![CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs-thru-20131.png?quality=75)
Dana Nuccitelli has written a defence of climate models, in which he appears to claim that a few models randomly replicating the pause should be considered evidence that climate modelling is producing valid results.
According to The Guardian;
… There’s also no evidence that our expectations of future global warming are inaccurate. For example, a paper published in Nature Climate Change last week by a team from the University of New South Wales led by Matthew England showed that climate models that accurately captured the surface warming slowdown (dark red & blue in the figure below) project essentially the same amount of warming by the end of the century as those that didn’t (lighter red & blue).
There’s also been substantial climate research examining the causes behind the short-term surface warming slowdown. Essentially it boils down to a combination of natural variability storing more heat in the deep oceans, and an increase in volcanic activity combined with a decrease in solar activity. These are all temporary effects that won’t last. In fact, we may already be at the cusp of an acceleration in surface warming, with 2014 being a record-hot year and 2015 on pace to break the record yet again.
The problem I’ve got with this line of reasoning, can best be illustrated with an analogy.
Say your uncle came to you and said “I’ve got an infallible horse betting system. Every time I plug in the results of previous races, plug in last year’s racing data, it gets most of the winners right, which proves the system works.”.
Would you:
- Bet your life savings on the next race?
- Wait and see whether the model produced good predictions, when applied to future races?
- Humour the old fool and make him a nice mug of chocolate?
Anyone with an ounce of common sense would go for option b) or c). We instinctively intuit that it is much easier to fit a model to the past, than to produce genuinely skilful predictions. If your uncle was a professor of mathematics or statistics, someone with some kind of credibility in the numbers game, you might not dismiss his claim out of hand – occasionally skilled people really do find a way to beat the system. But you would surely want to see whether the model could demonstrate real predictive skill.
What if a few months later, your uncle came back to you and said:
“I know my model didn’t pick the winners of the last few months races. But you see, the model doesn’t actually predict exactly which horse will win each race – it produces a lot of predictions and assigns a probability to each prediction. I work out which horse to pick, by kind of averaging the different predictions. The good news though is one of the hundreds of model runs *did* predict the right horses, in the last 4 races – which proves the model is fundamentally sound. According to my calculations, all the models end up predicting the same outcome – that if we stick with the programme, we will end up getting rich”.
I don’t know about you, but at this point I would definitely be tending towards option c).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Option c, or I would ask him to lend me the money for the bets with the promise to pay it back once the gains are in.
Yes, this reminds me of all the spam I get where I have to pay a few thousand dollars to get my millions of dollars…and there is always a “legal” catch that they just can’t deduct the few thousands from my millions.
There’s another scam involving an inverse pyramid scheme where you send out a power-of-two number of letters (say 1024) – half of which say the stock market will be up at some future date, and half of which say it will be down. To the 512 people who received the letters with the correct prediction you send 256 letters saying the stock market will be up at another future date, and 256 letters to the other half saying it will be down. …etc. until you’re down to say 32 people who have received 5 correct predictions in a row, and you concentrate on pressuring them to buy your ‘secret’ method of predicting the stock market.
Here are the leading paragraphs from The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy Wikipedia article:
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning a false conclusion is inferred. This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.
The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some gunshots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.
Those scams are deliberately worded to fool only those suffering from dementia or alzheimers..
I read Levitt and Dubner’s recent book, “Think Like a Freak”. , how one person was trying to devse a program to flood those con artist’ websites with spam= planting ‘weed” emails in their garden of the gullible.
After reading that, I sometomes use one of my “gmail” junk accounts to reply to those spams, helping sew “weeds” in their gardens. I always ask them to deduct the fee from the balance, due me
noaaprogrammer,
There is a short cut to this pyramid scheme now. Step 1, find someone scared of AGW. Step 2, sell them anything. Step 3, profit.
Great idea Ben. Maybe we should get the money for the sustainable energy projects from Algore and friends.
Back in the early 1990s, I set out to do battle with Reno Nevada casinos. My tactic was to use a round robin system, the NFL football over/under and point spreads would be utilized for making the picks. I decided on going with the six team parley ticket, also known as the suckers bet. It payed 52 to one. I made the choice of using 8 picks to fill in the 28 different tickets that comprised all possibilities of 8 picks into a 6 spot ticket. The beauty of the system was that I no longer had to be 100% correct to have a winning day. As long as I could pick 6 out of 8, then I had 1 winning ticket paying $52 for every $28 spent on the total group. I did very well for 6 years. Although, I could never hit that elusive 100%.
