http://reason.com/archives/...imate-models#comment

im guessing your asking as far as what they think the weather is going to be for the next summer, years from now, ect ect.
or do you mean as far as modal data for forecasting for hours up to day?

the long run modals the answere is **** no. all those are based off of is Climotology and trends. There no way of being acturate.
if you mean the short term as in hours and days. then yes.

why yes?
well all modals used for forecasting (NAVGEM, GFS, WRF, UKMET, ect ect) run two systems. there the cold run and hot run.
The cold run uses the current data injected into the system and compares it to other data received. This is done at 00Z, 06Z, 12Z, 18Z each day. the modal will look at all ingested data from the previous (94hr is the typical) and compare it with the new injested. from here it uses various algorithms to predict what the weather will do. The reason for the various Modals ((NAVGEM, GFS, WRF, UKMET, ect ect) is based on geographical areas as well as where its built for (exp GFS is better for latitudes poleward of 60° than NAVGEM).
A Hot run will only take data from the current time the data was ingested (00z, 06z, ect) and disregard all previous data. It will then apply the algorithms to this data along and forecast out.

Its then up to the forecaster to do Modal Initialization and comparison to find out which modal is handling the systems better

Short answer is this

IPCC models predicted

1. inundated islands.......hasn't happened
2. desimated polar bear population........hasn't happened
3. increased hurricane activity.........hasn't happened
4. the polar icecap to disappear........hasn't happened
5. There has been no net increase in the earth's temperature for 17 years

In short we can't trust one thing they say in their modelling

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Short answer is this IPCC models predicted 1. inundated islands.......hasn't happened 2. desimated polar bear population........hasn't happened 3. increased hurricane activity.........hasn't happened 4. the polar icecap to disappear........hasn't happened 5. There has been no net increase in the earth's temperature for 17 years In short we can't trust one thing they say in their modelling Arn

In other news, since smoking doesn't kill you instantly, it's not unhealthy...

I think you missed the point that their climate models forecast dramatic increase in the earth's temperature and it has been virtually level of 17 years.

As a former smoker I see the two issues not related

Arn

Science isn't the question. What effective steps do we take? That's the question. So far as I know science hasn't recommended solutions. We need to be wary of political solutions. It would be very easy to spend tons of money on solutions that don't work.

quote What's Baselining and Why is it Important? Global mean surface temperature data are plotted not in absolute temperatures, but rather as anomalies, which are the difference between each data point and some reference temperature. That reference temperature is determined by the 'baseline' period; for example, if we want to compare today's temperatures to those during the mid to late 20th century, our baseline period might be 1961–1990. For global surface temperatures, the baseline is usually calculated over a 30-year period in order to accurately reflect any long-term trends rather than being biased by short-term noise. It appears that the draft version of Figure 1.4 did not use a 30-year baseline, but rather aligned the models and data to match at the year 1990. How do we know this is the case? Up to that date, 1990 was the hottest year on record, and remained the hottest on record until 1995. At the time, 1990 was an especially hot year. Consequently, if the models and data were properly baselined, the 1990 data point would be located toward the high end of the range of model simulations. In the draft IPCC figure, that wasn't the case – the models and data matched exactly in 1990, suggesting that they were likely baselined using just a single year. Mistakes happen, especially in draft documents, and the IPCC report contributors subsequently corrected the error, now using 1961–1990 as the baseline. But Steve McIntyre just couldn't seem to figure out why the data were shifted between the draft and draft final versions, even though Tamino had pointed out that the figure should be corrected 10 months prior. How did McIntyre explain the change? "The scale of the Second Draft showed the discrepancy between models and observations much more clearly. I do not believe that IPCC’s decision to use a more obscure scale was accidental." No, it wasn't accidental. It was a correction of a rather obvious error in the draft figure. It's an important correction because improper baselining can make a graph visually deceiving.

http://www.skepticalscience...-model-accuracy.html

Tell everyone in the rockies about global warming...that just had a blizzard 2 months early. Oh yea, I forgot global warming causes cold weather.... I guess another ice age brings tropical weather. They cant even accurately guess tommorrows weather.

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 10-14-2013).]

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: In other news, since smoking doesn't kill you instantly, it's not unhealthy...

