NYTs: FAQs and Answers on Climate Change (error, problem, best)

[Citizen401]

Originally Posted by Matadora

I have done no such thing. You just need to improve your reading skills and learn how to understand what others are posting.

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.

Get it now?

Lets review.

You hopefully understand that climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun.

You hopefully understand that this is a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events.

Which is why it is always difficult to predict future behavior of a system which is transitioning from stable to unstable. Back testing / hindcasting shows that the model works when the system was more stable. As the system begins to become unstable, there are new factors that come into existence that weren't significant factors in the past. For climate, it might be massive releases of methane as arctic tundra warms up. This didn't happen in the past and probably wasn't important in the model in the past. The model must be updated to include these new factors.

The take away is:

All models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting so to make them more reliable. AND

Computer Climate Models have successfully reproduced temperatures since the 1900's globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

You’ve now gone from contradicting yourself on the same page to contradicting yourself in the same post.

That’s not an improvement.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Citizen401

You’ve now gone from contradicting yourself on the same page to contradicting yourself in the same post.

That’s not an improvement.

Until you can point out my posts that show contradictions I will take this as simply another one of your disingenuous ploys.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Citizen401

That’s because they haven’t, if we’re talking anterospective modeling.

Care to define "anterospective" modeling? Never heard of this term.

Originally Posted by Citizen401

There’s more than enough verifiable evidence CMIP phase 5 is fraught with inaccuracies.

Fraught with inaccuracies?

Originally Posted by Citizen401

This study calculates 30 W/m^2 spurious variation in CMIP-5. That’s a very big margin of error.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2015GL063239

The models needed tinkering barely a few years after phase 5 began to correct for discrepancies right out of the gate. This is the latest fiddle for CMIP-5. The RF adjustments are at the top.

And you are posting this study to try and make your case?

Do you realize that this study is only looking at one tiny parameter of data that the CMIP-5 simulations report?

Are you aware that there are at least 45 distinct CMIP5 models?

So when you make the blanket statement that "There’s more than enough verifiable evidence CMIP phase 5 is fraught with inaccuracies" are you referring to all 45 CMIP5 models? Or only some of the models as the study you linked stated? Can you tell use exactly which models performed well and which ones showed bias?

It appears you are cherry picking once again and are not fully disclosing all the facts. I don't think you fully understand the objective of the study you linked.

You also posted 2 graphs with no link as to where you obtained those graphs and no explanation of what those graphs were representing. The right thing would have been to link the source to those graphs and then make your case vs. making a sweeping broad statement about CMIP5 being fraught with inaccuracies.

Being that I have no hidden agenda I will be happy to provide the link explaining those graphs.

Updates to Climate Driver Modles

Now lets take an objective look at this data and see what we can logically conclude.

Have you ever heard the term "garbage in equals garbage out"?

Could that be what those graphs are depicting?

Did the CMIP5 models do a reasonably good job at simulating surface temperatures in the 20th Century?

Sure they did.

How about the 21st Century? They appear to be running a bit on the warm side.

Instead of jumping to an immediate reaction that the models are overestimating recent surface warming...instead one might be inclined to ask why are the models estimating warmer temps in the 21st Century when they did a reasonable job of simulating the 20th Century temperatures?

Now let's look at the paper you failed to link your graphs to. Schmidt (2014), shows that the presumed forcings input into the model simulations, especially over the latter period could be the problem.

When utilizing the climate models to project future surface temperature trends certain presumptions have to be made because of external influences on the climate system.

These presumptions are:

• industrial greenhouse gas emissions have to be estimated
• estimates on the behavior of solar radiation from the sun
• the amount and distribution of light-scattering aerosols in the atmosphere from both natural and human-made sources.

"Based on new observations, improved satellite retrievals, and reanalysis of older data, Schmidt (2014) discovered that the models overestimated the short-term cooling effect of the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991, and underestimated the cooling effect of increased volcanic eruptions, industrial pollution, and weaker-than-expected solar radiation in the 21st century.

