If climate change models are based on?

Question

peer reviewed IPCC confirmed science, and 95% of climate models have been proven wrong, does that mean peer reviewed climate science has been proven to be in error.

Answer 1

The premise of your question is ridiculous, you have no criteria at all to judge whether these models are right or wrong--and Spencer doesn't say that either. You are calling a model "wrong" if it's warmer than recent observations Does that make it right if it's "cooler" than recent observations? Ok, I have a model to include--it predicts that the temperature will always be absolute zero. I'm fairly certain that it will always be cooler than observations, and hence correct by your criteria. It's a completely useless model, but at least it's "right." Or does it have to exactly match observations? If that's the case, then every model will always be wrong.



You really need to think more before you ask questions.



EDIT: Cguy, I like your answers, but I don't understand the point you're making in your comment to me.



EDIT for Kano: Yes! I completely agree with you. Perhaps then you should retract your statement about models being "wrong" and try to come up with an objective criterion to measure how good they are.

Answer 2

Nothing has been "proved" wrong - and to state that position reflects either a complete lack of understanding about what models are and what function they serve or it is an intentional lie.



Climate models run mathematical experiments on complex systems in order to learn how the systems are defined and how they work. Each individual run of a model is an experiment - and the models will run thousands or maybe hundreds-of-thousands individual experiments. To call each run wrong or a failure is nonsensical because by that measure it can only be right one time - and if we already knew enough to build a perfect model we would already have a mathematical solution - and, therefore, there would no climate models because none would be needed.



By Denier standards, the Wright brothers should have considered their first failed attempt to get a machine to fly as scientific proof that the whole concept was "proved wrong" and they should have quit trying. I'm sure the Wright brothers had their own Deniers who kept calling them failures with each unsuccessful experimental result. And, up until their first successful flight - their failure rate was 100 percent.



You keep claiming that a combination of PDO, AMO, and the sun explains temperature. That would be a trivially simple model compared to GCMs. The fact is that system cannot be successfully modelled either - and not just because there is no empirical evidence supporting that claim (which is another fact - since the PDO and AMO are functions of SST and they do not drive global temperature) - because the uncertainty in those variables (especially in the PDO and AMO) is so great that the model results would be nothing but random noise.



It is legitimate to ask questions about climate models in order to better understand them, but it is dishonest to post fake questions based on ignorance, false information, and lies - and then give Best Answer to some lying, scientifically illiterate idiot just because they repeat the lies and tell you what you want to believe.



====



edit --



>>however they are the IPCC base, for their SPM summary for policymakers on them<<



What else should they use? The models are the only means we have to try to look into the future. The Summary is honest about what the models indicate and, they (1) are in general agreement on longer time scales and (2) they are consistent with the laws of physics and the empirical data.



>>and I have seen so many different studies of all kinds using climate model predictions as a bases for their research. If they are used for experimental research only it should state so.<<



Those are not necessarily mutually exclusive, however I am curious what you mean by, "I have seen so many different studies of all kinds using climate model predictions as a bases for their research."



Do you have any examples of that?



====



edit --



>>however they are the IPCC base, for their SPM summary for policymakers on them<<



What else should they use? The models are the only means we have to try to look into the future. The Summary is honest about what the models indicate and, they (1) are in general agreement on longer time scales and (2) they are consistent with the laws of physics and the empirical data.



>>and I have seen so many different studies of all kinds using climate model predictions as a bases for their research. If they are used for experimental research only it should state so.<<



Those are not necessarily mutually exclusive, however I am curious what you mean by, "I have seen so many different studies of all kinds using climate model predictions as a bases for their research."



Do you have any examples of that?



======



Sage --



>>Ha! Ha! Science is literal truth.<<



No, it is not. Science is knowledge.



How could someone be here as long and often as you - be a Top Contributor - and still not even know what science is?



The answer, of course, is that Deniers are mostly scientifically illiterate liars.



=====



Cguy ---



I'm aware that there are degrees of verity in my description. I've seen the studies on the relationship between scientific literacy and political opinion. I justify my usage here because: (1) It applies here. The global warming section of Y!A is dominated by two distinct populations with equally distinct distributions of scientific literacy and honesty. It is not a close call as there is remarkably little overlap in the intellectual integrity of the two groups; and (2) those who support the AGW denial political agenda have a more well-defined ideology than - for lack of a better term - environmentalists (or greenies, tree-huggers, whatever), and they are topically more current and politically relevant.



I'm aware of the Cultural Cognition Project and of Jonathan Haidt's ideas on social psychology. It is an interesting area as our psychology is certainly as much a product of evolution as our physiology, but it is an area with a boatload of ambiguity. I think social scientists are in a somewhat analogous position to that of naturalists/biologists before there was a theory of biological evolution. They have a lot of facts and they know a lot of stuff, but they need "something" to really kick-start the next major scientific revolution. I think that "something" may likely be found in brain biochemistry, but I lack the expertise to actually know what I am talking about here.

