Readable paper refuting IPCC Models

[s2art]

http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

Nothing that Turbobloke hasnt posted at one time or another, but a good easily readable summary.

[Jasandjules]

Well, I am sure we will have the AGW lot come along shortly.

But they never seem to see the hypocrisy in claiming the oil barons think there is no AGW whilst the IPCC is paid for by the very Govts who gain the revenue from "carbon" taxation.

[DocJock]

Good find s2art, thanks for the link.

[Dogwatch]

s2art said:

http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

Nothing that Turbobloke hasnt posted at one time or another, but a good easily readable summary.

Couldn't get the .pdf to work - reported a damaged document (sabotage? )

Powerpoint pesentation of the subject:

http://sciencespeak.com/MissingHotspot.ppt

was fine though, and probably enough for non-scientists like me...

[Smart roadster]

I've been meaning to ask if anybody has compared what the models predicted and what has actually happened to see if the models work. Also have the models been adjusted to take account of actual obsevered data and what difference do the changes make to the predicted outcomes?

I guess I now have an answer to the first question. Anybody got an answer on the second question?

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Smart roadster said:

I've been meaning to ask if anybody has compared what the models predicted and what has actually happened to see if the models work. Also have the models been adjusted to take account of actual obsevered data and what difference do the changes make to the predicted outcomes?

I guess I now have an answer to the first question. Anybody got an answer on the second question?

Big thread on this already, But in short;

Yes they compared the models and they were wrong....which is why they played around with the data to come up with a new prediction (which is currently turning out to be wrong as well).

[Jasandjules]

The simplistic view (it's the only one I have) is that there is a bottom line - the planet has NOT been warming for several years, despite there being the same if not more CO2 in the atmosphere, therefore Co2 does NOT drive temperatures.

[Smart roadster]

Ta

I thought it might have been done already, the big climate change threads get so bogged down in pro/anti handbagging that I lose the will to live.

[nigelfr]

The OP refers to an article that was debunked pretty comprehensively when it first came out last July. If you are interested in a balanced view then just Google "Debunk missing hot spot David Evans".

[s2art]

nigelfr said:

The OP refers to an article that was debunked pretty comprehensively when it first came out last July. If you are interested in a balanced view then just Google "Debunk missing hot spot David Evans".

It has been updated since then. The discrepancy between model predictions and observations has not been answered.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

nigelfr said:

The OP refers to an article that was debunked pretty comprehensively when it first came out last July. If you are interested in a balanced view then just Google "Debunk missing hot spot David Evans".

Debunked by who though?

Here's something more recent

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/12/climate-bull-o...


Also, from the same sie;

http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/30/agw-is-a-relig...

Interesting view, and one that I must agree with when presented with the evidence I've seen.

P.S.: Worth reading the messages at the bottom. Some good arguements for both sides there.

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Monday 20th April 15:27

[nigelfr]

s2art said:

nigelfr said:

The OP refers to an article that was debunked pretty comprehensively when it first came out last July. If you are interested in a balanced view then just Google "Debunk missing hot spot David Evans".

It has been updated since then. The discrepancy between model predictions and observations has not been answered.

If you're really interested, you could search Google yourself and easily find sites pointing out how accurate the models are.

[s2art]

nigelfr said:

s2art said:

nigelfr said:

The OP refers to an article that was debunked pretty comprehensively when it first came out last July. If you are interested in a balanced view then just Google "Debunk missing hot spot David Evans".

It has been updated since then. The discrepancy between model predictions and observations has not been answered.

If you're really interested, you could search Google yourself and easily find sites pointing out how accurate the models are.

Yawn. Got the teeshirt on that one. Conclusion; piss poor at mapping to real world observations other than by co-incidence. Particularly grim when looking at ocean atmosphere interaction, truly awful when modelling cloud effects, etc etc.

[nigelfr]

s2art said:

nigelfr said:

s2art said:

nigelfr said:

The OP refers to an article that was debunked pretty comprehensively when it first came out last July. If you are interested in a balanced view then just Google "Debunk missing hot spot David Evans".

It has been updated since then. The discrepancy between model predictions and observations has not been answered.

If you're really interested, you could search Google yourself and easily find sites pointing out how accurate the models are.

Yawn. Got the teeshirt on that one. Conclusion; piss poor at mapping to real world observations other than by co-incidence. Particularly grim when looking at ocean atmosphere interaction, truly awful when modelling cloud effects, etc etc.

Well, if you could point me towards a scientific paper or two to back that up I would be interested.

[s2art]

nigelfr said:

s2art said:

nigelfr said:

s2art said:

nigelfr said:

The OP refers to an article that was debunked pretty comprehensively when it first came out last July. If you are interested in a balanced view then just Google "Debunk missing hot spot David Evans".

It has been updated since then. The discrepancy between model predictions and observations has not been answered.

If you're really interested, you could search Google yourself and easily find sites pointing out how accurate the models are.

