Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Validation of GCM Models  (Read 1905 times)

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 17, 2017, 11:23:27 PM »
I will start by rejecting them, and bring in the question of the structure of the models as my argument.  They smell geopolitical rather than scientific"

http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1221/2015/gmd-8-1221-2015.pdf

"5 Conclusions
These software architecture diagrams show, in a broad sense,
how climate models work: how the climate system is divided
into components and how these components communicate
with each other. They also illustrate the similarities and differences
between the eight models we have analyzed. Some
models, particularly in North America, exhibit a high level of
encapsulation for each component, with all communication
managed by the coupler. Other models, particularly in Europe,
implement a binary atmosphere–ocean architecture that
simplifies the coupling process. Institutions focus their efforts
on different climatic processes, which eventually cause
different components and subcomponents to dominate each
model’s source code. However, not all models are completely
independent of each other: modeling groups commonly exchange
pieces of code, from individual routines up to entire
components. Finally, climate models vary widely in complexity,
with the total line count varying by a factor of 20
between the largest GCM and the smallest EMIC we analyze
(Fig. 9). Even when restricting this comparison to the
six GCMs, there is still a factor of 7 variation in total line
count.
Our analysis also offers new insights into the question
of model diversity, which is important when creating multimodel
ensembles. Masson and Knutti (2011) and Knutti et al.
(2013) showed that models from the same lab tend to have
similar climatology, even over multiple model generations.
We believe this can be explained, at least in part, in terms of
their architectural structure and the distribution of complexity
within the model. As Knutti et al. (2013) suggest, “We
propose that one reason some models are so similar is because
they share common code. Another explanation for the
similarity of successive models in one institution may be that
different centers care about different aspects of the climate
and use different data sets and metrics to judge model ‘quality’
during development.” Our analysis offers preliminary evidence
to support both of these hypotheses. We hypothesize
further that the relative size of each component within an
Earth system model indicates the relative size of the pool of
expertise available to that lab in each Earth system domain
(once adjustments are made for components imported from
other labs). The availability of different areas of expertise at
each lab may provide a sufficient explanation for the clustering
effects reported by Masson and Knutti (2011) and Knutti
et al. (2013). Furthermore, the two analyses are complementary:
while our analysis looks at model code without considering
its outputs, Masson and Knutti (2011) and Knutti et al.
(2013) analyze model outputs without looking at the code.
Our diagrams may prove to be useful for public communication
and outreach by their host institutions. The inner
workings of climate models are rarely discussed in the media,
even by science reporters; as such, these pieces of software
are fundamentally mysterious to most members of the public.
Additionally, the diagrams could be used for communication
between scientists, both within and across institutions. It can
be extremely useful for climate scientists, whether they are
users or developers of coupled models, to understand how
other modeling groups have addressed the same scientific
problems. A better understanding of the Earth system models
used by other institutions may open doors for international
collaboration in the years to come
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 12:25:21 AM by Neven »

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3264
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2017, 12:28:39 AM »
I'm going to leave this open for now, even though it was posted in the wrong category, doesn't clearly state what it's about (models or the validation thereof?), and previous off-topic discussions in other threads showed a lack of nuance, mainly from the thread starter.

But maybe someone has something interesting to say about models that we haven't heard before (we already know the 'all of them wrong, some useful' quote ;) ).
Il faut cultiver notre jardin

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2017, 01:34:16 AM »
I'm going to leave this open for now, even though it was posted in the wrong category, doesn't clearly state what it's about (models or the validation thereof?), and previous off-topic discussions in other threads showed a lack of nuance, mainly from the thread starter.

But maybe someone has something interesting to say about models that we haven't heard before (we already know the 'all of them wrong, some useful' quote ;) ).

I went looking for anything resembling validation of the models and the best I could find was a paper that discussed the code itself.

If anyone can find something on the validation of the actual predictions generated by the models which is more formalized than what we have discovered for ourselves over the last few years I'd like to read it.  (Comparisons of predictions against subsequent events only please.  Nothing post hoc.)


AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10955
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2017, 02:20:06 AM »
The linked thread entitled: "Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME" compares observations to model predictions, with the goal of refining the models:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1478.0.html
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2017, 02:38:40 AM »
The linked thread entitled: "Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME" compares observations to model predictions, with the goal of refining the models:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1478.0.html
Hi Abrupt,

I'll believe that the comparisons are buried in there somewhere, and I will continue to comb through the tome looking for them, but on the whole the thread seems more concerned with perfecting, and not with testing.

What do you know specific to the question of things which the GCM have predicted for particular date ranges and what then happened as of those dates.  That is...can you restrict yourself to the question of skill and provide data about their skill?  (Obviously, we are interested in the statistics, not mere happenstances.)

sidd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 991
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2017, 04:12:25 AM »

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10955
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2017, 11:53:53 AM »
While I personally believe that the CMIP5 GMSTA projections err on the side of least drama, ESLD; nevertheless, the first attached image released by Gavin Schmidt comparing the observed GMSTA through the middle of 2016 to the radiative forcing adjusted CMIP5 projections, confirms at least that: (a) the faux pause is nothing more than a blip in the general warming trend and that (b) as indicated by relatively complex ESM projections, we are now entering a period of accelerating global warming (and reasonable people can argue about just how fast this acceleration will be with continued anthropogenic radiative forcing).