I would have never considered embarking on this gamble in the first place, except that I found that I could consistently pick 2 out of 3 correct every weekend from a group of selected picks. I typically would make between 13 and 16 four star choices for the main list. Then I would draw my 8 choices for each package played. My best weekends were 15/16, 14/15, or 13/14 correct picks, around 10 times in the 6 years.
a team from the University of New South Wales led by Matthew England showed that climate models that accurately captured the surface warming slowdown (dark red & blue in the figure below) project essentially the same amount of warming by the end of the century as those that didn’t (lighter red & blue).
Which translates as ‘the models are useless at predicting what will happen’.
Actually, Nuccitelli’s rantings translate to “3% of the models got it right”.
I feel for the fool.
But you really should give him credit for the effort. With results like that, most would have given up already.
Does that translate to a 3% Consensus on The models/science is right/indisputable.
Nuccitelli’s silly fool rule!
“3% of the models got it right”
That proves that a 97% consensus can be wrong!
How nice of Dana Nuccitelli to point that out.
The model’s usefulness for making predictions is so weak that they IPCC does not endorse it.
From PCC AR5:
The fact that Dana does endorse it is evidence that he has nothing else. And that he’s a fruit loop way out there away from the scientific mainstream.
The whole scare lives and dies with the models.
RIP.
The direction is definitely up, but the uncertainties are such that it could be up by no amount, or possibly even up by a negative amount.
My prediction for the S&P trade tomorrow…It will be up, down or sideways. Take that to the bank.
Just you lot be kind to my Dana. He’s special you know …
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/12/19/climate-prat-of-2014-we-have-a-winnah/
He could be the first double winner if he keeps up this sorta stuff.
Pointman
Funny 😄
I know Pointman, but sadly it doesn’t work that way. After a while they give up and stop entertaining us.
Yes, I’m afraid it does Eric, he’s luverly.
“Being a connoisseur of strange, exotic and fabled creatures, I like Dana immensely because he’s a pure prat, a thinking man’s prat as well as a mustachioed pipe-smoking woman’s prat, a complete thoroughbred prat prancing around like a ballet dancer doing seemingly impossible grand jetés through the mediasphere, clad in nothing more than green hose and a beautiful miniature yellow codpiece with silvery tinsely bits carefully streaming back out between his legs like the tail of a flatulence-propelled Halley’s comet.
He flies through the air, right arm and fist stuck out defiantly like superman and steely eyes firmly fixed on the coming green state of bliss. And all of that in casual hush puppy shoes with invisible high riser heels. Visually, he’s mind-blowing, gorgeous and ultimately jaw-droppingly beautiful. I want to have his babies.”
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/climate-prat-of-2013-we-have-a-winnah/
Pointy
They were able to predict the outcome of the UK elections. Let’s hail them
Huh?
Which climate model did that?
Hindcast. 🙂
Are actual scientists falling for this scam?
I mean, come on… You don’t have to study thermodynamics, even basic physics, not to be a numerical modeler, nor to be a computer scientist…
Do universities secretly perform unneeded brain surgery on students now? Who performed the first common-senserectomy and didn’t get the Ig Nobel?
It is surprising how many scientists will suspend scientific principles when it comes to religion, it is not surprising that they would when it comes to ideology as well.
There was a talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson addressing why Americans were so scientifically illiterate, for example a large majority of the public believe the Adam and Eve story as factual. I can’t remember the exact survey number but the percentage of scientists deferring to religion was a much smaller minority (maybe 15%) , but the point was if a PHD scientist finds the need to defer to religion or ideology even if only in selected areas, how can we expect the public to not do the same?
In the end religion and ideology are part of the human experience, driving the innate need to belong to a group or tribe. The challenge for modern societies is preventing religion or ideology becoming a cancer on the society.
“It is surprising how many scientists will suspend scientific principles when it comes to religion, it is not surprising that they would when it comes to ideology as well.”
Don’t forget the motivators of pay, status, perks, benefits, recognition, tenure, political tribe signalling, job security…
Doesn’t NDT (being part of the Klimate Kult) ridicule non-believers?
And least we forget all the salaried free trips to exotic places on the tax payer’s dime.
Wars have been fought over whether they were Braeburn or Fuji apples in the Garden of Eden.
