Comments on: Climate Model Validation http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:03:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: klausB http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html/comment-page-1#comment-3855 klausB Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:07:54 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html#comment-3855 @Jennifer, @An Inquirer Personally, I do take a different approach: I do take GISS, HadCrut, RSS and UAH monthlies and plot them from the current month, back as far No Trend is there. The sum - in months - is increasing since about 2.5 years. Another way is: getting the rate-of-change - I compare the monthly value to the same month in previous years and take the difference. Then you get the change on a currently existing trend - if it's getting stronger, weaker and no change. By God, are the trends getting weak. Just a suggestion: Try it with CO² global monthly mean data from: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_gl.txt Just my IMHO: the ROC may turn neutral within five to seven years @Jennifer,
@An Inquirer
Personally, I do take a different approach: I do take GISS, HadCrut, RSS and UAH monthlies and
plot them from the current month, back as far No Trend is there. The sum – in months – is
increasing since about 2.5 years.
Another way is: getting the rate-of-change – I compare the monthly value to the same month in previous years and take the difference. Then you get the change on a currently existing trend – if it’s getting
stronger, weaker and no change. By God, are the trends getting weak.
Just a suggestion: Try it with CO² global monthly mean data
from: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_gl.txt
Just my IMHO: the ROC may turn neutral within five to seven years

]]> By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html/comment-page-1#comment-3841 hunter Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:07:28 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html#comment-3841 What you have neatly summed up in one graph is a perfect illustration of the non-falisfiable nature of AGW. What you have neatly summed up in one graph is a perfect illustration of the non-falisfiable nature of AGW.

]]> By: Chickawawa http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html/comment-page-1#comment-3834 Chickawawa Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:43:31 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html#comment-3834 I think climate change is nonsense. I mean, if the FSM church can come up with a theory that makes it work, anyone can. I think climate change is nonsense.
I mean, if the FSM church can come up with a theory that makes it work, anyone can.

]]> By: An Inquirer http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html/comment-page-1#comment-3832 An Inquirer Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:29:34 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html#comment-3832 How could GMT not be a meaningful concept? For several reasons: First, if my head is in the oven, and my feet are in the freezer, the average temperature might be acceptable. Turn up the oven’s heat, and turn down the freezer’s cold, and the average stays the same, but I get worse. Second, if we have an average, should there be equal weight given to each geographical area? We know that GISS would like to do this, but temperature records do not exist to make this possible. GISS makes some heroic assumptions to accomplish this, but those assumptions are most suspicious. Also, the number of reporting stations has fallen drastically over periods of time, which makes equal weighting especially difficult. Third, the temperature for each geographical spot is not measured in a consistent method over the years. This, in addition to human influence, prompts the computer gymnastics. I would highly recommend you read up on the process of what happens to a raw temperature reading on its way to a GISS contribution. (If at one point in time, temperature readings are rounded to the nearest degree, we are supposed to get excited about a tenth-of-a-degree movement?) Fourth, the results of the computer gymnastics are often counter-intuitive. Consider Central Park in New York City where actual temperatures have been flat to declining over the years, but the adjustments show an upward trend. I have other thoughts, but for sake of time, I will move on. It is not that I would simply rely on anecdotal evidence and disregard instrumental reading. In fact, the anecdotal evidence that the 30s had hotter summers than the 90s does agree with the actual instrumental readings with which I am familiar. It is the temperature estimates produced by computer gymnastics that do not. Anecdotal evidence and temperature readings do suggest that the last 30 years have been warming, so I -- and climate skeptics – have no problem in saying that the U.S. has been in a warming trend for decades. (In fact, mainline skeptics have no problem in saying that CO2 does have some impact on temperatures but disagree on the issues such as magnitude, positive feedbacks, and run-away scenarios.) What I do not know is whether the 90s were hotter than the 30s. Certainly the climate/weather impact on agriculture was far more disastrous in the 30s. If I – or others -- have not addressed any of your questions, I apologize, but I run off. By the way, I do believe that your questions were good and politely asked. How could GMT not be a meaningful concept? For several reasons: First, if my head is in the oven, and my feet are in the freezer, the average temperature might be acceptable. Turn up the oven’s heat, and turn down the freezer’s cold, and the average stays the same, but I get worse. Second, if we have an average, should there be equal weight given to each geographical area? We know that GISS would like to do this, but temperature records do not exist to make this possible. GISS makes some heroic assumptions to accomplish this, but those assumptions are most suspicious. Also, the number of reporting stations has fallen drastically over periods of time, which makes equal weighting especially difficult. Third, the temperature for each geographical spot is not measured in a consistent method over the years. This, in addition to human influence, prompts the computer gymnastics. I would highly recommend you read up on the process of what happens to a raw temperature reading on its way to a GISS contribution. (If at one point in time, temperature readings are rounded to the nearest degree, we are supposed to get excited about a tenth-of-a-degree movement?) Fourth, the results of the computer gymnastics are often counter-intuitive. Consider Central Park in New York City where actual temperatures have been flat to declining over the years, but the adjustments show an upward trend. I have other thoughts, but for sake of time, I will move on.
It is not that I would simply rely on anecdotal evidence and disregard instrumental reading. In fact, the anecdotal evidence that the 30s had hotter summers than the 90s does agree with the actual instrumental readings with which I am familiar. It is the temperature estimates produced by computer gymnastics that do not.
Anecdotal evidence and temperature readings do suggest that the last 30 years have been warming, so I — and climate skeptics – have no problem in saying that the U.S. has been in a warming trend for decades. (In fact, mainline skeptics have no problem in saying that CO2 does have some impact on temperatures but disagree on the issues such as magnitude, positive feedbacks, and run-away scenarios.) What I do not know is whether the 90s were hotter than the 30s. Certainly the climate/weather impact on agriculture was far more disastrous in the 30s.
If I – or others — have not addressed any of your questions, I apologize, but I run off. By the way, I do believe that your questions were good and politely asked.