The second attached image compares GISTEMP to CMIP5 values and comes from the linked article entitled: "Messing about with model-obs comparisons".  While the graph comes with some disclaimers, it does give one pause for thought about where we are likely headed.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/


The third attached image comes from my Reply #1553 in the "Conservative Scientists & its Consequences" and compares how projections based on recent paleo-based data compares to those for CMIP5

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.0.html

The linked article helps to clarify how higher the paleo-based climate sensitivity that Friedrich et al (2016) found vs CMIP5 (see attached image):

http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-say-it-could-already-be-game-over-for-climate-change

Extract: "Scientists are now saying it might already be too late to avoid a temperature rise of up to 7.36 degrees Celsius (13.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
That's way above the upper limit of 4.8 degrees Celsius (8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2014, and to make matters worse, a new study suggests that we're underestimating just how sensitive Earth is to greenhouse gases.

From this data, they concluded that Earth becomes more sensitive to warming in interglacial warming phases (periods between ice ages), like the one we're now in.

The researchers also calculated there will be a "likely" temperature increase of between 4.78 and 7.36 degrees Celsius (8.6 and 13.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels over the next 85 years if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate,.
That means it's absolutely vital that we get those emissions down as quickly as possible.
Because a 7.36-degree Celsius (13.25-degree Fahrenheit) rise would effectively be "game over" for the planet as we know it, climatologist Michael Mann from Penn State University, who wasn't involved in the research, told Ian Johnston at The Independent."


For other discussions on how conservative the CMIP5 projections are likely to be, you can also look at posts in the 'Human Stupidity' thread at the following link:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1548.0.html

Lastly, I provide the fourth attached image showing the timing of the various efforts to calibrate CMIP6.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2017, 01:56:29 PM »
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/

That led to this: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/judith-curry-confuses-laypeople-about-climate-models/ (which is itself interesting) which led to this http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf  ::

Executive Summary
There is considerable debate over the fidelity and utility of global climate models
(GCMs). This debate occurs within the community of climate scientists, who disagree
about the amount of weight to give to climate models relative to observational analyses.
GCM outputs are also used by economists, regulatory agencies and policy makers,
so GCMs have received considerable scrutiny from a broader community of scientists,
engineers, software experts, and philosophers of science. This report attempts
to describe the debate surrounding GCMs to an educated but nontechnical audience.
Key summary points
• GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that is
the norm for engineering and regulatory science.
• There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex
nonlinear climate system.
• There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models
are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportion
of the 20th century warming that was human-caused as opposed to natural.
• There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from
increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.
• The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements
of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st
century climate will actually evolve.
Climate models are useful tools for conducting scientific research to understand the
climate system. However, the above points support the conclusion that current GCMs
are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for
predicting global or regional climate change on timescales of decades to centuries,
with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for the purpose of
justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy
systems. It is this application of climate model results that fuels the vociferousness of
the debate surrounding climate models.


Nothing on this path contradicted the claim that the models have not been validated.


Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2017, 02:02:59 PM »
http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/index.html

That page used the word "Predictions" exactly once, and it was not clear to me how to find said predictions and how they compared to subsequent events.

Hindcasts and intercomparisons do not actually validate anything.

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2017, 02:18:05 PM »
I want to make it clear that I do not deny climate change, quite the opposite.

So far the only "validation" I've seen of the GCM are the completely valid complaints of people on this forum that the models are way too conservative  i.e.  invalid.

Since I'm of the opinion that what we are seeing now is due to the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago and we ain't seen nothing yet, it pains me to see models which have 0 demonstrated skill quoted as fact.

Does anyone have any actual data at all which would tend to confirm the timelines and quantities these GCM predict?  (Or for that matter any actual data to deny other than the rumblings of some of us here on this forum?)

CognitiveBias

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2017, 03:18:04 PM »
Jim,
  The arguments you pose seem to be philosophical and not technical/scientific.  I counter-propose that you study chapter 9 of the latest IPCC report (Evaluation of Climate Models) and detail what you find lacking.

If you have cogent views they will surely get addressed.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Regards,
  CB

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2017, 03:43:51 PM »
Jim,
  The arguments you pose seem to be philosophical and not technical/scientific.  I counter-propose that you study chapter 9 of the latest IPCC report (Evaluation of Climate Models) and detail what you find lacking.

If you have cogent views they will surely get addressed.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Regards,
  CB

From section 9.1.1:

The direct approach to model evaluation is to compare model output
with observations and analyze the resulting difference. This requires
knowledge of the errors and uncertainties in the observations, which
have been discussed in Chapters 2 through 6. Where possible, averages
over the same time period in both models and observations are
compared, although for many quantities the observational record is
rather short, or only observationally based estimates of the climatological
mean are available. In cases where observations are lacking,
we resort to intercomparison of model results to provide at least some
quantification of model uncertainty via inter-model spread.

Translation:  We cannot validate the models.

Archimid

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 346
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2017, 04:00:01 PM »
Translation:  We cannot validate the models.

To me it means: "we can validate the models but with uncertainties"

That is the best possible truth that a person could possibly hope for.  There is no such thing as 100% certainty. Even the most basic facts of life, like "the sun will come out tomorrow", have uncertainties. But for humans to deal with uncertainties inherent of everything, we ignore the uncertainties and make every decision based on incomplete information. 

So for as long as you understand that there is uncertainty in the models they are useful. If you understand what the uncertainties are, the models are even more useful. However , if you expect 0% uncertainty, what you are expecting is a lie. Such a thing simply does not exist within our limited senses.

When it comes to climate models, they are only a guide, a very educated guess of what the future might look like. For what they are, they are marvels of modern engineering.

 
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 534
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2017, 04:11:59 PM »
GCMs are not a crystal ball. They don't predict future forcing or volcanoes or aerosol or sun intensity .They can only assume a certain path. Therefore as a prediction tool on themselves to tell you what will the sea level or the temperature will be at a particular time they will utterly fail. If you run them multiple times with particular forcing etc you can start understanding how the system works and what a possible future outcome be. They are an incomplete experimental tool that allows you to run experiments and see I there is sth you are missing and also guide you to what might occur. You completely misunderstand their use or utility. 

Weather models are like GCMs with better resolution run constantly constrained by observations. Their path in use is narrow and most variables well defined. Hence the 10 day accuracy.

Anyway,  I am talking to the wind....
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2017, 05:16:27 PM »
Translation:  We cannot validate the models.

To me it means: "we can validate the models but with uncertainties"

That is the best possible truth that a person could possibly hope for.  There is no such thing as 100% certainty. Even the most basic facts of life, like "the sun will come out tomorrow", have uncertainties. But for humans to deal with uncertainties inherent of everything, we ignore the uncertainties and make every decision based on incomplete information. 

So for as long as you understand that there is uncertainty in the models they are useful. If you understand what the uncertainties are, the models are even more useful. However , if you expect 0% uncertainty, what you are expecting is a lie. Such a thing simply does not exist within our limited senses.

When it comes to climate models, they are only a guide, a very educated guess of what the future might look like. For what they are, they are marvels of modern engineering.

Well, maybe we can within the realm of having uncertainty, but it hasn't happened yet.  I do not think the models are science.

I think the best data I have seen on the validation of the GCM so far is the complaint of many here on the forum that the models are being way too conservative -- i.e., are invalid.

I don't care how well educated the people making the models are...I care how stupid the people using them are.


Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2017, 05:18:32 PM »
GCMs are not a crystal ball. They don't predict future forcing or volcanoes or aerosol or sun intensity .They can only assume a certain path. Therefore as a prediction tool on themselves to tell you what will the sea level or the temperature will be at a particular time they will utterly fail. If you run them multiple times with particular forcing etc you can start understanding how the system works and what a possible future outcome be. They are an incomplete experimental tool that allows you to run experiments and see I there is sth you are missing and also guide you to what might occur. You completely misunderstand their use or utility. 

Weather models are like GCMs with better resolution run constantly constrained by observations. Their path in use is narrow and most variables well defined. Hence the 10 day accuracy.

Anyway,  I am talking to the wind....
There is one obvious difference between the weather models and the GCM.  The weather models are tested every day and the GCM have been tested never.

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 534
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2017, 05:42:46 PM »
Sigh....
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10955
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2017, 05:48:02 PM »
I want to make it clear that I do not deny climate change, quite the opposite.

So far the only "validation" I've seen of the GCM are the completely valid complaints of people on this forum that the models are way too conservative  i.e.  invalid.

Since I'm of the opinion that what we are seeing now is due to the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago and we ain't seen nothing yet, it pains me to see models which have 0 demonstrated skill quoted as fact.

Does anyone have any actual data at all which would tend to confirm the timelines and quantities these GCM predict?  (Or for that matter any actual data to deny other than the rumblings of some of us here on this forum?)


When first you cite an "... and Then There's Physics" article on how Judith Curry confuses lay people and then you quote a Judith Curry article as evidence that your position is correct; you raise a lot of doubts about what your motivation is to question the validity of GCMs.  If GCMs underestimate the coming climate impacts, then one should be motivated to more quickly reduce anthropogenic radiative forcing; rather than to repeat that "All models are wrong ..." and forget to indicate that "... but some models are useful", in order to take action now.

The world's most accurate GCM is the Accelerated Climate Model for Energy, ACME; for which Phase I is scheduled to be complete in 2017.  Using logic like that presented by Judith Curry, the Trump Administration could say that such an improved model is still not perfect and thus suppress the publications of findings from ACME; however, a citizen sitting on a civil lawsuit jury panel would only hold GCM projections to a burden of proof that the: "Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities, is the standard required in most civil cases..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

Soon the Trump Administration will find that the Judicial Branch of government will only hold GCM's to this standard of proof (see the following linked thread entitled: "Legal Approach to Climate Change Resolutions")

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1207.100.html

Edit: See also the linked article entitled: "'Biggest Case on the Planet' Pits Kids vs. Climate Change".

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/kids-sue-us-government-climate-change/

Abstract: "A pioneering lawsuit against the U.S. government on global warming won the right to a trial. Now Trump wants an appeals court to cancel it."
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 06:30:49 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Jim Pettit

  • Global Moderator
  • ASIF Middle Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2017, 05:55:03 PM »
Jim I have to ask you: what point it is you are trying to make here? I think anyone paying attention fully understands by now that a) you don't like GCMs, b) you think they're all worthless garbage, and c) there's literally no extant source supporting the validity of any GCM that you will accept as credible. So what are you aiming for? What is it you want to hear? I doubt whether you're going to make everyone here--or, hell, anyone here--smack themselves on the forehead and exclaim, "Oh! Williams is right! GCMs really are crap!" Neither is it likely that the climatologists, mathematicians, and software programmers who have devoted decades of their professional lives to the development and constant tweaking of these GCMs are going to read your comments, come to the realization that they've wasted their careers chasing a chimera, and quit to become Uber drivers or chambermaids or meat packers or whatever. So, again: what are you hoping to accomplish? What response are you wishing to see? Or to put it another way: is there any response that will satisfy you? If the answer is yes, let us know; be explicit instead of dismissive, and we'll see what we can do. But if the answer is no, aren't you just wasting your time? And ours?

Remember: sometimes in life, people will disagree with you because they're stupider and/or more ignorant than you. But sometimes they'll disagree with you because, you now, you're wrong.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10955
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2017, 06:26:33 PM »
When determining how accurate GCMs need to be for the judicial branch to hold the executive branch accountable for taking action to fight climate change, one only needs to look at the record of increasing insurance losses from the increasingly violent natural disasters.

In this regards, the linked article is entitled: "Climate change threatens ability of insurers to manage risk", and discusses how large the "protection gap" has already grown to, and indicates that the insurance industry's traditional approach to climate risk management are already ineffective:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/07/climate-change-threatens-ability-insurers-manage-risk

Extract: "The ability of the global insurance industry to manage society’s risks is being threatened by climate change, according to a new report.

The report finds that more frequent extreme weather events are driving up uninsured losses and making some assets uninsurable.

The analysis, by a coalition of the world’s biggest insurers, concluded that the “protection gap” – the difference between the costs of natural disasters and the amount insured – has quadrupled to $100bn (£79bn) a year since the 1980s."

The ClimateWise report, published on Wednesday, also says the industry must also use its risk management expertise to convince policymakers in both the public and private sector of the urgent need for climate action.

The industry’s traditional response to rising insurance risks – raising premiums or withdrawing cover – would not help deal with the rising risks of global warming, it said.


“The insurance industry’s role as society’s risk manager is under threat,” said Maurice Tulloch, chairman of global general insurance at Aviva and chair of ClimateWise. “Our sector will struggle to reduce this protection gap if our response is limited to avoiding, rather than managing, society’s exposure to climate risk.”

See the following linked article entitled: "Climate protection gap widening, warns insurance report":

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38229108

See also the following linked article that indicates that the insurance industry paid-out $50 billion for natural disasters in 2016 (uninsured losses were $125 billion), as compared to $27 billion in 2015.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-disaster-insurance-idUSKBN14O0XG

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Red

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2017, 07:21:59 PM »
I think when it comes to risk management models, the insurance industry is going to look at what is most likely the worst. Not some some Guy M. kind of worst, but something that has a fair probability of coming too pass. After all their bread and butter comes from skimming the difference between what may happen and what doesn't. So I will ask, what are they seeing in the models that would bring forth the following statement? "Davidson said recent data that has been collected but has yet to be made official indicates sea levels could rise by roughly 3 meters or 9 feet by 2050-2060, far higher and quicker than current projections. Until now most projections have warned of seal level rise of up to 4 feet by 2100."
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/04/12/405089.htm
Those numbers are well outside the ones we see commonly presented. The implications that those numbers represent to all of humanity..... well I see no need to preach to the choir. Let us hope their wrong, but even if they are, it is still going to cost us literally. They will be hedging their bets that their right. Their bets are our premiums.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10955
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2017, 08:34:24 PM »
In case some people didn't read the linked article entitled: “The feedback paradox”.  The increasing insurance losses associated with pronounced natural variations imply high climate sensitivity; which provides more motivation to take climate action now, even though our climate models are not perfect.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/the-feedback-paradox/

Extract: “Any feedback process based on temperature will act on both natural and forced changes in the temperature. If such feedbacks result in pronounced natural temperature variations, they also imply that the climate sensitivity is high.”
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2017, 08:53:07 PM »
I think when it comes to risk management models, the insurance industry is going to look at what is most likely the worst. Not some some Guy M. kind of worst, but something that has a fair probability of coming too pass. After all their bread and butter comes from skimming the difference between what may happen and what doesn't. So I will ask, what are they seeing in the models that would bring forth the following statement? "Davidson said recent data that has been collected but has yet to be made official indicates sea levels could rise by roughly 3 meters or 9 feet by 2050-2060, far higher and quicker than current projections. Until now most projections have warned of seal level rise of up to 4 feet by 2100."
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/04/12/405089.htm
Those numbers are well outside the ones we see commonly presented. The implications that those numbers represent to all of humanity..... well I see no need to preach to the choir. Let us hope their wrong, but even if they are, it is still going to cost us literally. They will be hedging their bets that their right. Their bets are our premiums.


I think you might be one of the few here who get the point.  Seems the "scientists" are too busy playing with their peers to bother doing any real science.


Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2017, 09:03:54 PM »
Jim I have to ask you: what point it is you are trying to make here? I think anyone paying attention fully understands by now that a) you don't like GCMs, b) you think they're all worthless garbage, and c) there's literally no extant source supporting the validity of any GCM that you will accept as credible. So what are you aiming for? What is it you want to hear? I doubt whether you're going to make everyone here--or, hell, anyone here--smack themselves on the forehead and exclaim, "Oh! Williams is right! GCMs really are crap!" Neither is it likely that the climatologists, mathematicians, and software programmers who have devoted decades of their professional lives to the development and constant tweaking of these GCMs are going to read your comments, come to the realization that they've wasted their careers chasing a chimera, and quit to become Uber drivers or chambermaids or meat packers or whatever. So, again: what are you hoping to accomplish? What response are you wishing to see? Or to put it another way: is there any response that will satisfy you? If the answer is yes, let us know; be explicit instead of dismissive, and we'll see what we can do. But if the answer is no, aren't you just wasting your time? And ours?

Remember: sometimes in life, people will disagree with you because they're stupider and/or more ignorant than you. But sometimes they'll disagree with you because, you now, you're wrong.
So far they seem to be disagreeing with me because I'm not part of the herd.  No one has even slightly demonstrated that I am wrong, as all I have asserted is that there is no evidence that the GCM are right -- and their response was to call me an idiot rather than provide a shred of evidence.

So far the only evidence I have seen on the skill of the GCM are complaints here that they are proving to be way too conservative; which I take as evidence tending to deny the validity of the GCM.


Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3264
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2017, 09:09:38 PM »
So, basically everyone here is part of a herd and is trying to persecute you. And the problems with models is that they aren't showing that there will be a catastrophe, meaning they're not valid and not real science.

Does that about sum up your current grievances?
Il faut cultiver notre jardin

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2017, 09:23:15 PM »
In case some people didn't read the linked article entitled: “The feedback paradox”.  The increasing insurance losses associated with pronounced natural variations imply high climate sensitivity; which provides more motivation to take climate action now, even though our climate models are not perfect.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/the-feedback-paradox/

Extract: “Any feedback process based on temperature will act on both natural and forced changes in the temperature. If such feedbacks result in pronounced natural temperature variations, they also imply that the climate sensitivity is high.”
While I happen to be of the opinion it is much too late to bother, I will agree that taking action now would at least prepare the populace for the coastline changes which will be coming.

The one big worry I have is that people will try using these GCM to attempt some sort of "Engineering Fix" which I would expect to most likely make things worse in some unknown unknown way.

Disclaimer:  My guess is no better than the GCM guess -- and theirs is no better than mine.


Cid_Yama

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
    • The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2017, 09:31:23 PM »


Can you just provide me with century long statistics on their +/- error rate please?  I have no interest in happenstance at all.
This type of manufactured doubt is like a cancer that has infected our society, and it shouldn't be allowed to spread. Reading it here makes me furious.

You cannot just brush off two research papers with a single inane sentence and expect to be taken seriously. The papers have already been peer-reviewed and published, they speak for themselves. You're the one that made the claim, the onus is on you to show us how they're "happenstance".

It is painfully obvious that you do not know how a computer model of even the most simple of things actually works.

Does this guy only attack "climate" models? What about the thousands of other models that we use on a daily basis? Are they happenstance when right too? Disgusting.


Eli has hit the nail on the head.  This guy is just attempting to manufacture doubt about climate models and scientists.

He has already defended Creationism here and called PIOMAS and GCMs Alchemy.  It is pretty clear where he is coming from and what he is up to.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1903.msg105850.html#msg105850
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 09:42:26 PM by Cid_Yama »

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2964
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2017, 09:34:21 PM »
Jim W - This is probably of no interest to you, but I recently had a long discussion at the UK Met Office about their "unified" model that handles both their "weather" and "climate" forecasting. Here you go:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,256.msg106820.html#msg106820

Now what exactly is the point that you are endeavouring, but failing, to make? You've presumably heard the old adage attributed to George Box that "all models are wrong, but some of them are useful"?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Archimid

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 346
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #28 on: March 18, 2017, 09:44:12 PM »

Disclaimer:  My guess is no better than the GCM guess -- and theirs is no better than mine.


What is your guess? what is the uncertainty of your guess?

My guess is that ice goes this year and the atmosphere of the NH goes bunkers causing chaos around the planet. If the ice doesn't go this year and the pacific AND Atlantic cool, then we might get up to ten years of ice and not so extreme atmospheric conditions in the meantime. If the Atlantic and Pacific do not cool then we'll be out of ice before 2020 with the corresponding chaos.

Regrettably I don't have the capacity to offer verifiable proof for my dates and time frames to other people . My guess is unverifiable. I believe it to be a good guess because I'm trying to constantly challenge my knowledge and so far things look bleak. But my methods do not have the rigorosity required.

On the other hand GCM's guesses can be verified by every person fluent in the language of that particular science. Since many people have agreed using the same definitions and found their guess a valid one, the guesses of the GCM's are better guesses than mine.

That does not mean GCM guesses are right, but because they can be verified by many people and are constantly updating, the chances of the GCM's to be right are higher than mine. Just like any knowledge tool. It is useful but it has limitations.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #29 on: March 18, 2017, 11:11:22 PM »
Jim W - This is probably of no interest to you, but I recently had a long discussion at the UK Met Office about their "unified" model that handles both their "weather" and "climate" forecasting. Here you go:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,256.msg106820.html#msg106820

Now what exactly is the point that you are endeavouring, but failing, to make? You've presumably heard the old adage attributed to George Box that "all models are wrong, but some of them are useful"?


Business opportunities and climate change - ExIST quarterly event - March 2017 ?


Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #30 on: March 18, 2017, 11:15:56 PM »

Disclaimer:  My guess is no better than the GCM guess -- and theirs is no better than mine.


What is your guess? what is the uncertainty of your guess?

My guess is that ice goes this year and the atmosphere of the NH goes bunkers causing chaos around the planet. If the ice doesn't go this year and the pacific AND Atlantic cool, then we might get up to ten years of ice and not so extreme atmospheric conditions in the meantime. If the Atlantic and Pacific do not cool then we'll be out of ice before 2020 with the corresponding chaos.

Regrettably I don't have the capacity to offer verifiable proof for my dates and time frames to other people . My guess is unverifiable. I believe it to be a good guess because I'm trying to constantly challenge my knowledge and so far things look bleak. But my methods do not have the rigorosity required.

On the other hand GCM's guesses can be verified by every person fluent in the language of that particular science. Since many people have agreed using the same definitions and found their guess a valid one, the guesses of the GCM's are better guesses than mine.

That does not mean GCM guesses are right, but because they can be verified by many people and are constantly updating, the chances of the GCM's to be right are higher than mine. Just like any knowledge tool. It is useful but it has limitations.

I'll guess that the ice goes this Summer and does not return next Winter.  I might not be right this year, but I'll be right before the GCM are.

I happen to completely disagree with you about validation by peers -- that simply isn't how Science actually progresses.  It generally progresses by the old guard dying off.

Chuck Yokota

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2017, 12:06:03 AM »
I think that where Jim Williams goes wrong is in the expectation that GCMs should be expected, or are designed, to make predictions about events in the next few years. It is a fundamental confusion between what is weather and what is climate. Climate is the long-term statistics of weather, or when the climate is out of equilibrium (as with excess greenhouse gases adding energy to the Earth system) the change in the long-term statistics of weather as the system moves to re-establish equilibrium.

