SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
Recommended by:
Brumar89
Joe Btfsplk
Jorj X Mckie
TimF
To: RetiredNow who wrote (751988)11/10/2013 5:18:45 PM
From: Bilow4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 1575607
 
Hi mindmeld; Since you're obviously quite stupid, I'll explain the IPCC report to you. The paragraph of interest is:

The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2}

Obviously you don't want to think about the second sentence, the "differences between simulated and observed trends". It doesn't help your case much. So you deny it's important.

Let's take a more careful look at the first sentence. The simulations show a trend that agrees with the observed trend from 1951 to 2012. You apparently find that very convincing. What does it really mean? How difficult is it to write a simulation that agrees with the climate data from 1951 to 2012? Heck that's 50 years of predictions! Anyone who can do that surely is a genius! They've got to be Nobel prize-winning caliber! That will convince Freeman Dyson that climate science isn't junk! (See en.wikipedia.org )

But the simulations weren't written in 1951. Let's assume they were written in 1990.

What do you think any researcher would do if his 1990 simulation didn't match the trend from 1951 to 1990?

That's right, he would [tell his graduate student to] change his simulation. The simulations that failed don't get published.

So the researchers change their simulations until they match the data from 1951 to 1990. And since most of the years between 1951 and 2012 are also between 1951 and 1990, it's hardly surprising that the simulations "agree with the observed trend". Let me rewrite that phrase for you: "are not wildly incompatible with the observed trend", because that's all that simulations can do. If they match within the error bars for the data, they are not incompatible.

In short, the climate models succeeded in approximating the past but failed in approximating the future.

-- Carl
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News