David
Lv 6
David asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 month ago

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."

Excerpt:

"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"

Attachment image

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago
    Favorite 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.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 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!

  • 1 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.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    With Gavin Schmidt one of the paper's authors, this nothing but a biased "junk science" piece of alarmist propaganda.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Cowboy
    Lv 6
    1 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.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 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.

    • Dirac
      Lv 4
      1 month agoReport

      The answer makes no sense.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Horse
    Lv 4
    1 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.*

    • Horse
      Lv 4
      1 month agoReport

      Or, to put it yet another way. Is it meaningful to say that the average height of American man is 5 feet one inch to 6 feet 7 inches?  That's basically what this study is saying.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 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

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 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.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • ioerr
    Lv 7
    1 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

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.