Posted on 07/31/2015 2:06:09 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Global climate models aren’t given nearly enough credit for their accurate global temperature change projections. As the 2014 IPCC report showed, observed global surface temperature changes have been within the range of climate model simulations.
Now a new study shows that the models were even more accurate than previously thought. In previous evaluations like the one done by the IPCC, climate model simulations of global surface air temperature were compared to global surface temperature observational records like HadCRUT4. However, over the oceans, HadCRUT4 uses sea surface temperatures rather than air temperatures.
There’s a common myth that models are unreliable, often based on apples-to-oranges comparisons, like looking at satellite estimates of temperatures higher in the atmosphere versus modeled surface air temperatures.
This new study has shown that when we do an apples-to-apples comparison, climate models have done a good job projecting the observed temperatures where humans live. And those models predict that unless we take serious and immediate action to reduce human carbon pollution, global warming will continue to accelerate into dangerous territory.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Yeah. That is why they changed abruptly from “global warming” to “climate change”.
Well, they weren’t accurate until the NOAA “corrected” the data.
It’s amazing how accurate the predictions can be when both they and the data are constantly adjusted to achieve a determined outcome!
/s
The Hansen, Mann & Jones climate model is an object of perfection .... you simply enter in the desired results and the model will generate terra-gigabytes of data to support the desired result. It is very flexible and can change past data to reflect accurately the desired current results.
Bull$h!t. Each model is a different computer program. There is no statement which is valid for all models.
And don’t tell me what I think.
They are so super accurate that they can be changed and massaged to show whatever the AGW profiteers want it to show. It’s too hot, global warming, too cold, global warming, too wet, global warming, too dry, global warming.
Oops, my apologies, I meant catastrophic man made climate change.
As several posters have already pointed out, HADCrut 4 database relies on some 4000 reporting stations spread unevenly around the globe, plus some surface temperature measurement of the oceans do give some estimate of global surface temperatures. As has been pointed out by Anthony Watts and others, these surface reporting sites are problematic, one that I personally see at the University of Arizona are now sitting right in the smack middle of a blacktop parking lot and surrounded by air conditioning exhaust. So, the data have been adjusted, but the data has all been in only one direction, with past temperatures reduced and current temperatures raised, exactly the opposite of the problems observed.
There is a technical term for this resultant set of data. BULL$HIT. Believe nothing that these monkeys say, they will say anything to keep the Fountain of Youth of Federal Grants flowing into their pockets.
How much long must we tolerate this nonsense? Before we know it, someone is going to claim that Planned Parenthood is the world’s greatest Women Health Organization.
This is starting to get funny. There’s more ice because its getting hotter. The computer models, which haven’t gotten anything right, are more accurate than they believe. And to top things off, Planned Parenthood has to resort to evolving conspiracy theories to find cover. It’s like being in the last chapters of a Frank Peretti novel.
yeahm much more accurate- they predicted more storms- Bzzzzzzt- Woops- didn’t happen- They pre4dicted worse storms- Bzzzzzt- didn’t happen They predicted the oceans would be much higher than they are Bzzzzzt- didn’t happen- They predicted glaciers would be goen by now- Bzzzzt didn’t happen
Golly0 they were right, them odels were much more accurate
BTW- what’s it going to be like 2 weeks from now? in middle American? Hot? Cold? Rainny? Sunny?
For some reason while scrolling down the replies, my mouse wheel stopped working for at least 5 minutes, and right on your post!
Sahara desert used to get monsoons...
As Hawkins notes, the remaining discrepancy between modeled and observed temperatures may come down to climate variability; namely the fact that there has been a preponderance of La Niña events over the past decade, which have a short-term cooling influence on global surface temperatures. When there are more La Niñas, we expect temperatures to fall below the average model projection, and when there are more El Niños, we expect temperatures to be above the projection, as may be the case when 2015 breaks the temperature record.
We can’t predict changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, or natural ocean cycles ahead of time
Statistics and modeling do not apply to complex systems, only controlled sytems. Complex systems include human physiology, human behavior, climate and weather, etc................
It’s amazing how accurate a model can look when the observation data is post-hoc altered to fit the model’s predictions.
What’s a fraud-free evaluation of the model look like? (Will we ever know?)
Or fairy dust.
If the climate models were actually accurate, they could be set to the conditions of 1915 and then produce a 100-year forecast that matched the historical record of the last century.
If the warmists could do that, they certainly would have and would be shouting the results from the rooftops.
The fact that they’re not on the rooftops proves they can’t do that, because the models are crap.
the computer model is fine ... the “faked data” is FUBAR ....
Global warmist: Antarctic ice is melting!
Global warming denier: No it isn’t. Look at the data.
Global warminst: Uhhh... [looks over at James Hansen]
Hansen: Warming makes more ice! Look at my theory!
Global warmist: Yeah, see?!? Antarctic ice is increasing!
And Hansen now claims that his model explains why all the other models got Antartica sea ice predictions wrong. So the models are right and wrong, accurate and inaccurate. Welcome to Alice in Wonderland.
You have completely managed to hijack this thread for me...
If they are accurate, why do we have models??? and not model.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.