Yawn. Got the teeshirt on that one. Conclusion; piss poor at mapping to real world observations other than by co-incidence. Particularly grim when looking at ocean atmosphere interaction, truly awful when modelling cloud effects, etc etc.

Well, if you could point me towards a scientific paper or two to back that up I would be interested.

Look at the IPCC themselves. They admit that they dont understand clouds. They also admit that they dont have good integrated ocean atmosphere models.

[nigelfr]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

nigelfr said:

The OP refers to an article that was debunked pretty comprehensively when it first came out last July. If you are interested in a balanced view then just Google "Debunk missing hot spot David Evans".

Debunked by who though?

Well, people who actually know that stratospheric cooling is one of the signs of AGW, rather than the tropospheric hot spot which David Evans claims is the foot print.

A quick and dirty explanation: if greenhouse gases are trapping the heat in the lower bit of the atmosphere, the troposphere, then less heat is escaping to the atmosphere above it, the stratosphere, so the stratosphere cools.

[nigelfr]

s2art said:

nigelfr said:

s2art said:

nigelfr said:

s2art said:

nigelfr said:

The OP refers to an article that was debunked pretty comprehensively when it first came out last July. If you are interested in a balanced view then just Google "Debunk missing hot spot David Evans".

It has been updated since then. The discrepancy between model predictions and observations has not been answered.

If you're really interested, you could search Google yourself and easily find sites pointing out how accurate the models are.

Yawn. Got the teeshirt on that one. Conclusion; piss poor at mapping to real world observations other than by co-incidence. Particularly grim when looking at ocean atmosphere interaction, truly awful when modelling cloud effects, etc etc.

Well, if you could point me towards a scientific paper or two to back that up I would be interested.

Look at the IPCC themselves. They admit that they dont understand clouds. They also admit that they dont have good integrated ocean atmosphere models.

The IPCC is fully aware of the limitations of the models, but the fact is that they do correlate with reality. Yes, there are some details that are unknowns, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the broad trends are right. Without access to a spare planet, climate models will never emulate reality, so it's easy to find something in the models that differs from reality.

The clouds issue is complicated, but even though the effect is not known to 3 decimal places, it is possible to give a range which is taken into account.

As for the integrated ocean atmosphere models, what do you think is the main issue that isn't explained well enough?

[Jasandjules]

nigelfr said:

climate models will never emulate reality, so it's easy to find something in the models that differs from reality.

And you don't see an issue with that? You think it is acceptable to run a Govt taxation system on a MODEL, then when the Model does not conform with reality as predicted (given that the Model is hypothesising what will happen in reality in the future) this is ok?

Do you not understand the complete lack of logic in that position?

[s2art]

nigelfr said:

s2art said:

nigelfr said:

s2art said:

nigelfr said:

s2art said:

nigelfr said:

The OP refers to an article that was debunked pretty comprehensively when it first came out last July. If you are interested in a balanced view then just Google "Debunk missing hot spot David Evans".

It has been updated since then. The discrepancy between model predictions and observations has not been answered.

If you're really interested, you could search Google yourself and easily find sites pointing out how accurate the models are.

Yawn. Got the teeshirt on that one. Conclusion; piss poor at mapping to real world observations other than by co-incidence. Particularly grim when looking at ocean atmosphere interaction, truly awful when modelling cloud effects, etc etc.

Well, if you could point me towards a scientific paper or two to back that up I would be interested.

Look at the IPCC themselves. They admit that they dont understand clouds. They also admit that they dont have good integrated ocean atmosphere models.

The IPCC is fully aware of the limitations of the models, but the fact is that they do correlate with reality. Yes, there are some details that are unknowns, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the broad trends are right. Without access to a spare planet, climate models will never emulate reality, so it's easy to find something in the models that differs from reality.

The clouds issue is complicated, but even though the effect is not known to 3 decimal places, it is possible to give a range which is taken into account.

As for the integrated ocean atmosphere models, what do you think is the main issue that isn't explained well enough?

Its not a question of explanation. Its that the models just dont 'get' the oceans. Hence recent work from non-modellers on ocean cycles and the consequences.
Re clouds, no it is not. The degree of feedback is not understood.

[nigelfr]

Jasandjules said:

nigelfr said:

climate models will never emulate reality, so it's easy to find something in the models that differs from reality.

And you don't see an issue with that? You think it is acceptable to run a Govt taxation system on a MODEL, then when the Model does not conform with reality as predicted (given that the Model is hypothesising what will happen in reality in the future) this is ok?

Do you not understand the complete lack of logic in that position?

Well the whole of the Budget is run on a model to start with, how else do you imagine they do the calculation? No one expects that to be 100% exact, why would you expect climate models to be 100% exact? They are both exact enough to make policy decisions.

What is your particular point about the climate models? Which bit of reality are you referring to?

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but is your point that if AGW doesn't exist your tax bill will be reduced?