Anything coming from Tyson is immediately suspect, he’s a glory hound who has no trouble lying if it advances the cause.
The only survey I’ve ever seen regarding evolution and scientists asked about the belief that God played a hand in evolution. Which is a far cry from believing that the earth is 5000 years old and all animals were created as is.
ALX Religion comes in many forms. I’ve requested examples of the experiments that proved DNA could occur naturally and you failed to respond. When you can disprove Sir Fred Hoyle you can convince me that evolution is not a religion.
Max,
RNA occurs naturally. It self-assembles from its constituent parts, for example, in ice or when catalyzed by PAHs, which abound in the universe. RNA not only replicates itself, but catalyzes peptide formation, from which polypeptides, ie proteins, bond together. From the simple, dual-function RNA World of early life developed DNA World, in which DNA took over from RNA the genetic information storage and replication function, while RNA specialized in the metabolic functions. Retroviruses still use RNA in this original, replicative way, although they hijack the metabolism of cells in order to reproduce.
Evolution is not a religion but a repeatedly observed, scientific fact explained by a body of theory, just like the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory of matter and the theory of universal gravitation, among other well established but constantly improved theories.
Existing species giving rise to new species by a variety of evolutionary processes both in the wild and in labs is so frequently observed as to be trivial. The evolution of new genera is witnessed less often, but still repeatedly. Instances of observed evolution of higher taxa is naturally less frequent, but can be inferred throughout the history of life from many observations including those not available in 1858.
I might add, apropos of Sir Fred’s Panspermia Hypothesis, that some recent origin of life work has produced chemical evidence that life on earth might have gotten started on Mars. That would be a very soft version of panspermia.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24120-primordial-broth-of-life-was-a-dry-martian-cupasoup.html#.VVFJw_BultA
Abiogenesis of course is a separate study from evolution, which is about what happens after cellular life already exists, not so much about how it gets going. It’s chemical evolution as opposed to biological evolution, although processes akin both to selection and stochastic evolution probably occur in the development of pre- and peribiochemistry, too.
IMO where and when life arose are less important questions than how. There has also been some recent good work done on what might have preceded the well supported by evidence RNA World.
“Are actual scientists falling for this scam?”
No. Its pretty clear from the comments on The Guardian site under all these kinds of posts, that nobody on there who supports this ‘thinking’ is any kind of actual scientist.
Idiots, yes, scientists, no
Correction, many of them are fanatical idiots. There is a difference.
Claiming volcanoes again, eh? Except there has been no change in atmospheric clarity over the past 18 years.
Mods
My post has vanished. Please let me knowif it is not in the ‘bin’.
Richard
“some underlying physical processes are not yet completely understood,” I think “we don’t have much of a clue about what drives climate!” Would be a better expression, certainly more truthful.
Reminds me of the BBC’s “No one can explain what effect the power of the Sun has on our climate, but whatever it is, it has already been overtaken by manmade global warming!” We don’t know what effect element A has upon element B, what whatever it is, it’s been overpowered by element C! If that isn’t the most stupid statement ever made I don’t know what is!
Stealing billions from taxpayers under the pretext of spreading the bets is not something I would give anybody a cup of hot chocolate. A punch in the nose, perhaps.
Are you related to Ben Santer?
Have my own views about Banana Nuttycelli
But wait, all along the meme has been that natural variation, volcanic activity, and the sun have been factored out as irrelevant. Now that Dana finally admits other factors are relevant, is this a sign of Dana’s faith based global warming beliefs beginning to waiver? Heaven forbid! Natural variation, and other non-human CO2 activity is only “temporarily” affecting global temperature. Well that’s good news, the faithful require mans CO2 to wrest back control from an unpredictable nature.
I tried to post that. Hold the front page and surprise of surprises, it got moderated. They *really* don’t like it when such an obvious truth is pointed out to them.
“Essentially it boils down to a combination of natural variability storing more heat in the deep oceans, and an increase in volcanic activity combined with a decrease in solar activity.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Why do they not publish details of exactly what the specific forcing’s of those two models closest to reality actually used? I have yet to see this information. The likely reason is that the details of those forcing scenarios in no way match what the earth is actually doing, and showing this would further discredit the already failed models.