]]> By: vindsavfuktare, avfuktare för kallvind http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html/comment-page-1#comment-3824 vindsavfuktare, avfuktare för kallvind Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:42:37 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html#comment-3824 Jennifer, you say "Why doesn’t a 60-70 year oscillation show up in the instrumental climate record? ". If you look at the curves from hadcru and giss, there is a very clear trend of a 60 year oscillation superimposed on an upward trend. I cannot see how you can fail to identify this? The 60 year oscillation also means that - if it continues - the upward trend during the last 30 years was aided by the cyclical trend and will now be dampened by that oscillation. Jennifer, you say “Why doesn’t a 60-70 year oscillation show up in the instrumental climate record? “. If you look at the curves from hadcru and giss, there is a very clear trend of a 60 year oscillation superimposed on an upward trend. I cannot see how you can fail to identify this? The 60 year oscillation also means that – if it continues – the upward trend during the last 30 years was aided by the cyclical trend and will now be dampened by that oscillation.

]]> By: Mike Davis http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html/comment-page-1#comment-3822 Mike Davis Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:42:11 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html#comment-3822 Jennifer according to nasan faq page for sat data they feel that we need minum 50 year data to determin climate. I disagree. Due to the cyclic nature of weather we would need to determin the length of the longest cycle and have accurate records for a minum of three cycles. I understand that the AMO Or the NAO could be as long as 80 years. I agree that there is nothing that can falsify the models as they have already falsified each other. Based on the fact that if none of the models are good enough to stand alone for the IPCC theory then combining them is just piling junk upon junk. GIGO Ray: concider your self a Realist. I no longer think of the other group that belives in agw as anything but Alarm Bell Ringers and will use the phrase ring that bell when conversing with them. So all of you that belive that we are getting warmer: Ring That Bell Jennifer according to nasan faq page for sat data they feel that we need minum 50 year data to determin climate. I disagree. Due to the cyclic nature of weather we would need to determin the length of the longest cycle and have accurate records for a minum of three cycles. I understand that the AMO Or the NAO could be as long as 80 years.
I agree that there is nothing that can falsify the models as they have already falsified each other. Based on the fact that if none of the models are good enough to stand alone for the IPCC theory then combining them is just piling junk upon junk. GIGO
Ray: concider your self a Realist. I no longer think of the other group that belives in agw as anything but Alarm Bell Ringers and will use the phrase ring that bell when conversing with them.
So all of you that belive that we are getting warmer: Ring That Bell

]]> By: papertiger http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html/comment-page-1#comment-3820 papertiger Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:09:49 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html#comment-3820 <i>Why would you characterise necessary calibrations as ‘computer gymnastics’?</i> Because the surface stations often turn up in close proximity to barbeque pits, and the calibrations add artificial heating to a system which should be corrected for a century of unremitted encroachment by UHI, while also rewriting the pre 1970 history to make the past colder. Why would you characterise necessary calibrations as ‘computer gymnastics’?