In other WORDS, when people like masospaghetti can't prove/disprove a point, they change the subject.

quote Originally posted by dratts: What effective steps do we take? That's the question. So far as I know science hasn't recommended solutions. We need to be wary of political solutions. It would be very easy to spend tons of money on solutions that don't work.

For sure.
We talk alot about what may or may not be happening, but not about what could or should be done, or is feasible. Even what should or could be done in a what if scenario.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-14-2013).]

In the Old Testament, prophets who prophesied falsely were stoned. Here we give them a Nobel Prize and discuss all the reasons they surely couldn't have been wrong.

In the meanwhile their prophesies have been proven to be hogwash

Arn

quote Originally posted by 2.5: For sure. We talk alot about what may or may not be happening, but not about what could or should be done, or is feasible. Even what should or could be done in a what if scenario.

Just like an over population problem. No one is willing to kill themselves just like everybody like to use fossil fuels.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Science isn't the question. What effective steps do we take? That's the question. So far as I know science hasn't recommended solutions.

Science isn't the question yet we look for science to solve a problem which has a minimal effect on our lives ?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: In other WORDS, when people like masospaghetti can't prove/disprove a point, they change the subject.

Arn keeps using the same analogy that since the islands aren't underwater and polar bears aren't extinct YET it somehow isn't a problem, even though it's well documented that oceans ARE rising and ice coverage is almost 2 standard deviations below normal.

Coming from bear, the master of smoke and mirrors. You have a global warming thread 74 pages long and still nobody can figure out where you stand on the subject.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Arn keeps using the same analogy that since the islands aren't underwater and polar bears aren't extinct YET it somehow isn't a problem, even though it's well documented that oceans ARE rising and ice coverage is almost 2 standard deviations below normal. Coming from bear, the master of smoke and mirrors. You have a global warming thread 74 pages long and still nobody can figure out where you stand on the subject.

the Journal of Climate, issue 17 points out that the average rise in ocean levels in the last half of the 20th Century was estimated to be 1.8 +/- .3 mm. per year

The IPCC was predicting 50 cm rise by the end of the century

But Stockholm University publications show that the actual rise from 1850 to 1940 was not more than 1.1 mm per year, however, from 1940 to 1970 ir was "0" net increase. Around 1970 the sea level actually dropped 20 cm. That's right, it dropped. Reasons? ........unknown........

Since that time the rise has been net "0".

The Maldives, the Tuvalu islands, Vanuatu, and others were supposed to be abandoned due to iminent inundation, by the end of the 20th Century or shortly thereafter, and guess what? NO SEA RISE IS EVIDENT AT ALL

so, masospaghetti, the oceans are not rising either, and the ice fields in the Arctic are in full recovery, and, Snow in September/October in Kansas? And this is Global Warming? The IPCC has no grounds at all to accept any accolades.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: was not more than 1.1 mm per year, however, from 1940 to 1970 ir was "0" net increase. Around 1970 the sea level actually dropped 20 cm. That's right, it dropped. Since that time the rise has been net "0". The Maldives, the Tuvalu islands, Vanuatu, and others were supposed to be abandoned due to iminent inundation, by the end of the 20th Century or shortly thereafter, and guess what? NO SEA RISE IS EVIDENT AT ALL

Where is your data coming from?


Source: University of Colorado


Source: CSIRO

Sea levels have been consistently rising.

quote so, masospaghetti, the oceans are not rising either, and the ice fields in the Arctic are in full recovery,

The ice fields are not in "full recovery". They have recovered compared to the all-time low in 2012, and remain almost 2 standard deviations below normal. Here is September 2013 historical data (yearly average is reported unavailable due to government shutdown):


Source:NSIDC

Here is the graph that has shown up here on PFF a few times, showing that while 2013 had more ice coverage than 2012, it's plainly false to say its in "full recovery". Again, recent data not available due to government shutdown:


Source: NSIDC

quote Snow in September/October in Kansas? And this is Global Warming?

Because it snows in Kansas early means absolutely nothing and you know that. It's much warmer here in the southeast than normal but that also doesn't mean anything. It's long term global trends, not month-to-month in certain regions.

quote The IPCC has no grounds at all to accept any accolades. Arn

IPCC hasn't shown to be apolitical but that is no reason to discount the science.

[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 10-15-2013).]

Maso, those graphs are pure hogwash someone in a back room made up. The facts dont support any of it.