Notice the words "long-term" and "statistics". GCMs are concerned with how the Earth system changes in accordance with the laws of physics, reflected in how the statistics of weather will change in statistically significant periods of time, i.e. greater than 30 years. Short-term trends will be affected by chaotic and random factors such as volcanic eruptions, weather--chaotic in periods of days and weeks, and multi-year and multi-decadal oscillations whose causes are poorly understood. That is the value of hindcasting; by plugging in the actual forcing events of a number of years, researchers can see how well or poorly the model results reflect the historical results.

To use a simple analogy: Statistics can tell us that a fair six-sided die will come to rest with equal probability with any number up. It is helpless to predict what the outcome of the next roll will be. Weather forecasting would analogously be observing the flight of the die when it is thrown, measuring the translational and rotational velocities, plugging in the elastic coefficients of the die and table, the coefficient of friction, air resistance, and so forth, to make a prediction of how the die will come to rest.

Of course, climate models have a lot more to work with than an idealized die, and so have much more to say about the shape of the future climate.

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2964
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #32 on: March 19, 2017, 12:32:24 AM »
Business opportunities and climate change - ExIST quarterly event - March 2017 ?

That's the one Jim. What's your question?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10955
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #33 on: March 19, 2017, 12:57:36 AM »
In case some people didn't read the linked article entitled: “The feedback paradox”.  The increasing insurance losses associated with pronounced natural variations imply high climate sensitivity; which provides more motivation to take climate action now, even though our climate models are not perfect.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/the-feedback-paradox/

Extract: “Any feedback process based on temperature will act on both natural and forced changes in the temperature. If such feedbacks result in pronounced natural temperature variations, they also imply that the climate sensitivity is high.”
While I happen to be of the opinion it is much too late to bother, I will agree that taking action now would at least prepare the populace for the coastline changes which will be coming.

The one big worry I have is that people will try using these GCM to attempt some sort of "Engineering Fix" which I would expect to most likely make things worse in some unknown unknown way.

Disclaimer:  My guess is no better than the GCM guess -- and theirs is no better than mine.

So you think that a limited amount of adaptive engineering may be warranted (or maybe not); however, what type of measures do you think are warranted to promote a reduction in anthropogenic GHG emissions (a carbon fee and dividend program, regulations, government investment in sustainable energy, government promoting energy efficiency, etc.)?
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #34 on: March 19, 2017, 02:32:47 PM »
In case some people didn't read the linked article entitled: “The feedback paradox”.  The increasing insurance losses associated with pronounced natural variations imply high climate sensitivity; which provides more motivation to take climate action now, even though our climate models are not perfect.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/the-feedback-paradox/

Extract: “Any feedback process based on temperature will act on both natural and forced changes in the temperature. If such feedbacks result in pronounced natural temperature variations, they also imply that the climate sensitivity is high.”
While I happen to be of the opinion it is much too late to bother, I will agree that taking action now would at least prepare the populace for the coastline changes which will be coming.

The one big worry I have is that people will try using these GCM to attempt some sort of "Engineering Fix" which I would expect to most likely make things worse in some unknown unknown way.

Disclaimer:  My guess is no better than the GCM guess -- and theirs is no better than mine.

So you think that a limited amount of adaptive engineering may be warranted (or maybe not); however, what type of measures do you think are warranted to promote a reduction in anthropogenic GHG emissions (a carbon fee and dividend program, regulations, government investment in sustainable energy, government promoting energy efficiency, etc.)?

Warranted technically -- none, as I think it much too late to bother.

Warranted socially -- I'd say cap and trade would probably have the largest emotional impact with the least additional disruption.  The real object in my mind would be to prepare people for having to move -- and for what will happen to millions unable to move.

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #35 on: March 19, 2017, 02:33:51 PM »
Business opportunities and climate change - ExIST quarterly event - March 2017 ?

That's the one Jim. What's your question?

Did you really expect me to spend 2 hours???

Archimid

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 346
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #36 on: March 19, 2017, 02:44:04 PM »

I'll guess that the ice goes this Summer and does not return next Winter.  I might not be right this year, but I'll be right before the GCM are.

Ok. But how do you prove that to others? Just wait for it to happen? Just send an e-mail to Trump: "hey man the arctic is melting, perhaps you should do something about it"?

No. The only way you can prove that to others is to spend the next few years developing a verifiable mathematical framework that shows others why your guess is worth doing something about. At that point your guess may be better than the GCM. But right now your guess is mostly useless, unless you can convince others. As your guess is useless, but GCM's is a useful tool in many different ways, GCm's guess is better.

I happen to completely disagree with you about validation by peers -- that simply isn't how Science actually progresses.  It generally progresses by the old guard dying off.

I'm sorry, but there are many ways that science progresses. Sometimes you just have to wait for the old guard to die, but many times the evidence is overwhelming, sometimes the tools improve, sometimes there is a paradigm shit in the collective thinking.

For example, if you and I are right and the Arctic does collapse this year and it doesn't comeback there will be an immediate paradigm shift. The old guard might not simply die of old age (although many may die due to the chaos). In that case the science will change because the evidence is overwhelming.

Also, there is a lag in science. Events must happen first, then data is collected and studied. Extensive writing and verification happens and then the results are published.  This sometimes takes years. It may very well be that later this year and in the years afterward the accuracy of the models improve enough to predict if and when the Arctic will collapse. The capacity of the models to improve over time also makes them a better guess than yours.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #37 on: March 19, 2017, 04:00:36 PM »

I'll guess that the ice goes this Summer and does not return next Winter.  I might not be right this year, but I'll be right before the GCM are.