Because the surface stations often turn up in close proximity to barbeque pits, and the calibrations add artificial heating to a system which should be corrected for a century of unremitted encroachment by UHI, while also rewriting the pre 1970 history to make the past colder.

]]> By: bill-tb http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html/comment-page-1#comment-3818 bill-tb Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:43:42 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html#comment-3818 So are you saying when all you have left is lies, you lie? Works for me. Remember, the hardest thing for government to say is the three little words -- "we don't know". There was a day when science was open, methods and conclusions were openly debated and discussed. Now we hide data, obfuscate results and try and convey a conclusion not supported by fact. The new age is upon us. I suggest that modern science take up where we once were, and take to the blog to become open once more. So are you saying when all you have left is lies, you lie?

Works for me. Remember, the hardest thing for government to say is the three little words — “we don’t know”.

There was a day when science was open, methods and conclusions were openly debated and discussed. Now we hide data, obfuscate results and try and convey a conclusion not supported by fact. The new age is upon us.

I suggest that modern science take up where we once were, and take to the blog to become open once more.

]]> By: Ray http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html/comment-page-1#comment-3815 Ray Sat, 20 Dec 2008 00:42:30 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html#comment-3815 <p>I don't like the label skeptic because it conveys that we are not totally sure that the AGW theory is flawed. However, the AGW advocates have transcended beyond data to embracing beliefs. This defines mysticism as opposed to science so it would be appropriate for us to label them as mystics. In the world of science, I prefer being called a skeptic over a mystic any day.</p> I don’t like the label skeptic because it conveys that we are not totally sure that the AGW theory is flawed. However, the AGW advocates have transcended beyond data to embracing beliefs. This defines mysticism as opposed to science so it would be appropriate for us to label them as mystics. In the world of science, I prefer being called a skeptic over a mystic any day.

]]> By: Jennifer http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html/comment-page-1#comment-3814 Jennifer Sat, 20 Dec 2008 00:19:08 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/12/climate-model-validation.html#comment-3814 <p>Demesure: you misunderstand. Plotting 30-year trends for two different periods of different climate behaviour does not tell us that 30 year trends are not robust, it tells us that the climate behaviour was different between the two periods. Change your start and end dates by one year in each phase, and you'll get the same result.</p> <p>An Inquirer: I am sure we agree about ten year 'trends', but I wouldn't say just be suspicious - I'd say disregard them entirely. I have a number of questions for you, because quite honestly I don't understand the statements you are making or what evidence you are basing them on. How could global temperature not be a meaningful concept? Why doesn't a 60-70 year oscillation show up in the <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/offset:0.1/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:240/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:240/offset:0.1" rel="nofollow">instrumental climate record</a>? How could you trust anecdotal evidence over instrumental data? Can you quantify 'much more extreme'? Why would you characterise necessary calibrations as 'computer gymnastics'? Do you think there is an 'upward trend' in the US temperature record? What makes you believe the instrumental record is not reliable?</p> Demesure: you misunderstand. Plotting 30-year trends for two different periods of different climate behaviour does not tell us that 30 year trends are not robust, it tells us that the climate behaviour was different between the two periods. Change your start and end dates by one year in each phase, and you’ll get the same result.

An Inquirer: I am sure we agree about ten year ‘trends’, but I wouldn’t say just be suspicious – I’d say disregard them entirely. I have a number of questions for you, because quite honestly I don’t understand the statements you are making or what evidence you are basing them on. How could global temperature not be a meaningful concept? Why doesn’t a 60-70 year oscillation show up in the instrumental climate record? How could you trust anecdotal evidence over instrumental data? Can you quantify ‘much more extreme’? Why would you characterise necessary calibrations as ‘computer gymnastics’? Do you think there is an ‘upward trend’ in the US temperature record? What makes you believe the instrumental record is not reliable?

]]>