As for polar bears....their soon extinction was BS too. There is so much of an overpopulation, some places now have a polar bear hunting season to kill the excess off. Your little tv commerical showing poor polar bears drifting out to sea to die drowning was proven to be made up... by the person who took the video whos studied them for 30 years.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Source: CSIRO

Source ? For facts ? Can I use the same source ?

quote Always check the information Information at this site: is general information provided as part of CSIRO's statutory role in the dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice is subject to the usual uncertainties of advanced scientific and technical research may not be accurate, current or complete is subject to change without notice should never be relied on as the basis for doing or failing to do something.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Maso, those graphs are pure hogwash someone in a back room made up. The facts dont support any of it.

Which graphs? And what facts?

quote Your little tv commerical showing poor polar bears drifting out to sea to die drowning was proven to be made up

Commercial is not mine, sorry.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Maso, those graphs are pure hogwash someone in a back room made up. The facts dont support any of it. As for polar bears....their soon extinction was BS too. There is so much of an overpopulation, some places now have a polar bear hunting season to kill the excess off. Your little tv commerical showing poor polar bears drifting out to sea to die drowning was proven to be made up... by the person who took the video whos studied them for 30 years.

Actually it's exactly the facts that do support his position.

As for Polar bears who was it that was claiming they would be extinct and when did they claim this would happen?

I keep hearing about this as some kind of proof that Climate Change is not happening but I think it would be better to look at the science and research done by the experts which continually shows evidence of the man made effects on our climate.

Here's one of the latest published studies from a University. http://www.nature.com/natur...ull/nature12540.html

quote Study in Nature reveals urgent new time frame for climate change The new index shows a surprising result. Areas in the tropics are projected to experience unprecedented climates first within the next decade. Under a business-as-usual scenario, the index shows the average location on Earth will experience a radically different climate by 2047. Under an alternate scenario with greenhouse gas emissions stabilization, the global mean climate departure will be 2069. “The results shocked us. Regardless of the scenario, changes will be coming soon,” said lead author Mora. “Within my generation, whatever climate we were used to will be a thing of the past.” The scientists calculated the index for additional variables including evaporation, precipitation and ocean surface temperature and pH. When looking at sea surface pH, the index indicates that we surpassed the limits of historical extremes in 2008. This is consistent with other recent studies, and is explained by the fact that ocean pH has a narrow range of historical variability and because the ocean has absorbed a considerable fraction of human-caused CO2 emissions. The study found that the overarching global effect of climate change on biodiversity will occur not only as a result of the largest absolute changes at the poles, but also, perhaps more urgently, from small but rapid changes in the tropics. Tropical species are unaccustomed to climate variability and are therefore more vulnerable to relatively small changes. The tropics hold the world’s greatest diversity of marine and terrestrial species and will experience unprecedented climates some 10 years earlier than anywhere else on Earth.

http://www.hawaii.edu/news/...-for-climate-change/

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-15-2013).]

quote Originally posted by newf: I keep hearing about this as some kind of proof that Climate Change is not happening but I think it would be better to look at the science and research done by the experts which continually shows evidence of the man made effects on our climate. Here's one of the latest published studies from a University.

But scientists are all shills for a socialist society and don't really know what they are talking about /sarcasm

To the skeptics here (and notice I use the word skeptics, not deniers) - I get it. There's a potential power grab here under the pretense of climate change. Nobody trusts the political system. Likewise, I also enjoy burning lots of fuel in my Ford 5.0 engine and would love not to worry about its effects on the climate. But its foolish to ignore the science because of the politics involved.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: For sure. We talk alot about what may or may not be happening, but not about what could or should be done, or is feasible. Even what should or could be done in a what if scenario.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Just like an over population problem. No one is willing to kill themselves just like everybody like to use fossil fuels.

YEP

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Science isn't the question yet we look for science to solve a problem which has a minimal effect on our lives ?

I've never advocated killing anyone as a method of population control. I do promote birth control as a logical choice. I love burning fossil fuels in my turbo charged ls4 Fiero, but that doesn't mean that I can't see into the future and realize that we should be making an alternative energy source available.

masospaghetti asked

quote Where is your data coming from?

quote Originally posted by Formula88:

These satellite images are the reality, not dated computer graphics.

