======
Hareendra –
>>Who said all models are bad?<<
AGW Deniers – from Rush to FOX to the resident Yahoo! yahoos. It is a central tenet of their faith-based political dogma.
>>Models have to be validated.<<
All models are “validated” – a process of model evaluation based on comparisons of model distribution properties and observational data – before they are used.
>>Right now, global warming models have lots of parameterizations, and the results are dependent on the choice of input variables such as how clouds should function.<<
That is how all complex models work – and it is the very reason that model experimentation is used.
You might want to pick a copy this book before attempting to answer any more questions that require knowing something about science and math.
http://www.dummies.com/store/product/Env...
I don't like models generally, but this model is not predicting the future, just measuring the conditions, and as we have no other way to know how cold the weather is at the Arctic I will accept it, because even though it might not be correct, at least it should show year by year differences.
Its a pity they change the model, otherwise we could access changes back to the fifty's.
Science is still having troubles depicting actual temperature anomalies. You know this. The tell-tale sign of all of this controversy about AGW/ACC will soon be found in the mid troposphere. We are having a hard time measuring this accurately except for weather balloon data and you know as well as everyone else that weather balloons have troubles accurately measuring the troposphere.
It still amazes me that science thinks its big enough to accurately describe and accurately analyze the Earth's climate system and be definitive. We've had to revamp our satellite measuring system several times so all we have to rely on is mechanical data and climate models, but ARGO looks promising. Science is still far from getting a grasp on temperature changes since there are so many variables involved.
Considering the natural variations in temperature of the last 1200 or so years (some regions as much as 5C), we do have time to venture forth and get the science right with our newest technologies. A 0.8C rise over the past 133 years is still well within our natural climate variability.
Until then there is no "consensus" on how much human emissions have added to the average temperature of the Planet.
-------------------------------------
In short : Models have been bad at predicting future climate states accurately so get off the "high horse" until we get it right. We've had enough of the alarmists view of things. There's enough interest in the science to move forward, but we can do it working together without alarming the ones who have no clue or don't care to learn the science. Temperatures are not reacting catastrophically.
---------------------------------------
There is a lot of evidence that points to the El Nino of the 1876-1878 period that also caused a great warming. Do you blame that on CO2 also? Remember how many Chinese died during that period? Estimated 13 million.
---------------------------------------
The LIA means nothing to an alarmist even though that lasted several hundred years and was preceded by the MWP which lasted a couple of hundred years itself. There seems to be nothing natural to an alarmist anymore. And that especially means you pegminer!
Who said all models are bad? Models have to be validated. Right now, global warming models have lots of parameterizations, and the results are dependent on the choice of input variables such as how clouds should function.
The only models I have much interest in are swimsuit models. The rest are too easily manipulated and my wife won't let me manipulate any of the models that actually interest me.
I think you answered your question.
Alarmist cant be accused of rhetoric God forbid, they'd become rational. Most if not all extremes promoted by alarmist is weather induced. I'd love if it alarmist philosophy bypassed day to day weather.
All skeptics would love a comparative analogy concerning weather and climate., "Got a handy one in your pocket?" Or make some more BS up. I got my pencil ready.
I don't use computer climate models. I make fun of them and those who use them to make stupid predictions. There hasn't been a single prediction of catastrophic calamity due to the AWG theory based upon a computer model that has come to fruition. Not a single one. In fact the predictions are so bad the AWG fundamentalists are forced to downgrade their dire predictions of doom and gloom several times for each model. Well, it seems they got tired of doing that so instead of predicting that humans are going to destroy the environment in 5 to 15 years like they have been doing they extended that apocalypse to 100 years from now so they wouldn't have to defend the failure of it coming to fruition in their lifetime.
*Edit*
LOL@ all you AWG religious fundamental kool aid drinkers. The only "proof" the AWG proponents have is computer models. None of their models has even come close to being accurate. After all garbage in=garbage out.
I love how the hippie AWG true-believers out there are spouting off about how this last year was the warmest year for 100 years. Will they answer the question of what caused it to be that warm 100 years ago to create the record that was broken? Or why there has been no AWG occurring in the past decade and a half in spite of ever increasing CO2 output?
I guess if AWG causes there to be more hookers on street corners then AWG caused the halt and reversal of global warming and record low temps and record amount of Antarctic sea ice too. I think the only thing AWG causes is a bunch of hysterical anti-social lunatics to concoct ways to destroy every aspect of society with near hallucinogenic visions of their utopian idealistic dogma.
You make a very good argument to remain skeptical about those who claim to know what current conditions of our climate are and an even stronger reason to remain skeptical about their future predictions.
Skeptic do question what they read. These are not skeptics, they believe WUWT because it fits their worldview. you can bet if the same models show warming they would dismiss them.
Because they are completely UNskeptical denier-dupes who recycle whatever they pick up from dumbed-down copies of extracts from Wattup's Rubbish Recycling Bin, without any attempt by (or hope of) their feeble brains comprehending it.
Edit: Have reported the point-grubbing fake answer of "Sakthi"
Recently there have been questions by Kano (twice!0, Sagebrush and Cyclops that all point to the same plot of arctic temperatures and ask why this summer is so cold. The interesting thing, though, is that these are NOT actual measured temperatures they are pointing to, they are output from a numerical weather prediction model--just like all the model output that they're telling us is so bad And the plot does not compare them with directly measured temperatures either, it compares them with ANOTHER model, the ERA40 reanalysis. If that weren't all bad enough, if you go back through the archive of years, the plot from this year that's supposed to show "unprecedented" cold is based on the T1279 resolution, which wasn't used prior to 2010, so the historical "record" is only 4 years long.
