The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Computer models in climate science > Comments

Computer models in climate science : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 3/11/2014

A new journal is out, Inference. International Review of Science, and its first issue carries an essay critiquing climate models.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Runner, the planet has to continue, you must agree?

Tally
Posted by Tally, Monday, 3 November 2014 6:44:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The IPCC's latest assessment summary admits that 111 of the 114 climate models have been proven inadequate, with the frorecast warming not matched by observation. "For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by natural internal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend". http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf In my opinion, the problem is not that modelling is undertaken but that far too much emphasis is placed upon it.
Posted by byork, Wednesday, 5 November 2014 6:33:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Runner, the planet has to continue, you must agree?'
Tally

you were not here when it was created and you will have no say when it ends.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 5 November 2014 6:49:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK byork, the climate models failed to predict the surface T hiatus, is that it? Well cherry-picked old chap!

I look again at the Lang approach, which is to assume catastrophe is just a point on a continuum and that man will adapt to any level of grief it may cause itself, if you call being reduced again to a small population of successful hunter-gatherer status 'adaptation'.

He predicates his adaptive approach upon ECS and TCR figures cherry-picked to give it the barest semblance of credence. The UN CLIMATE CHANGE 2014
SYNTHESIS REPORT http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf agrees with nothing he is saying on these matters, but that must be because the vast majority of the scientific establishment is just plain wrong, simple!

If you want to enter into an argument with Lang, in accordance with his flowsheet as to how a good one should run, you must first accept his facts and rules, much like playing a fantasy game.

What would it take for me to change my mind on how we should approach climate change? The cessation of warming, ALL warming, at the rate it is progressing, a rate unprecedented since the last ice-age. Meanwhile all Lang's prognostications are just shifting deck-chairs on the Titanic.
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 5 November 2014 7:50:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner...From the big bang till now...we have it pretty well covered. True, I was not there and I only have science to give an answer to you.

Tally
Posted by Tally, Wednesday, 5 November 2014 11:03:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, the world is a big place. The USA are our mates in this, and your on the right side so to speak:)

Leo lane and his or her understandings, Iam guessing anything is possible with understanding of what's reality from which "it" gets its information from.

CO,2 with, can only be calculated from no-bodies with the interests of greater science, which LEO Lame cant not give.

You must agree?

The fact that all science is evaluated on our best guess.... from which again, you have to agree?

Leo, You hold a fine argument, but that's all it is.

True, it maybe a 1000 years or 10 of thousands of years before the numbers match?

So, again, do you think the numbers are right?

Tally
Posted by Tally, Sunday, 9 November 2014 4:56:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy