New paper finds models have accurately predicted temperature increases. Why do so many still claim they have missed the mark?
Paper entitled "Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections."
"We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model-projected and observationally-estimated forcings were taken into account"
- ElizabethLv 71 month agoFavorite Answer
The 'skeptical' process goes ...
1. I don't believe it purely on the basis of personal opinion
2. I don't believe it because the data is ambiguous and the conclusions are therefore suspect
3. I accept the data and observations but there are alternative explanations I prefer
... and in some cases ...
4. I accept the data and explanation, but not the supposed consequences of that
If you look at the concept of the Earth orbiting the sun, the dispersion of light through Newton's prism, the discovery of radioactivity, evolution, abnormal rotation curves for galaxies, bacteria, Big Bang theory, age of the Earth, plate tectonics ... they all followed this path both within the scientific community and public at large.
Global warming is no different.
- DarwinistLv 51 month ago
Interesting; sort of what we would have expected.
Why do "skeptics" try to claim they have missed the mark? Well most seem to have a poor understanding when it comes to physics and math (even by my standards) so tend to be skeptical about everything that they think supports AGW. If enough mud is thrown, perhaps some of it might stick!I
Yahoo Joker (Horse) provides a good example, with his comparison of trying to predict future warming for a projected emissions scenario, with something that can be easily determined to a very high degree of accuracy by measuring an appropriate sample. A poor analogy!
To think it through a little; if there was no warming, then the average American would have zero height and, if Solar Wind is to be believed, a height somewhere below ground level!
- skeptikLv 71 month ago
Because they've been told for decades that every prediction has been wrong.
Of course they reject any objective analysis that refutes that.
- catwhisperer07Lv 61 month ago
With Gavin Schmidt one of the paper's authors, this nothing but a biased "junk science" piece of alarmist propaganda.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- CowboyLv 61 month ago
Science illiterates, like republicans, simply cannot understand these models - they learned the first time around that global warming was a scam, and that's where they're stuck - forever - you can't teach an old republican new tricks or new facts - they lack the capacity.
- $@!ar W!ndLv 61 month ago
Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) has supposedly been upgraded from version 5 to 6, the latest of which is version 6.3. This project determines what variables of Solar Forcing are used in IPCC models.
Version CMIP 5 limited solar forcing to TSI, which is a small variable. CMIP 6 was supposed to add four other solar forcing and also include Galactic Cosmic Ray flux, clouds, ocean current temperatures etc. Excluded are solar and planetary orbital variances and some other galactic forcing.
However, when modelers started using the latest CMIP versions, anthropogenic forcing became non-existent. Of course the IPCC censors went to work and back the modelers go to an "enhanced CMIP 5" version.
Therefore we still have garbage in and garbage out climate models from the IPCC and their supporting pimped out climate scientists.
- HorseLv 41 month ago
Only 3 of the 17 model predictions were within under 1 standard deviation. Of the other 14:
10 predicted too much warming
4 predicted too little warming
A normal bell curve will have about 2/3 of data (68% to be exact) within 1 standard deviation. This study had 17% within 1 standard deviation.
Or, put another way:
1 standard deviation of avg. American male height of 5'10" is 5'7" to 6'1"
2 standard deviations of avg. American male height of 5'10" is 5'1" to 6"7"
This study represents mostly 2 standard deviations (14 of 17), which means climate models have much variation.
So, the standards were lowered to simply say, *We said we told ya so, and we were right.*
- 1 month ago
Dirac Poetry: He molests reindeer. Set to the classic Twas the Night Before Christmas
Twas the night before Christmas
And through Dirac's house
All the creatures were stirring
Because of that louse
The animals were wary
They all had good cause
Their owner, perv Dirac
Broke all kinds of laws
Dirac pictured them nestled
All snug in their hay
He crept to the barn
In his sinister way
When out in his field
Their rose such a clatter
The perv pointed his head
To see what's the matter
Away to the barn door
Dirac ran like a flash
Through his yard full of litter
And all kinds of trash
The moon was shining down
Spotlighting that perv
The night was about
To throw him a curve
How blurry were Dirac's eyes
Because of his beer?
He could not even spot
All the reindeer
Then confronting Dirac
The deer--they were quick!
A lesson was coming
To this feeble dumb prick!
Each deer took his turn
Waiting in line
To teach a big lesson
To the deviant swine
The deer, they stepped up
On Dirac, they'd trounce
Each one was named
For his color sock accounts
On Rusty, on Silver!
On Red and on Grey!
On Crimson and Brownie!
Make deviance pay!
The deer swung their hooves
And beat Dirac's face
On the snow dropped a perv
It was just like some mace
Their hooves beat Dirac's face
In the snow, he was rolled
It was bound to occur
He always gets trolled
Now this story is shorter
Than the original version
That's because it's easy
To spot Dirac's perversion
The deer--they stopped Dirac
He was beaten and trolled
What would you expect?
He's Pure Comedy Gold!
Dirac's ploy failed
He's transparent as glass
Because you just can't win
With your thumb up your asss
And I heard the deer say
As they went out of sight
It's easy to trigger Dirac
He just ain't too bright
- Anonymous1 month ago
Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea or concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views or prejudices one would like to be true.
Once we have formed a view, we embrace information that confirms that view while ignoring, or rejecting, information that casts doubt on it.
- ioerrLv 71 month ago
legitimate science has been accurate
popular reporting on what scientists have been up to, in this field, or any other field, has been, is, and is generally always, pretty inaccurate
reporters are not scientists. the popularizers of various science issues, are not necessarily scientists. such people can, and often do, put out inaccurate accounts of what scientists have actually done
others sometimes then come along and point at this kind of inaccurate reporting and criticize "science" on the basis of that, confusing actual science with the such non scientific reporting