In comparison with the NASA surface temperature dataset, about 33% of the discrepancy in the last 16 years between the CMIP5 multi-model mean and Schmidt (2014) arises due underestimated volcanic emissions, around 15% due to weaker solar activity and El Niño/La Niña timing, and 25% due to industrial pollution."

Source: Schmidt (2014): Replacing CMIP5 Estimates With Better Ones

Recall that garbage in equals garbage out?

"Rather than the models diverging from reality in recent times, as the CMIP5 models seemed to suggest, it turns out that the data fed into the simulations covering the last two decades was most likely wrong. Of course, this is not going to be the last word on the matter as the uncertainty of the size of the cooling effect of aerosols remains very large. Future observations and improved analysis could either enlarge or reduce the discrepancy further - only time will tell. As it currently stands, when corrected for the cooling and warming influences on Earth's climate, the climate models demonstrate a remarkable agreement with recent surface temperature warming trends."

Source: CMIP5: The Warming That Never Was?

It pays to actually read the study from the 2 graphs that you posted.

[Citizen401]

Originally Posted by Matadora

Care to define "anterospective" modeling? Never heard of this term.
Fraught with inaccuracies?


And you are posting this study to try and make your case?

Do you realize that this study is only looking at one tiny parameter of data that the CMIP-5 simulations report?

Are you aware that there are at least 45 distinct CMIP5 models?

So when you make the blanket statement that "There’s more than enough verifiable evidence CMIP phase 5 is fraught with inaccuracies" are you referring to all 45 CMIP5 models? Or only some of the models as the study you linked stated? Can you tell use exactly which models performed well and which ones showed bias?

It appears you are cherry picking once again and are not fully disclosing all the facts. I don't think you fully understand the objective of the study you linked.

You also posted 2 graphs with no link as to where you obtained those graphs and no explanation of what those graphs were representing. The right thing would have been to link the source to those graphs and then make your case vs. making a sweeping broad statement about CMIP5 being fraught with inaccuracies.

Being that I have no hidden agenda I will be happy to provide the link explaining those graphs.

Updates to Climate Driver Modles

Now lets take an objective look at this data and see what we can logically conclude.

Have you ever heard the term "garbage in equals garbage out"?

Could that be what those graphs are depicting?

Did the CMIP5 models do a reasonably good job at simulating surface temperatures in the 20th Century?

Sure they did.

How about the 21st Century? They appear to be running a bit on the warm side.

Instead of jumping to an immediate reaction that the models are overestimating recent surface warming...instead one might be inclined to ask why are the models estimating warmer temps in the 21st Century when they did a reasonable job of simulating the 20th Century temperatures?

Now let's look at the paper you failed to link your graphs to. Schmidt (2014), shows that the presumed forcings input into the model simulations, especially over the latter period could be the problem.

When utilizing the climate models to project future surface temperature trends certain presumptions have to be made because of external influences on the climate system.

These presumptions are:

• industrial greenhouse gas emissions have to be estimated
• estimates on the behavior of solar radiation from the sun
• the amount and distribution of light-scattering aerosols in the atmosphere from both natural and human-made sources.

"Based on new observations, improved satellite retrievals, and reanalysis of older data, Schmidt (2014) discovered that the models overestimated the short-term cooling effect of the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991, and underestimated the cooling effect of increased volcanic eruptions, industrial pollution, and weaker-than-expected solar radiation in the 21st century.

In comparison with the NASA surface temperature dataset, about 33% of the discrepancy in the last 16 years between the CMIP5 multi-model mean and Schmidt (2014) arises due underestimated volcanic emissions, around 15% due to weaker solar activity and El Niño/La Niña timing, and 25% due to industrial pollution."

Source:Schmidt (2014): Replacing CMIP5 Estimates With Better Ones

Recall that garbage in equals garbage out?

