Maunder minimum

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Then I read the following link and found out this whole thing is senseless. One of the first models was close, but with the wrong co2 level estimate it is clear they have no idea how much co2 warms the climate. Carbon brief does seem to be biased despite their claims otherwise though.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/10/how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/

Did you post the wrong link? This article is clearly not from Breitbart or the Daily Caller. It is a well-reasoned (and referenced) analysis of the accuracy of climate models, and the conclusion is that there is a "close match between projected and observed warming since 1970."

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.

Climate models since 1973 have shown 'close match' between projected and observed warming. 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.

The "wrong co2 level estmate" thing you refer to has little to do with the accuracy of climate models themselves, it is a reflection of the difficulty in predicting how much CO2 we will be emitting 40 years in the future. Of course, this is not physics or climate, but rather socioeconomics and geopolitics. You can't expect climate models to predict that accurately; thus, the range.

As per our earlier discussion, the climate models that have been the most accurate in the past are predicting the most warming in the future.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You did provide me with a number of links, a very large number! That is the problem.

no, the problem is you apparently don't read and understand and accept even just one of them.
No amount of evidence against your opinions will ever be enough for you. You will just demand more and then when we give you that more you just say, like you did here, it is too much to bother to read (real reason; don't want truth).

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Did you post the wrong link? This article is clearly not from Breitbart or the Daily Caller. It is a well-reasoned (and referenced) analysis of the accuracy of climate models, and the conclusion is that there is a "close match between projected and observed warming since 1970."
[quote]Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful ...[text shortened]... been the most accurate in the past are predicting the most warming in the future.

Scroll down to the list of climate models and see how most of them were off quite a bit. I'm not sure why they omitted the first example in the article, but most of them were more than 10% off.
I wonder if these examples are with or without changes to the data like the daily caller link included. Remember how changes were made to erase the 40% error to be less? It could happen the other way around too.
Also, why are they claiming so many of those climate model predictions are accurate when their own graph states otherwise? You did read the whole article, right?
It seems such an early climate model (Sawyer 1973) couldn't be right by anything other than chance when subsequent models fared much worse. Isn't it supposed to work the other way around?

Also, the article says this:

"The models used in the projections vary in complexity, from simple energy balance models to fully-coupled Earth System Models."

I didn't notice any specific indication as to which of those two models were used. Can you tell me?

Do you see now how this is very complicated and endlessly debatable?

Originally posted by @humy
no, the problem is you apparently don't read and understand and accept even just one of them.
No amount of evidence against your opinions will ever be enough for you. You will just demand more and then when we give you that more you just say, like you did here, it is too much to bother to read (real reason; don't want truth).

Yes, that fact that I cannot read an article without a subscription proves I can't understand what I don't read. You are a frigging genius. Just keep telling yourself that and you will believe it.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Scroll down to the list of climate models and see how most of them were off quite a bit.'

I read through the whole article (including the figures and tables). I would not have commented otherwise. What I pasted above is the overall conclusion from the authors.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I didn't notice any specific indication as to which of those two models were used. Can you tell me?

Do you see now how this is very complicated and endlessly debatable?

Yes (This article is clearly a comparison of different models that are detailed in each section.) Each model type is subsequently explained in detail and charted alongside observed values.

No. As I was reading I kept waiting to hear the "systematic overestimation of warming" data and "it is clear they have no idea how much co2 warms the climate" but is is nowhere in the article, and certainly nowhere in the scientific literature I have seen. Yet, when you posted it, that is what you said the article demonstrated. Clearly, you are projecting your own conclusions that the data do not support.

The article makes it very clear that this is not endlessly debatable. Questions can be answered. There are of course remaining questions that can be asked and answered about our climate. Because it is complex, we often rely on scientists who spend their entire lives engaged in it. We don't rely on one or a handful, but thousands of scientists around the world independently collecting data, asking and answering questions, formulating new hypotheses that might explain this or that aspect of the system, attending academic conferences to present their work and answer tough questions from other scientists who disagree, returning to the lab to try to pin down and further solidify their conclusions.

The conclusion (again, pasted above) from 46 years of climate modeling is "a close match between projected and observed warming since 1970."

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Yes (This article is clearly a comparison of different models that are detailed in each section.) Each model type is subsequently explained in detail and charted alongside observed values.

No. As I was reading I kept waiting to hear the "systematic overestimation of warming" data and "it is clear they have no idea how much co2 warms the climate" ...[text shortened]... years of climate modeling is "a close match between projected and observed warming since 1970."

A close match? They say that, but their own data says otherwise. I could say the same thing about any figures that are grossly inaccurate. Does that make it so? Hell no!
You and sonhouse both were okay with the unspecific criteria of 10% yet only one of the models reaches that. By your own criteria you have failed.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You and sonhouse both were okay with the unspecific criteria of 10% yet only one of the models reaches that. By your own criteria you have failed.

10% of what? For how long?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
A close match? They say that, but their own data says otherwise....

Where? How does this data defend your statement that "it is clear they have no idea how much co2 warms the climate" ?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
10% of what? For how long?

I said that, not any of you.

It seems no matter how grossly inaccurate a model prediction is guys like you will say they are accurate enough. FAIL!

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Where? How does this data defend your statement that "it is clear they have no idea how much co2 warms the climate" ?

The models can't predict with accuracy. That is how. Isn't that obvious?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
The models can't predict with accuracy. That is how. Isn't that obvious?

I'm doing my best to avoid ad hominem attacks here, but..... what? You wanted us to read an article that presented a very logical and well-referenced analysis of climate models over many decades of analysis and refinement. It concludes precisely the opposite of what you just said, and you haven't articulated any argument that invalidates their conclusion. What are you doing here?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I said that, not any of you.

It seems no matter how grossly inaccurate a model prediction is guys like you will say they are accurate enough. FAIL!

Yes I know but we agreed it is meaningless so why bring it up again. 10% over a 46 year period would mean models deviated by less than 2.2% per decade, 0.22% per year, and appear to be improving over time. Three of the models predicted slightly less warming than actually occurred, throwing your "systematic overestimation" argument right out the window. And, they make the important point that, since they had to guess CO2 emissions in n the future as well (and often guessed wrong), inputting the correct CO2 concentrations improved model accuracy. That throws your other argument about "they have no idea how much CO2 warms the climate" thing out the window too. Did you see those trend lines? Yowza! Looks pretty darn accurate to me.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I'm doing my best to avoid ad hominem attacks here, but..... what? You wanted us to read an article that presented a very logical and well-referenced analysis of climate models over many decades of analysis and refinement. It concludes precisely the opposite of what you just said, and you haven't articulated any argument that invalidates their conclusion. What are you doing here?

30% off and you agree with their conclusion? Are you insane?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
30% off and you agree with their conclusion? Are you insane?

yes, and no.

Did you read the article you posted? We've had a dozen posts discussing it but it doesn't appear you know the content. The climate model from 1970 overestimated the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions post-2000. As you can clearly see, it was remarkably precise up until about the year 2000 (25 years of forecasting). Lucky for us, atmospheric CO2 levels have not increased as much as they thought in 1970, accounting for the overestimation of warming in very recent years. More recent iterations of the models usually will account for several different scenarios for human carbon emissions over time.

Broecker’s projected warming was reasonably close to observations for a few decades, but recently has been considerably higher.
This is mostly due to Broecker overestimating how CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations would increase after his article was published.

What about the models that underestimated global warming? Are they part of the systematic overestimation scheme you so confidently describe?