772353
- ocschwar 11y agoThey've not performed well based on criteria chosen by global warming denialists. For example, you'd be hard pressed to find a climate scientist making any solid predictions about annual global temperature averages. You will, however, see predictions about decadal averages, and those have borne out.
- merpnderp 11y agoBorne out? Compared to what? The RSS and UAH 6.0 lower troposphere predictions? What other measurements do we have that don't have uncertainty bands as large as the measurements? And the zero trend from May 2015 extends back to 1996 for RSS and UAH 6.0.
- ocschwar 11y agoThat "zero trend" is only there if you use annual averages. Again: use decadal moving averages, and an entirely different picture comes up.
- merpnderp 11y agoHow do you use decadal moving averages from satellite data that has only existed since 1979? You'll get roughly the same trend as the full data set. Even so, the last two decades would still be flat, or very nearly so.
- ocschwar 11y agoHint: decades don't have to start with year 10*n+0.
- merpnderp 11y agoWe already know the full data set has a 1.2K/century trend (this is annual trend most commonly used to represent the data). Decadal moving averages aren't going to shed more light than that. We also know that if you just grab the last 19 years and 6 months, or any smaller subset of that, you'll see 0 to negative trends.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- noobermin 11y agoAs someone else shared above: http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-far.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-pr...