"Rather than the models diverging from reality in recent times, as the CMIP5 models seemed to suggest, it turns out that the data fed into the simulations covering the last two decades was most likely wrong. Of course, this is not going to be the last word on the matter as the uncertainty of the size of the cooling effect of aerosols remains very large. Future observations and improved analysis could either enlarge or reduce the discrepancy further - only time will tell. As it currently stands, when corrected for the cooling and warming influences on Earth's climate, the climate models demonstrate a remarkable agreement with recent surface temperature warming trends."

Source: CMIP5: The Warming That Never Was?

It pays to actually read the study from the 2 graphs that you posted.

This post is mess. Your reasoning is literally all over the place.

You admit that climate models have been running on the warm side. Then you immediately contradict yourself by denying that models have been overestimating trends. You then contradict yourself again by citing explanations for why models have been overestimating trends. You need to make your mind up what it is you actually believe, because this whole post is an incoherent jumble of disorganised, self-conflicting ideas.

All CMIP-5 models are affected by the RF updates so that’s not “cherry picking”. You seem to like this term a lot, but misuse it in most cases. Also global surface temperatures are not “one tiny parameter”. That’s the central, pivotal variable the coupled model project is geared to examine and predict from its very foundations.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Citizen401

This post is mess. Your reasoning is literally all over the place.

You admit that climate models have been running on the warm side. Then you immediately contradict yourself by denying that models have been overestimating trends. You then contradict yourself again by citing explanations for why models have been overestimating trends. You need to make your mind up what it is you actually believe, because this whole post is an incoherent jumble of disorganised, self-conflicting ideas.

Actually it's not all over the place...it flows perfectly and demonstrates that you did not do yourself any good in trying to prove that ALL CMIP-5 simulations are "fraught" with inconsistencies.

BTW can you answer the questions I have asked you? I have asked you so many questions that you just dodge and evade.

Let's try again. Care to define "anterospective" modeling? Never heard of this term.

Originally Posted by Citizen401

All CMIP-5 models are affected by the RF updates so that’s not “cherry picking”.

Then do explain why you linked a study that does not support this...you like moving the goal posts I see.

You use the exact same tactics that creationists use when trying to dispute the Theory of Evolution. Are you creationist?

Originally Posted by Citizen401

You seem to like this term a lot, but misuse it in most cases.

That's exactly what you did in posting that study, you cherry picked a study to try and support that ALL CMIP-5 models are bad. That study only applied to a few CMIP-5 models.

Originally Posted by Citizen401

Also global surface temperatures are not “one tiny parameter”. That’s the central, pivotal variable the coupled model project is geared to examine and predict from its very foundations.

LOL that study did not include coupled model simulations to assess the climate impact on surface temperature. From the study you linked: "We did not carry out coupled model simulations to assess the climate impact on surface temperature of the different algorithms,..."

It's clear to me that you really don't know what that study was about. Here let me make it very clear for you.

Here is the Abstract from that study. Is it now clear to you what that study was about?

Abstract

Annual incident solar radiation at the top of atmosphere should be independent of longitudes. However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results. This oscillation is also found in the Community Earth System Model. We show that this feature is caused by temporal sampling errors in the calculation of the solar zenith angle. The sampling error can cause zonal oscillations of surface clear‐sky net shortwave radiation of about 3 W/m2 when an hourly radiation time step is used and 24 W/m2 when a 3 h radiation time step is used.

No contradictions at all. It's just that you don't interpret what you read very carefully.

[Citizen401]

Now let's look at the paper you failed to link your graphs to. Schmidt (2014), shows that the presumed forcings input into the model simulations, especially over the latter period could be the problem.

One other thing you need to be consistent on is whether Schmidt et al. is a reputable source or not. You can’t say in one post that it’s “not validated” (whatever that means) because it’s only a “commentary” then cite it to support your position in another post. The best description of it would be that it’s more of a review article. It covers a broader topic and a longer list of citations than the usual commentary. Commentaries tend to be critiques of single studies or limited sets of studies covering a controversy or discourse.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Citizen401

One other thing you need to be consistent on is whether Schmidt et al. is a reputable source or not. You can’t say in one post that it’s “not validated” (whatever that means) because it’s only a “commentary” then cite it to support your position in another post.