Ok. But how do you prove that to others? Just wait for it to happen? Just send an e-mail to Trump: "hey man the arctic is melting, perhaps you should do something about it"?

No. The only way you can prove that to others is to spend the next few years developing a verifiable mathematical framework that shows others why your guess is worth doing something about. At that point your guess may be better than the GCM. But right now your guess is mostly useless, unless you can convince others. As your guess is useless, but GCM's is a useful tool in many different ways, GCm's guess is better.

I happen to completely disagree with you about validation by peers -- that simply isn't how Science actually progresses.  It generally progresses by the old guard dying off.

I'm sorry, but there are many ways that science progresses. Sometimes you just have to wait for the old guard to die, but many times the evidence is overwhelming, sometimes the tools improve, sometimes there is a paradigm shit in the collective thinking.

For example, if you and I are right and the Arctic does collapse this year and it doesn't comeback there will be an immediate paradigm shift. The old guard might not simply die of old age (although many may die due to the chaos). In that case the science will change because the evidence is overwhelming.

Also, there is a lag in science. Events must happen first, then data is collected and studied. Extensive writing and verification happens and then the results are published.  This sometimes takes years. It may very well be that later this year and in the years afterward the accuracy of the models improve enough to predict if and when the Arctic will collapse. The capacity of the models to improve over time also makes them a better guess than yours.

I'm not interested in proving anything to others.  I'm only interested in preventing people from pretending something totally unproven is truth and trying to use that to influence others.

I am more afraid of technical fixes than I am of what I expect to happen if we do nothing.

Gray-Wolf

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 551
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #38 on: March 19, 2017, 05:23:21 PM »
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281967%29024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

This from 1967 seems to still pass muster???

I think the Paid deniers boxed clever over the worst of the Asian dimming knowing that The naturals were already on a cool footing? Now we are back out of that period and into aggressive warming everything looks fine again with us now outstripping model projections ( wiggles both above and below the trend line show the natural variability?).

Do you think we will be causing the same kind of issues now that the naturals favour warming and so boost yearly temps as the Paid deniers did over the years they fell short? I think not. models were always more of a route map than a moment by moment projection of what will come to pass and they have been doing just fine in that role whilst fools argue over their minutia.......
KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
 
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Archimid

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 346
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #39 on: March 19, 2017, 06:00:54 PM »
I'm not interested in proving anything to others.  I'm only interested in preventing people from pretending something totally unproven is truth and trying to use that to influence others.


These are contradicting statements. How are you going to prevent people from "pretending something totally unproven"? You must convince them. The only civilized way I know to do that is by proving to them that you are right. So you are either contradicting yourself  or your method to stop people is uncivilized.

I am more afraid of technical fixes than I am of what I expect to happen if we do nothing.

That sounds to me like people that are afraid of vaccines but embrace homeopathy.

 You must understand that we are not doing nothing. Our fossil fuel energy use, rampant deforestation and intensive agriculture are consuming and changing the planet whether we like it or not. We seem powerless to stop it. There are too many people making too much money, and the threat seems too distant to do anything about. We are already engineering the planet, if you count randomly braking shit as engineering.

If you and me are right and the Arctic goes this year and doesn't come back I can almost guarantee you that we will regret not having done whatever we could while there was time. 
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2964
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #40 on: March 19, 2017, 06:23:19 PM »
Did you really expect me to spend 2 hours???

I most certainly do, if that's how long it takes.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #41 on: March 19, 2017, 07:20:31 PM »
Being an admirer of Paul Feyerabend, I am probably a bit more relaxed about hard and fast definitions of science than some on this thread. Feyerabend maintained that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself.

At the moment, I'm not so interested in notions of verification, "the old guard" & etc but whether the quote posted by AbruptSLR has any credence...

"Scientists are now saying it might already be too late to avoid a temperature rise of up to 7.36 degrees Celsius (13.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
That's way above the upper limit of 4.8 degrees Celsius (8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2014, and to make matters worse, a new study suggests that we're underestimating just how sensitive Earth is to greenhouse gases.

Climate models are useful for these predictions but do CMIP5 models consistently underestimate because of "missing feedbacks": Is this why the paleo based models ALSR quotes show a much more dangerous future than the models.

The presence of these known "missing feedbacks" makes me want to sympathise with a bit of Jim Williams opener
The inner workings of climate models are rarely discussed in the media, even by science reporters; as such, these pieces of software are fundamentally mysterious to most members of the public.

It took me much effort to get a statement on missing feedbacks from a UK government department (That was the Department of Energy and Climate Change - just before they were abolished). This was another example of why I do not unreservedly trust all climate scientists working for (or closely with) UK government.

If Masson and Knutti were really successful in making climate models more transparent it would be a leap forward - but is it a leap that is possible?  If, for the average citizen, the questions we ask were still hard work, it would make it easier for trusted experts to advise us. (e.g. Is the increase in forest fires adequately covered in Model ?A)


P.S. I was asked to take some photos at an event yesterday, which gave me the opportunity to speak to an ex Secretary of State of the department that sponsored the Met Office & Hadley Centre. In office, he hadn't seen the problem of undue influence from his department but did comment on the role of HM Treasury - but I've heard that before. I wasn't completely reassured by what he said. The department is very keen on economic growth & business continuity and growth increases climate change.  (Lord Stern once said that if it’s a race between growth and the environment, growth will always win.)

P.P.S. OK, "All model are wrong, but some useful". Actually aren't most to them useful?
However, could we say "All CMIP5 models are useful but nearly all underestimate our problem"?