Answer 3

Science can only know what it knows at any given time. Models adapt and change depending on experimental evidence. If the models are 'wrong' (and looking at the graph, most of the data points seem to lie within the margins of error of the models) then they need to be fixed. How they are fixed is what science is all about.



The problem, as I see it, is that deniers and skeptics are trying to redefine science. You want absolute certainty and, failing that, you then use it as 'proof' that the scientists are incompetent, lying to us, or engaged in group-think. The models provide us with a potential snapshot of the future. They represent the best we can do at the moment. If you think we shouldn't act until the scientists have perfect models, that seems to me a ludicrous position to hold.

Answer 4

So Kano, I have ABSOLUTELY no idea how to answer this.



You want to supply some sources to back your claim that "peer reviewed IPCC confirmed science, and 95% of climate models have been proven wrong?" Otherwise your entire question is based on a false premise, and thus CAN'T be answered.



It would be like saying "Since the moon is made of green cheese, does that mean that the moon landings were faked?"



Thanks for the clarification, Kano. Let's analyze your "question" in light of this clarification...



First, NOTHING has been proven wrong. The chart/article you post (from John Christy, posted by Roy Spencer) has SO MANY problems with it, that it is difficult to know where to begin.



First, the baseline average temperature used for comparison is a 4 year average, rather than the standard 30 year average. Why is this? Well, the years picked were some of the hottest in the UAH record, that means that the temperature anomalies constructed from this average will be much colder than they would be otherwise. Still, Kano, I can see why this bit of creative science would disturb you a lot less than real climate science would. Oh, this same baseline would push the climate model predictions much higher than they would normally be - same reason. Hey, look over there while I distract you with BS!



Second, they use 5 year means rather than annual average. Just another way to accentuate the false claims they make.



Third, all of the model results start in 1983 from a single point. This is quite strange, as none of these models predict the same exact temperature for 1983! Because of the baseline choice, this is just another way of pushing the climate results way up in an artificial way to make a false point.



So, since your premise has been proven wrong, then your question has no answer...



As a final note, let's look at some REAL science. Here is a true comparison of model results vs observations...



http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-final-models-vs-observations.png



As you can see, not only do the observations fall right in the middle of the model results, but the model results are in much better agreement with each other (as one would expect in refereed science - unlike unrefereed denials.)







Kano, Kano, Kano - There you go again. Why should I care about a leaked pre-release IPCC figure that was proven to be in error! Jeez, you don't need a Ph.D. like I have to figure these things out. Heck, 5 minutes spent on Google should do that for you.



First off, even with this erroneous figure the observations fall largely in the envelope of model predictions. But, whatever, the problem was that there was an error in the original figure (notice - leaked draft, not for public consumption). Rather than compare apples to apples (observed vs modeled anomalies based on a 30 year, 1961-1990, baseline), they compared apples to oranges (observed vs modeled anomalies based on one year, 1990). This is well known, and mistakes happen. This is why it was a draft, not a released figure.



Hmmm, who knew that the scientific review process works???? Certainly not Christy and Spencer, who put up a figure without ANYONE reviewing it first.





Come on Mike L, either you are joking or you are ignorant. Nuclear Winter was not Carl Sagan's best moment - his "model" left out the oceans! Besides, he is an astronomer not a climate scientist.



And pegminer, that's not a great argument. The model replications ARE important. Unfortunately for the skeptics, models agree pretty darn well with observations - the so-called model-observation disagreement being one of the top 10 myths about AGCC.







Kano: There are again SO MANY problems with that youtube video - scientific problems, the production values are great. I can go into detail on all the problems if you want, otherwise I won't.



pegminer: I understood the point you were trying to make (with you 0 K argument), but the basic point of Kano's "question" is correct, if the model results don't follow observations they would be useless. Fortunately, they DO accurately reproduce observations!



C: Since we can't (as of yet) see into the future, or go into the past to directly observe long term climate, we must use models. Peer reviewed papers in journals are based on these model experiments. So they DO have a lot to do with each other.



Gary F: I followed you up to the point where you made the claim that "Deniers are mostly scientifically illiterate liars." Unfortunately, this does not appear to be true.



I refer you to the brilliant work of Dan Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Psychology (there's an interesting concept to wrap your brain about). In a fascinating piece of research, he and his co-authors looked at basic scientific literacy (as measured by the National Science Foundation's "Science and Engineering Indicator's" and via 14 mathematical word problems), and compared this with a measure of perceived "climate change risk." Despite all beliefs to the contrary, those with the highest measure of "scientific literacy" were NOT those most concerned with the risks of climate change. They WERE the most subject to what the authors term "cultural polarization."