To read how the ocean rise has been reducing, not increasing, and has been generally neutral for the past decade+ you need to read

these articles from Columbia U

To read how the ice is now in full recovery you need to read

info at the National Snow & Ice Data Center

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: masospaghetti asked These satellite images are the reality, not dated computer graphics. To read how the ocean rise has been reducing, not increasing, and has been generally neutral for the past decade+ you need to read these articles from Columbia U To read how the ice is now in full recovery you need to read info at the National Snow & Ice Data Center Arn

Instead of looking at the pictures and making your own conclusions why not read what the NSIDC is actually saying?

quote September average sea ice extent for 2013 was the sixth lowest in the satellite record. The 2012 September extent was 32% lower than this year’s extent, while the 1981 to 2010 average was 22% higher than this year’s extent. Through 2013, the September linear rate of decline is 13.7% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

1 year doesn't make it a recovery or even a trend. Look at the linear trend of their graph!

Antarctica however is showing a upwards trend in sea ice extent.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-15-2013).]

Again, you miss the point. It has not recovered, but it is in recovery. No it is not at a record high, and no it is not yet in its average range, but, it is better and getting better.

Bottom line is that if you believe the IPCC models, it should be all gone right now instead of 60% higher than last year.

If you believe the IPCC so much go on up there with your canoe and freeze to death along with the others who have taken that ice for granted.

If you believe what you are seeing, you won't want to chance anything up there

Arn

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: Can We Trust the U.N.'s IPCC Climate Models?

They're the best we have at the present time, and they are probably more likely to be correct than any others currently available. They are certainly more trustworthy than all the chest pounding, wishful thinking, cynical, intentionally misleading, fringe alternatives being invoked by the climate change contrarians. That does not mean that the IPCC models are perfect, that they do not have some degree of uncertainty, or that they will not be even better in years to come as good-quality new data becomes available and scientific understanding and insight further improve.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 10-15-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: That does not mean that the IPCC models are perfect, that they do not have some degree of uncertainty, or that they will not be even better in years to come as good-quality new data becomes available and scientific understanding and insight further improve.

Wow man you should run for office

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Again, you miss the point. It has not recovered, but it is in recovery. No it is not at a record high, and no it is not yet in its average range, but, it is better and getting better.

Newf nor I missed the point, you said earlier that

quote ...and the ice fields in the Arctic are in full recovery... ...To read how the ice is now in full recovery...

The ice fields are not in full recovery. They are recovering slightly from an all-time low. That's hardly a stance to make the conclusion you are proposing.

But since I cannot canoe across the Arctic means AGW is a fabricated lie, right?

[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 10-15-2013).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Wow man you should run for office

It's called scientific integrity. Nothing in science is ever 100% certain. I added that to preempt the charlatans (or the naive) among us who seize upon a reasonable degree of uncertainty and invoke it in an attempt to discredit an entire body of scientific evidence they don't like.

If a scientific hypothesis is said to be proved (or disproved) at the 95% confidence level (i.e. 95% certain), which is more likely to be correct most of the time ... the 95% answer or the 5% answer? The 95% answer and the 5% answer are not equally valid.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 10-16-2013).]

can we trust them? well probably not....but, I would trust them over those who mislead to protect their own interests.
if they are wrong? no biggie, is it? if they are right? are your descendants gonna be allowed into the 1%'ers lifeboat habitats? nope. not one of the nut swingers.

and, in fact - gotta remember that "they" WANT a good solid decimation of the population. and everyone here is included on that wish list.

besides - who would complain about the middle east not being habitable?
why is it that oil producing regions create the most ignorant leaders?

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: It's called scientific integrity. Nothing in science is ever 100% certain. I added that to preempt the charlatans (or the naive) among us who seize upon a reasonable degree of uncertainty and invoke it in an attempt to discredit an entire body of scientific evidence they don't like. If a scientific hypothesis is said to be proved (or disproved) at the 95% confidence level (i.e. 95% certain), which is more likely to be correct most of the time ... the 95% answer or the 5% answer? The 95% answer and the 5% answer are not equally valid.

I understand.
I think the way we get to the percents, the scales, the tools used to measure, the reasons for measuring, ideas not explored, measurements of the past, the determined past based on evidence here and now, etc, is also a scientific process that has varying degrees of accuracy.
I do agree that people go with what they think is best shot though.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: In other news, since smoking doesn't kill you instantly, it's not unhealthy...