You need to pay closer attention to what I post. I never stated anything you just posted.

You are the one who claimed it was a "verified" paper. All I asked was you to explain to me what a "verified" paper was since I've never heard of a paper being called that.

Funny that now you are trying to question that paper but YOU are the one who posted the graphs from it to try and prove your point. LOL

You don't know which way is up...that's for sure!

Originally Posted by Citizen401

The best description of it would be that it’s more of a review article. It covers a broader topic and a longer list of citations than the usual commentary. Commentaries tend to be critiques of single studies or limited sets of studies covering a controversy or discourse.

Nope it's a commentary...just as Research Gate posted it as a commentary.

Commentary

Looks like you need to update your understanding on what a scientific commentary is.

What is a commentary? The goal of publishing commentaries is to advance the research field by providing a forum for varying perspectives on a certain topic under consideration in the journal.

Guidelines for writing a commentary

[Citizen401]

Originally Posted by Matadora

Actually it's not all over the place...it flows perfectly and demonstrates that you did not do yourself any good in trying to prove that ALL CMIP-5 simulations are "fraught" with inconsistencies.

BTW can you answer the questions I have asked you? I have asked you so many questions that you just dodge and evade.

Let's try again. Care to define "anterospective" modeling? Never heard of this term.
Then do explain why you linked a study that does not support this...you like moving the goal posts I see.

You use the exact same tactics that creationists use when trying to dispute the Theory of Evolution. Are you creationist?
That's exactly what you did in posting that study...that study only applies to a few CMIP-5 models. Also that study did not include coupled model simulations to assess the climate impact on surface temperature. It's clear to me that you really don't know what that study was about. Here let me make it very clear for you.

Here is the Abstract from that study. Can you now tell us what that study is about?


From the study you linked: "We did not carry out coupled model simulations to assess the climate impact on surface temperature of the different algorithms,..."

No contradictions at all. It's just that you don't interpret what you read very carefully.

“Flows perfectly”

In this post you’re referring to the solar radiation study. I’m talking about the RF update, which all applies to all models.

I’m guessing you’ve had a go at trying to understand the solar radiation study and come up blank. It’s not too difficult if you overlook the jargon. It shows that something went wrong with some of the models when calculating the time function on the solar zenith angles resulting in these wavelike zonal artifacts. Not all models are affected but still enough to cause statistically significant errors when you run averages of the models. 30 W/m^2 is a very big range of error.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Citizen401

“Flows perfectly”

In this post you’re referring to the solar radiation study. I’m talking about the RF update, which all applies to all models.

That's right it flows pererctly in rebuttal to what you posted.

I know you like moving the goal posts....this is an age old creationist tactic. 2nd time asking you. Are you also a creationist?

Ok now for the 3rd time asking you. Care to define "anterospective" modeling? Never heard of this term.

Also are you now clear on what a commentary is?

You posted a lot on nonsense but I wanted to make sure that you are clear on what the study you linked to try and prove that ALL CMIP5 models are "fraught with inaccuracies". Are you now clear on what that study was actually about?

[Citizen401]

Originally Posted by Matadora

You need to pay closer attention to what I post. I never stated anything you just posted.

You are the one who claimed it was a "validated" paper. All I asked was you to explain to me what a "validated" paper was since I've never heard of a paper being called that.

Funny that now you are trying to question that paper but YOU are the one who posted the graphs from it to try and prove your point. LOL

You don't know which way is up...that's for sure!


Nope it's a commentary...just as Research Gate posted it as a commentary.

Commentary

Looks like you need to update your understanding on what a scientific commentary is.

What is a commentary? The goal of publishing commentaries is to advance the research field by providing a forum for varying perspectives on a certain topic under consideration in the journal.

Guidelines for writing a commentary

I’ve not mentioned anything about a “validated” paper. You need to point out where I said this. The NCBI article says that commentaries should be about “a focal article”. ie. like a critical review. Schmidt et al is a bit more than that, but you can call it a commentary if you want. Who cares about semantics like this as long as the article is properly sourced, has proper references and is peer reviewed?