I really don't see a "problem".
Posted on 05/05/2022 6:51:27 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Computer models that project future climates are widely used for adaptation, mitigation and resilience planning. More than 50 such models were assessed and compared in the latest round of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, phase 6 (CMIP6), run by the World Climate Research Programme1. It is crucial that researchers know the best way to use those outputs to provide consistent information for climate science and policy.
We are climate modellers and analysts who develop, distribute and use these projections. We know scientists must treat them with great care. Users beware: a subset of the newest generation of models are ‘too hot’ and project climate warming in response to carbon dioxide emissions that might be larger than that supported by other evidence. Some suggest that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels will result in warming above 5 °C, for example. This was not the case in previous generations of simpler models.
The climate community has debated what to do about the hot models since results began to appear in 2019. Before then, the IPCC and many other assessments simply used the mean and spread of models to estimate impacts and their uncertainties. Such ‘model democracy’ assumed that each model is independent and equally valid. Other methods of combining model projections did not yield results that were more consistent or credible.
The broad and diverse community studying climate change and its impacts urgently needs guidance on best practices for combining the outputs of multiple climate models. One key message: the multi-model mean and spread of the new ensemble (CMIP6) should not simply be used like the old one (CMIP5).
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
Computer models aren’t science.
Hot models are my weakness!
Where are the hot models?
I really don't see a "problem".
They're like kryptonite!!!
“a subset of the newest generation of models are ‘too hot’ “
Interesting, are they saying that the models are intentionally programmed to provide a desired response, i.e. MANIPLUATED????
It has been well known for some time that the majority of these models “run hot.” It is a GIGO problem, since they all rely on estimates of values for a number of parameters, the true values of which are unknown, but all of which are biased to produce the “warming” results desired.
All the models yield inaccurate results, most of them inaccurate in the same direction. So the solution is to average a bunch of outcomes which are all wrong, and expect to come up with the right answer. Hmmm.
Computer models created by Mental Environmentalists
Nope, and if the “models” were, there would only be one.
The fact that all don’t have the exact same output means it isn’t accurate.
Combine all the models together and hit Delete. Then Delete again to be sure. Then get Crowed Strike to ‘wipe’ the drive.
let me translate
the model that will get me govt money
Ping.
1. Temperature increases then CO2 increases, not the other way around.
2. Since the beginning of the Invalid Global Warming theory, predictions of future warming have ALWAYS been grossly incorrect. This invalidates the theory meaning it is no longer a theory, it is relegated to that of a fantasy. Additionally, GW theory has consistently predicted an ice free arctic ocean. All of these predictions have failed spectacularly.
3. Recent increases in global temperature are well within historic variation and no evidence has been produce to show otherwise.
4. Plants and animals do better in a warmer climate. That is just science.
In summary, all Global Warming Predictions of future climate and weather have failed and the theory is therefore completely discredited. A warmer climate is better for plants and animals. What warming has happened, is within historic variation. The entire GW industry is a fraud, discredited, and scientific nonsense.
Except she can look right at you and not see you.
Dear climate model developers:
Let me tell you when I’ll start believing your models. I’ll believe you after demonstrating a solid understanding of the climate system. For example:
- Your model can predict when, within one week, and where, within 100 miles, hurricanes will make landfall in a single season.
- Your model can predict when, within one week, and where, within 100 miles, an area of the U.S. will be flooded.
- etc.
Remember the solar eclipse of 2016? Those people predicted that there would be an eclipse starting on the west coast and moving southeast. They got it right. Down to the minute they got it right. That’s because they have a real understanding of the system, not some crazy nut foaming at the mouth making ridiculous predictions that never come close to coming true.
My ‘Turing Test’ for climate models is to take ANY set of unmolested, unfiltered actual metrology data for a recent decade and take that data, input into that ‘model’ and THEN compare it to actual recorded outcome (again, unmolested and unfiltered) and see what the accuracy is.
They can’t, they won’t. They cherry pick, select and tailor their models, often relying on hundreds years of questionable data, implying vague historic references about weather over thousands of years have some kind of scientific validity and then extrapolate that out to disaster. Yet they won’t even submit to controlled, verified and untainted tests of their models. And we are left with rancid leftists telling us about 9 years left. Sheesh
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.