We know from Bob T detailed posts that the actual very small recorded rise in ocean T is below, not above what the IPCC expected. We know the surface SST, the only part the affects the atmosphere, has been hiding nothing, but in fact is very high, hiding nothing. We have been ENSO neutral for much of the pause, especially the last few years, although the AMO is starting to turn this is only the beginning of a balance to the warm AMO that drove much of the multiple decade warming. Volcanism has certainly been relatively flat during the pause.
Eric W, I question the first graphic. Are the model runs for the surface or the troposphere? The troposphere runs should be higher then the surface. The observations shown are for both the surface and the troposphere? Also the graph does not show the current UAH chart.
Thanks
It’s not really a fair criticism.
If 20 different people produced betting models and 19 were rubbish, you can’t conclude the 1 who got it right has no skill.
Now they could be getting it right by chance, but it isn’t like the same person got 19/20 wrong. A person got their model right.
Christoph Dollis
There is no reason to suppose that any model got it right in a manner which suggests they will get it right in future.
Similarly, if you spray water from a shower rose and some drops contact the wall there is no reason to say which future drops will hit the wall.
My post that has vanished explains this. I will try to post it again and see if it appears this time.
Richard
Nope. It vanished again so I suppose it must be in the ‘bin’.
So by your way of doing science, if some large number of people get it wrong and some small number of people get it right, one can’t say anything about that except, “Hey, big bucket! A few drops don’t matter.”
You realize this utterly invalidates all skeptical, minority positions on everything in one fell swoop?
(Your position doesn’t work.)
Christoph Dollis
Science does work. It has given humanity many benefits.
You failed to understand my first explanation so I will try again.
A model needs to make a series of accurate predictions of the future before it has demonstrated any predictive skill.
This is because
1.
The are an infinite number of ways to model the one pattern of past global temperature changes observed to have happened.
2.
And there are an infinite number of possible patterns of future global temperature and an infinite number of ways to model each of them.
3.
But only one pattern of future global temperature will occur.
4.
Therefore, there is an infinite number of possibilities that a model which matched the pattern of past global temperature changes will not match the pattern of future global temperature which has yet to occur.
Richard
Define “get it right”.
(Hint : p<.05 is NOT the correct answer)
Christoph Dollis
You ask me to “Define “get it right” “. I have.
You used the phrase “A person got their model right” which is in the past tense.
I discussed the ways a model model matches the patterns of past and future global temperature. A model may match the past pattern (i.e. got that “right”) but – as I explained – there are an infinite number of possibilities that the same model will not match the future pattern (i.e. will get that “wrong”).
Richard
Christoph Dollis
My post that vanished has now appeared down the thread here.
Richard
Christopher,
I am sure you receive several more scientifically worded responses but here in Texas we would simply say, “Even a blind pig finds and acorn now and then”.
Something about a broken clock….
If 20 different people produced betting models and 19 were rubbish, you can’t conclude the 1 who got it right has no skill.
======
then why doesn’t the IPCC and climate modelling community drop the 19 models that got it wrong? you can certainly conclude they 19 have no skill.
Now that they have the ‘right’ model, it won’t be too difficult to replicate. This could be a breakthrough. (Even though the science is settled, it would be comforting to have it confirmed before we allocate the next trillion.)
Here is, IMV why they do not show the details of the two best models…http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/11/a-few-models-wandered-over-the-pause/#comment-1931236
That was my thought. Of the two models that got it “right”, then document the inputs and coded processes
and move forward. Drop the others. Of course bad luck for the keepers of the models dropped. They will be finding ways for ask for more research money or “Would you like fries with that?”.
Since pretty much Anthony, I, and every skeptic argues that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, easily dwarfed by natural factors, but may have led to some small warming, that most of the models exaggerate … I can’t dismiss out of hand that the few models which match the observations fairly well might have been skillfully made.
Or, as I allowed for, it could just be chance.
But we shouldn’t find ourselves in the position of dismissing models that match our own general position based on the observations just because.
If they can’t explain why the one got it right and the other 19 got it wrong, then the odds are the one that got it right was just coincidence.
Your problem is making the one group “they”. You’re not allowing for the possibility that these scientists may vary greatly in skill and understanding.
So most of the scientists in question might be producing rubbish, but not necessarily all.
