He ran a climate model on a supercomputer. How can anyone argue with that?
Warming Climate Signals Big Changes for Ski Areas, Says New Colorado Study
December 15, 2008
Rocky Mountain ski areas face dramatic changes this century as the climate warms, including best-case scenarios of shortened ski seasons and higher snowlines and worst-case scenarios of bare base areas and winter rains, says a new Colorado study.
Their forecasts indicate the “business as usual” scenario will cause average temperatures to rise by nearly 4 degrees Fahrenheit at Aspen and Park City by 2030
At what point do these genius’ look out the window and revise their fantasies ?
“. More than 80 inches of snow have fallen on Aspen Mountain since the chairlifts stopped on April 10.”
http://www.postindependent.com/article/20110520/ARCHIVES01/110519837/1083&ParentProfile=1074
When they can look out their window and discern long term changes.
Then they should STFU because they are not currently able to discern long term changes. They create fantasy Chicken Little scenarios to justify their jobs and secure future funding but they do not know WTF they are talking about.
This article is a good example of that.
Your detailed an quantitative analysis of the shortcomings of climate models will be given all the consideration it is due.
I do modeling professionally. Internal verification of algorithms is important, but the ultimate test of correctness is – can the model *consistently* get the correct answer? A stopped clock is correct twice a day.
Some groups of modelers are perfectly happy to turn a blind eye to the only metric which really matters. When they start getting the right answer, then your point will be relevant.
Daniel Packman
always the propagandists, hey Daniel.
I guess you didn’t take my advice and get out for a change of scenery.
Speaking of unreliable climate models, their results do not match the results of the real world:
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations……. Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement…..being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data…..
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, 2007 Royal Meteorological Society
http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions
Another study finding disagreement between the real world and climate models:
……..Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.
On the Credibility of Climate Predictions
–Published in the Hydrological Sciences Journal, the official journal of IAHS, the International Association of Hydrological Sciences. (All papers submitted to the Journal are peer reviewed by an international panel of Associate Editors and other experts.)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4364173/On-the-credibility-of-climate-predictions
Another peer reviewed work showing climate models are not correct
On video in 2 parts
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk0zTW-ik
If your hypothesis, which is what a climate model is, a hypothesis, doesn’t find verifying evidence in the real world it is wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
Not really! As Steve mentioned, but failed to expand – the only metric these guys care about is money! When that stops then they will look outside the window.
Perhaps then Daniel they will keep their models to themselves for a few more years until they have been proved correct instead of trying to spread alarm.
These people remind me of Donald Camping and his Rapture expectation yesterday.
Paul H
It has become apparent to me that Daniel doesn’t deal with the world the way it is. He lives in some kind political, Democrat model of the world.
@ At what point do these genius’ look out the window and revise their fantasies ?
Never, As Trenberth recently preached the coming climate change rapture has not yet been disproven by science.
“Their forecasts indicate the “business as usual” scenario will cause average temperatures to rise by nearly 4 degrees Fahrenheit at Aspen and Park City by 2030.”
Wild guess – he’ll be retired well before 2030.
He will probably move to Greenland and live on the beach. It will be too hot everywhere else.
An iPad 2 exceeds the capability of the original Cray 2 computer. “Super” computers no longer exist. They are contained in our phones.
Not so sure about that …..
http://top500.org/lists/2010/11/performance_development
All these climate predicting hedgehogs are aptly described in Gardner’s book ‘Future Babble.’
A famous case was the widely-respected historian Arnold Toynbee. Historian Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote of Toynbee’s treatise A Study in History- “In fact, wherever we look, it is the same. Theories are stated- often interesting and suggestive theories; then facts are selected to illustrate them (for there is no theory which some chosen facts cannot illustrate); then the magician waves his wand, our minds are dazed with a mass of learned detail, and we are told that the theories are ‘empirically’ proved by the facts and we can now go on to the next stage in the argument. But in truth this is neither empiricism nor proof, nor even argument: it is a game anyone can play, a confusion of logic with speculation.”
The parallels with Hansen are eerie, with the added issues that Hansen controls and alters historical data to fit his theories, and Hansen controls, directly or indirectly, a large amount of research funding in the climate science field.
This is one reason climate science is rapidly replacing economics as the new ‘dismal science’.
With billions of dollars involved in global warming there’s a lot of people waving that wand.