P.P.P.S. If the models do underestimate, do we play into the deniers' hands by admitting it?
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1797
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #42 on: March 19, 2017, 07:34:21 PM »
GB wrote that ASLR quoted:
"Scientists are now saying it might already be too late to avoid a temperature rise of up to 7.36 degrees Celsius (13.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.


Wow. I missed that one, Geoff. Could you or ASLR or anyone provide the linky?

ETA: Ah, I think I found it. I supply it here in case others are curious: http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-say-it-could-already-be-game-over-for-climate-change
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1592
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #43 on: March 19, 2017, 08:17:38 PM »
GB wrote that ASLR quoted:
"Scientists are now saying it might already be too late to avoid a temperature rise of up to 7.36 degrees Celsius (13.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.


Wow. I missed that one, Geoff. Could you or ASLR or anyone provide the linky?

ETA: Ah, I think I found it. I supply it here in case others are curious: http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-say-it-could-already-be-game-over-for-climate-change

A different commentary on the paper
https://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/apocalpyse-now.html

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #44 on: March 19, 2017, 09:21:12 PM »
Did you really expect me to spend 2 hours???

I most certainly do, if that's how long it takes.

No wonder I tend to ignore you when you say anything other than pure direct data.  You are asking me to waste my time before giving me a reason to waste it.

Don't you understand economics at all???????

Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #45 on: March 19, 2017, 09:24:35 PM »
I'm not interested in proving anything to others.  I'm only interested in preventing people from pretending something totally unproven is truth and trying to use that to influence others.


These are contradicting statements. How are you going to prevent people from "pretending something totally unproven"? You must convince them. The only civilized way I know to do that is by proving to them that you are right. So you are either contradicting yourself  or your method to stop people is uncivilized.

I am more afraid of technical fixes than I am of what I expect to happen if we do nothing.

That sounds to me like people that are afraid of vaccines but embrace homeopathy.

 You must understand that we are not doing nothing. Our fossil fuel energy use, rampant deforestation and intensive agriculture are consuming and changing the planet whether we like it or not. We seem powerless to stop it. There are too many people making too much money, and the threat seems too distant to do anything about. We are already engineering the planet, if you count randomly braking shit as engineering.

If you and me are right and the Arctic goes this year and doesn't come back I can almost guarantee you that we will regret not having done whatever we could while there was time.

We are uncivilized.  Learn that.


If I am right, then nothing I/we do now makes a bit of difference.  The war was lost 200 years ago.


Jim Williams

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2017, 09:34:14 PM »
Being an admirer of Paul Feyerabend, I am probably a bit more relaxed about hard and fast definitions of science than some on this thread. Feyerabend maintained that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself.

At the moment, I'm not so interested in notions of verification, "the old guard" & etc but whether the quote posted by AbruptSLR has any credence...

"Scientists are now saying it might already be too late to avoid a temperature rise of up to 7.36 degrees Celsius (13.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
That's way above the upper limit of 4.8 degrees Celsius (8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2014, and to make matters worse, a new study suggests that we're underestimating just how sensitive Earth is to greenhouse gases.

Climate models are useful for these predictions but do CMIP5 models consistently underestimate because of "missing feedbacks": Is this why the paleo based models ALSR quotes show a much more dangerous future than the models.
...

I don't know what AbruptSLR has to say, but I say they have as much credence as any other predictions we have for more than about 10 days into the future right now.

I don't know which climate models you are talking about, but the models receiving all the funding seem to have less skill than some which are being panned by "The Scientists."  Can't say that I see any of them as better than casting bones so far.

(Note: some of the seasonal models are beginning to show signs of life.)


Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3264
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2017, 10:09:36 PM »
If I am right, then nothing I/we do now makes a bit of difference.  The war was lost 200 years ago.

Great, so the only reason you post here, is to vent your frustrations. That's not the intended use of the ASIF, so any more denier-mirror Dunning-Kruger BS or disrespect shown to people who engage with you and take the time to refer you to stuff (the 'herd' of persecutors), and I'm putting you under moderation.

Your actions and what you say don't match. A true doomer wouldn't be wasting time on some obscure forum. He'd be listening to Bach and reading Tolstoy. Go punch a bag or something.

Normally I'd PM this, but I've let this go on for long enough.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 189
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #48 on: March 19, 2017, 10:22:44 PM »
Did you really expect me to spend 2 hours???

I most certainly do, if that's how long it takes.

No wonder I tend to ignore you when you say anything other than pure direct data.  You are asking me to waste my time before giving me a reason to waste it.

Don't you understand economics at all???????

When one posts provocative or controversial statements on a public forum, you take up the time of dozens of people who may feel a need to investigate, refute, or refine the assertions.
Yes, you DO have a responsibility to take the time to read the background of the matter, think carefully about it, and craft a thoughtful message before posting.  All else is trolling.

Archimid

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 346
    • View Profile
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #49 on: March 20, 2017, 01:06:48 AM »
We are uncivilized.  Learn that.

This is a civil forum. If you are not at least attempting civility, then you are just trolling. I think that the only reason you are still receiving comments is because you have made insightful statements before. Most anybody else would have been silence by now.

It also appears as if you are 100% sure, no place for uncertainty, that the Arctic will collapse this year. We differ in that respect. I know that I could be wrong. Actually I still think that the most likely outcome is that the ice recovers for at least a few more years.  I only give it 30%-50% chance for the ice to go. Last year I gave it a 10% to 30%.

I also think that there is much that can be done to save much of what we have. I recommend you to not lose hope, maybe that is why you seem to have fallen in despair.  Even if the worst comes there is hope.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.