Christoph, this modeling exercise does show, if nothing else, just how far from “settled” that climate science really is. Going along with your possibility, if perhaps one or two scientists are not producing rubbish, and the rest are, then a person of intellectual honesty would own up to this fact and declare (1) this science is indeed very far from settled, and (2) we will discard the 88 models shown defective to this point, and continue to follow the 2 that have not yet disqualified themselves. Along these lines, they would acknowledge that future warming predictions may be incorrect, and that we must continue to observe these 2 remaining models until either the actual temperature begins a steep uptrend, at which point models may gain back some credibility, or until the 2 remaining models have failed to show skill, at which point the models have zero credibility and governments quit funding their development.
One other point – if the 2 low trending models do indeed end up at approx. the same temperature by 2100, the only way this could happen is if they enter a steep uptrend at some point where they close the gap on the average of the models. I have not seen a chart with the models projected out to 2100. It would seem more likely that those trending low now would continue the shallower trend, thus ending at a far lower temperature by 2100. What would cause them to initially trend less steeply than the ensemble average, and later change to trending more steeply, to “catch up” so to speak. This would seem unlikely to me. If there is some rational behind this thinking, it would seem that would be the ultimate test of skill. See how well actual temps follow as the model turns to a very steep uptrend. If they actually did follow it steeply upward for several years, that would be an indication that the models do have skill. Until that time is reached, there is no merit to the claim that the science is settled.
Blind squirrel. Nut.
“Say your uncle came to you and said “I’ve got an infallible horse betting system. Every time I plug in the results of previous races, plug in last year’s racing data, it gets most of the winners right, which proves the system works.”.”
A better analogy would be that you have a loaded dice which tends to come up “6”, but not always because that would be too suspicious. The dice comes up with 1s and 2s for 18 tries. Should you stop betting on 6?
If it came up ‘6’ only slightly better than raw chance, then I wouldn’t bet much.
Regardless, in this situation, the “models” are coming up with the “right” answer way less than pure probability would predict.
This is a variant on “The Broken Clock Fallacy”. Take 90 broken clocks. You can expect at least one of them to be within a few minutes of the exact time. However, you do not know which one. Furthermore, the average of the times shown on the broken clocks is likely to be a long way from the actual time. (Should also specify that the clocks are running, but not keeping accurate time.)
Walt D.
No, this is an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. My post(s) that have vanished explain this with a link to an accurate wicki explanation of the fallacy.
Richard
The The Broken Clock Fallacy is about stopped clocks….not clocks running fast or slow.The idea is that a broken clock is right twice a day (the US at least).
Definition of an Economist – Someone who tries to explain why what they predicted yesterday would happen tomorrow did not happen today.
There’s also a little predicting what’s gonna happen next week after a failed prediction that it would happen last week:
“In fact, we may already be at the cusp of an acceleration in surface warming…”
Or, “our stock is likely undervalued and on the cusp of an acceleration in price…”
But I really like this: “These are all temporary effects that won’t last.” Yup, with prose like that there is absolutely no chance that the climate change issue is suffering from a communication problem. Alas I can’t read the rest of the article ‘cos I’m still on my Guardian boycott.
bingo
Don’t knock economists. They correctly predicted nine of the last three global recessions.
(source unknown)
There should be another course in denial 101 – which aims to teach :
•How to recognise the social and psychological drivers of natural climate variation denial
•How to better understand that natural climate cycles beyond anthropogenic control do occur, and gather the evidence of how they function by the collection of validated raw datasets. This will allow realistic mitigation controls to be implemented.
•How to identify the techniques and fallacies that some climate researchers employ to ‘homogenise’ historic climate records
•How to effectively debunk climate misinformation and alarmism created by modelling techniques that consistently trend away from current observations
Works both ways – doesn’t it?
Not really.
They have an online course with objectives and an exam.
Just download the online course, search for “anthropogenic” and “man-made”, and replace with “natural”, and you have a course in Natural Climate Change Denial – the “denial” process is the same regardless of which side of the climate change causation (anthropogenic or natural) one is aligned to.
Those occupying the middle lukewarmer ground are being labelled simplistically and incorrectly as “deniers of climate change” when in reality they have an open mind on the subject.
This is the attempt at a repost that I promised to Christoph Dollis.
Friends:
I again remind of the following.
The selection of models that seem to fit after the event is an example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy .
Such post hoc selection indicates nothing about ability to forecast the future but it is tempting to think it does, and fr@udsters use the temptation to mislead their ‘marks’.
I again explain how they do this.
A set of, say 4, different investment plans is generated.
Each investment plan is sent to, say 4000, random people.