What this means is that climate skeptics (to use the polite term), are typically just as literate as climate adherents, if not more so. However, these same scientifically literate people were more subject to forming opinions in line with those with whom they share close ties.



For example, if I live in Salt Lake City and go around touting my belief in man-made climate change if am just as likely to be publicly ostracized as if I go around denying man made climate change to my neighbors in Berkeley California!



Mike: I don't understand your complaint about choosing how to model various parameters. When you don't fully understand a process, you have to make certain choices. There are various ways of doing this. In most cases, the model parameters are chosen so that total model output most closely resembles observations. In others, they are parameterized so as to most closely follow observations.



I agree that clouds remain a significant uncertainty - something that does need further study. However, it is NOT the great controversy that you suggest. While skeptics like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen believe that warming will lead to increasing low-level cloud cover that will reflect more sunlight and thus be a negative feedback, recent studies are showing that, while there MAY be some negative localized feedback due to increasing cloud cover, it is not enough to offset the overall global positive (warming) cloud feedback. In addition, it is important to remember that clouds are not the only feedback mechanism, and the preponderance of evidence is that the net feedback is positive and will thus amplify global warming.



Sagebrush: I can't answer your claims about quotes attributed to Chris Folland or David Frame. I can't find any definitive source that they ever actually MADE these statements. I am not denying that they did, I just can't find anything other than 3rd hand claims largely on skeptic web sites. Therefor, I can't determine if they were ever made, or if they were and were taken out of context. If the 2 people you listed DID make these claims, then they are completely out of whack with the vast majority of climate researchers. The data is king, if the models produce results that are out of agreement with the data, then the models are wrong - not the data. Model predictions, however, are what policy is based on, because for some reason, we can't make measurements in the future yet!



Science is NOT literal truth, though. Science is a process, and the best science typically happens when someone says "huh? those observations don't agree with my theory - let me figure out why that is."

Answer 5

Climate models have been proven wrong? In what sense have they been proven wrong? Do you say this because they have not shown any absolutes? Climate models were not designed and can never be designed to show absolutes. Why? Short term, natural variations within the climate system itself, otherwise known as the noise within the climate, cannot be fully predicted as to what will be their intensity and duration and if they occur in conjunction with any of the other natural variations in the climate. AMO, PDO, AO, ENSO, solar activity and other short term variables that influence the climate, as examples, simply cannot be predicted as to when they will occur, how intense they will be of how enduring they will be. Yet you seek absolutes in the climate models. Who are you trying to foll with this? Yourself?



So, how well have the climate models actually performed even without be able to fully filter out the "noise"? - http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm



You accuse others that respond here for providing cheery picked data and your question itself is cherry picked. Either that or you have no understanding at all as to how any model works. Models do not and cannot show absolutes. Climate models will show probabilities within a range on known conditions. Absolutes do not exist in science or in models. Probabilities and degree of confidence in the probabilities are what we have to work with.



Here is an example for you to consider. The last rover placed on Mars was modeled as to its arrival time and its predicted landing spot. The landing spot was off by a few feet. Was the model used to do this therefore wrong? It did not give us an absolute, but it was well within the range of the projections.

Answer 6

They are based on peer-reviewed science, but the modelers can pick and choose which parts of the science they wish to use. For example, there is a great deal of disagreement about cloud modeling, but the modelers tend to lean towards positive cloud feedback rather than negative. It is very easy to change some of the inputs or preset parameters in models and create a result that shows a much lower climate sensitivity. If you search RealClimate, you can find a post where they refer to a model that has been tuned to yield a 3C response. It was an evaluation of tar sands and shale oil, but I found the admission that the results can be chosen by the modeler telling.

Answer 7

Just look at Peggy, the school marm: Correcting a person's language. Even she ought to know that if it ain't right it is 'wrong'. That is why she puts a check mark instead of smiley face on an answer.



He who controls the language, controls the masses. - paraphrase from Saul Alinsky.



In direct answer to the question: (For you inept Y!A censors.) Those peer reviewed papers are the foundation for the computer models. Just like a building that's foundation is sand, it will crumble. The problem is, there are so many uninformed individuals who couldn't recognize a crumbling building if it fell on their head.



Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”



Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”



Ha! Ha! Science is literal truth. It is not 'Convenient Fictions'. Too bad even people with degrees don't know the difference.

Answer 8

Models are models and peer reviewed papers published in a professional journals have nothing to do with them, unless the paper happens to be about models Use your head for once

Answer 9

No



You're basic premises are incorrect, considering your information sources (anti-science denialist blogs) that's hardly surprising

Answer 10

Its based on Carl Sagans nuclear winter equations