http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/21/chevron-agrees-global-warming/ Chevron uses IPCC report in court to defend themselves and hoaxers now claim it's not a reliable piece of evidence. CVX also showed the models don't work and this led the hoaxers to say but, but, but, but we gots new models. Good ones this time. You can't make this up.
The IPCC comes out with major reports about every 5 to 8 years. I think the last one was in 2014 and they are aiming for 2022 ( 4 years from now) for the next one. One consistent feature of these reports is that all the models fit the past beautifully. This is not a surprise because data from the past is used to compute the values of the adjustable parameters in the models. By the time the reports circulate they are only a little bit off. They get increasingly far off from current data as time wears on. By the time the 2022 report comes out the predictions of 2022 from the 2014 report will be far off, perhaps comically so. Nevermind though. By constantly updating the data fed into the models they can make the new output somewhat resemble actual data from direct observation. But the further one goes back in time the worse the projections of current observations become. In fact , though there has been many changes in the models since the earliest mistakes made by Hanson's lab at GISS, there's been little demonstrable improvement in the accuracy of the models predictions. On the day their predictions are announced they all predict the global temperature about as well as the global observations do. Then it's downhill from there until it is time for the next report to come out, whence the models are pretty good once again for a couple years. By constantly revising the data fed into the climate simulation models they are kept close enough to the observed data to avoid ridicule, however once the data input stops being refreshed their output moves,over time, further and further away from truth. What this is telling us is that there are fundamental flaws in these models. The fundamental flaw is well understood by experts in chaotic systems, but this never seems to get transmitted to the climate modeling community.
Piezoe, they know. Models are only a very small part of climate science anyway. A very large part of climate science is simply collecting & preparing data to have something to work off. Feelding the climate change NRA equivalent idiots like Jem (who really is actually mentally defective, he can't even write and is oblivious to his mental errors) with generalisations like "but this never seems to get transmitted to the climate modeling community" like you know? that is unseemly ego to me. Anyway the beauty of climate change policies is they lead to superior engineering, more with less. Cars are leaps and bounds superior than 20 years ago. We can breath in many cities as a result with even more cars. Battery tech is making big leaps again in 2018, the air is getting cleaner, cars are faster. Where I live is in the Andes, the hills are extreme. I took a BMW i3 for a spin last weekend, it was a rocket of a city car. There is no serious downside to the industry created and the engineering improvements. Windmills can be dismantled/recycled and have a small footprint when we have better answers. Climate change is moving the world's industries as a great pace, war does that also however this seems a nice compromise in a very overcrowded world.
The models, contrary to the opinion of ignorant people, have done very well. The denier machine just keep repeating the lies hoping that if repeated enough they are believed. Piehole above is repeating these lies. One example. Hansen et al, 1981 NASA’s Dr James Hansen and colleagues published a paper in 1981 that also used a simple energy balance model to project future warming, but accounted for thermal inertia due to ocean heat uptake. They assumed a climate sensitivity of 2.8C per doubling CO2, but also looked at a range of 1.4-5.6C per doubling. Conclusion Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account. Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed. Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
I was opposed to us dropping out of the Paris accord. I'm totally with you on all of the good things that come from development of alternatives to fossil fuels, Battery technological advances are fantastic. But as a scientist I strongly object to what is obviously some very bad science. I have written what seems like reams of paper on this topic. I am not inclined to re-hash any of it now. But I have many posts on this topic in recent years which are probably searchable.
Or perhaps even similarly inaccurate. As I noted, the accuracy of the models is highest for tomorrow, less for 6 months from now, and much less for 6 years from now. But if we keep doing this over and over, sooner or later we are going to get a prediction six years out that proves to be right on the money. Even in roulette one wins once in a while.
No. That is your mistake. No one ever said that. In fact the IPCC sea level projections somewhat underestimated the sea level rise.
So I guess that you did not check the link. In fact, your Boogy man Hansen was very accurate. As were most of the models. As I said above, you are wrong, not them.