At a later date one (or more) of the plans has provided a very good return.
Those who were sent the ‘successful’ plan are now sent a report of its ‘success’ together with another investment plan. These new investment plans are another 4 different investment plans so 4 groups each of 1000 people each obtains one of these second plans.
Again, at a later date one (or more) of the second plans has provided a very good return.
Those who were sent the ‘successful’ second plan are now sent a report of its ‘success’ together with a third investment plan. These new investment plans are another 4 different investment plans so 4 groups each of 250 people each obtain one of them.
Yet again, at a later date one (or more) of the third plans has provided a very good return.
Those who were sent the ‘successful’ third plan are now sent a report of its ‘success’ together with an offer to invest $10,000 in the next investment plan which uses the astonishingly accurate prediction method that has apparently been successful three times without fail.
If 100 of the 250 targeted people invest then the fr@udsters gain an income of $1,000,000.
This is, in fact, the same ploy as is used when the ‘best’ climate models are selected after the event.
Richard
Sounds just like the bookies phoning to give away a hot tip on today’s game.
Thank you Richard. Have you seen this one?
In a 1984 speech, Buffett asked his listeners to imagine that all 215 million Americans pair off and bet a dollar on the outcome of a coin toss. The one who calls the toss incorrectly is eliminated and pays his dollar to the one who was correct.
The next day, the winners pair off and play the same game with each other, each now betting $2. Losers are eliminated and that day’s winners end up with $4. The game continues with a new toss at doubled stakes each day After twenty tosses, 215 people will be left in the game. Each will have over a million dollars.
According to Buffett, some of these people will write books on their methods: How I Turned a Dollar into a Million in Twenty Days Working Thirty Seconds a Morning. Some will badger ivory-tower economists who say it can’t be done: “If it can’t be done, why are there 215 of us?” “Then some business school professor will probably be rude enough to bring up the fact that if 215 million orangutans had engaged in a similar exercise, the result would be the same-215 egotistical orangutans with 20 straight winning flips.”
I certainly agree that we can’t say these models which seem to perform are skilled, whereas we can say that most of these models are not skilled. However, I don’t think we can rule out that some of the models that seem to match observations are skilled, nor do I think it ought to bother us if one or more are skilled over time. Indeed, that would be great.
None of the models is skilled. They’re all based on faulty and inadequate assumptions. It’s just that some of them make less wildly erroneous presumptions. The two that diverge the least from observations (not that HadCRU is actually real data) use the lowest, ie less preposterous, estimate for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), ie 2.1 degrees C per doubling on CO2 level.
In fact, negative and positive feedback effects probably roughly cancel each other out globally, for an ECS closer to 1.0 than 2.0 degrees, let alone the allegedly “canonical” 3.0 or 4.5 and falling.
My view is that the “best” that can be said is that some models (3%?) out of many models showed some correlation with “the pause”.
The problem is that this fact (that some very few models correlate with the pause) is being used as an implied argument to say that all the models are somehow “right” and that things are heating up exactly as “the models” (all of them) have suggested all along.
Of course this is rubbish. I’d fire anyone who persisted in presenting such rubbish logic to me.
Unfortunately, this “argument” will be seen as perhaps having some sort of validity by many journalists and others.
The pause that never was has become the pause that was always predicted.
I see now.
If they know how climate works shouldn’t there be just one model?
“… shouldn’t there be just one model”
Then who would maintain the models that validate the model?
By definition, there would be no need to. If a model works, it works.
That is a simple, elegant and brilliant question.
No model got it right. Those few that are now crossing over the actual observations were simply too low in tha 1990s and are in the process of catching up with their even more erroneous fellows.
“No model got it right. Those few that are now crossing over the actual observations were simply too low in tha 1990s and are in the process of catching up with their even more erroneous fellows.”
Indeed, it seems that climate models show considerable skill in predicting events which have already happened.
On future trends – who knows?
“First they tell you that you’re wrong, and they can prove it.
Then they tell you you’re right, but it’s not important.
Then they tell you it’s important, but they’ve known it for years.”
-CF Kettering
We see phase 2 in action. When do the Nutti warministas move on to phase 3?
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
It is my understand that all these projections are based on economic projections first and then CO2 second assuming a CO2 release based on those projections. So this is really not a CO2 driven system but an economic driven system. That is what gives so many different outcomes. I’m not even sure this is science it seems to be more a study of social system.