Correct predictions of climate change: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model, Hansen et ai (1988)

submitted by ActuallyNot from pubs.giss.nasa.gov

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]GuyWhite 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

The major flaw in this model is stated in the last sentences of the introduction. That flaw is the assumption is of constant heat uptake of the oceans. That is a HUGE assumption. And it has since been found to be incorrect.

(I would have copy pasta’d the text from the report, but it wouldn’t let me.)

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes.

It's impressive how accurate modelling in the 1980s has been shown to be, given that it pre-dates coupled land-ocean models.

[–]GuyWhite 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You are too easily impressed.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The HUGE assumption still produced a model that was good for projecting the global mean surface temperature over 40 years into the future.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You can see from figure three of this 2019 paper, that Hansen was spot on in predicting the global warming.

As /u/FullRetard requested seeing more of in this sub.

[–]GuyWhite 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

This shows the Hanson model is WAY OFF. The scale of the graphics suggest close agreement. But with observed warming being 0.2 degrees C per decade, the Hanson models predictions of are about 50% off. One Hanson prediction is about 0.1 degrees C per decade. Another prediction is about 0.3 degrees C per decade.

“Spot on” = 🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

But with observed warming being 0.2 degrees C per decade, the Hanson models predictions of are about 50% off.

The observations are within the 3 scenarios that Hansen ran. Scenario B is closest to actual radiative forcing that occurred, but by different sources from the assumptions he made. It assumed that CO2 emissions would reduce, but the greenhouse gasses limited by the Montreal protocol.

That scenario was amongst the different measurements for 2016. At 2017, it was about 0.1°C high. Given that that is less that the stochastic part of the year-to-year variation in measured temperatures, "spot on" is pretty fair.

Denialists were claiming that temperatures would drop.

[–]GuyWhite 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you throw enough darts at a board, some of them will hit the center. Looks like random luck at predicting the weather to me.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Denialists were claiming that temperatures would drop.

The modelling was band on the nose even in the 80s for the warming that would occur for a given radiative forcing.

Moreover the closest one to observations is the one that assumed the closest radiative forcing to the one that happened.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Climate research is that uncanny ability to roughly estimate global temperatures a few decades away while being almost entirely incapable of predicting the weather a few weeks away and predicting anything 100 years or over being entirely impossible. There are too many variables to be used as predictors and co2 isn't even one of the interesting ones, despite it being the core focus of many 'experts' in the field. Perhaps they'll save the big guns like the sun until later. As with any forecasting methodology, the further you look into the future and the more variables you add, the less accurate your prediction. Just because you get lucky once or twice doesn't make you Mystic Meg, not does it mean you have discovered a great secret in meteorological study. It's a fools game and a waste of resources, critical funding that could be better spent on ensuring people have basics like food, water and housing, or are protected better from actual natural disasters.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Predicting climate is constrained by conservation of energy. Parameters like mean global surface temperature are well estimated by this model and others, well beyond the time range that weather can be predicted.

and co2 isn't even one of the interesting ones, despite it being the core focus of many 'experts' in the field.

CO2 responsible for most of the radiative forcing that is increasing the temperature.

Who are your "experts" that claim that that's not interesting?

Perhaps they'll save the big guns like the sun until later.

There's not a big trend in solar irradiance over the global warming period. It's included in models, but it's not responsible for much warming. It's probably responsible for about 5% of the radiative forcing that CO2 is responsible for.

As with any forecasting methodology, the further you look into the future and the more variables you add, the less accurate your prediction.

And yet even in the 1980s they were spot on. I guess what that shows is that the measurements of how much extra energy the earth was taking in were good, and the modelling of what happens to that energy is not too bad.

It's a fools game and a waste of resources, critical funding that could be better spent on ensuring people have basics like food, water and housing, or are protected better from actual natural disasters.

I enjoy your altruism. But trying to ensure food and water, and finding futureproof sites for housing, and the changing nature, impact and range of natural disasters without modelling climate change is a waste of resources.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

ActuallyNot. Why do we waste time repeating the same discussion over and over for the past 5 years?

I've shared links of esteemed, award winning meteorologists and geologists who counter the extremist view that co2 is responsible for anything other than a response to warmer temperatures, not a cause. Plants love it, if you want food supply, let there by plant food!

I've run through the numbers showing that the co2 level of the earth is 0.04% and that human contribution to that is around 0.002% and that the UK's contribution to that is about 0.00012%, which is literally so insignificant that charging people to drive through a city centre achieves literally nothing.

I've shared evidence that computer models are using distorted data due to omitting normal readings in favour of extreme readings near airports.

I've shared actual weather station data from decades ago that counters the nonsense that it's warmer now than it was before.

I've shared sources that explain your atmospheric temperature readings are less reliable than ground temperature readings.

And yet here you are suggesting we will not have food or water if we don't succumb to globalist government policy to increase energy costs, fund net zero energy sources, and sell off farm land to solar panel firms.

Simply, net zero will reduce fertile land availability, pour toxins into the water supply from battery production, reduce energy uptime due to unreliability of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, and will have no positive impact on our ability to future proof our food supply. Net zero is a con. Meanwhile, nobody cares that China opens several new coal power plants a week, so long as you are forced to pay the highest prices for electricity in the world. How exactly is ruining your country safeguarding the future? It's rubbish.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I've shared links of esteemed, award winning meteorologists and geologists

How esteemed does a petroleum geologist get to be when they're denying the consensus of the scholarly literature, and not publishing in the scholarly literature?

That's not evidence. That's a guy whose employer is paying him to say something he knows is false.

Denialist crackpots have nearly no papers in the scholarly literature. Which is one of the ways that we know that they're crackpots.

who counter the extremist view that co2 is responsible for anything other than a response to warmer temperatures, not a cause.

Around about 100% of scholarly papers have this view that you call "extremist". Do you think that you might have the labels the wrong way around?

You don't know that burning fossil fuels puts CO2 in the atmosphere?

And you think that a response to the warming is to put CO2 in the atmosphere?

So where is the CO2 that is going into the oceans and atmosphere coming from?

You don't know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas ... or you don't know that greenhouse gasses are a cause of the greenhouse effect?

Plants love it, if you want food supply, let there by plant food!

Food production increases for a little bit, up to about 3 degrees of warming, if I recall correctly. But the benefit falls mostly to Canada and Russia. Southeast Asia, The Sahel and the Horn of Africa, where people are starving are already under increased malnutrition from climate change. And after about 3 degrees of warming the loss of arable land overcomes the benefit of CO2 fertilization. So even if Russia does suddenly decide to grow crops in Siberia, and ship the food to Africa ... We're still in trouble.

I've run through the numbers showing that the co2 level of the earth is 0.04% and that human contribution to that is around 0.002%

You're out by over an order of magnitude. That makes the human contribution is around 0.015% Combustion of fossil fuels increased it from the pre-industrial 280ppm to the current 429 ppm. Those are the numbers.

and that the UK's contribution to that is about 0.00012%, which is literally so insignificant that charging people to drive through a city centre achieves literally nothing.

Brilliant!

Anyone who's made less emissions than the UK, which leaves just seven countries, don't have to do anything because their impact is "literally nothing".

And if that doesn't work, we can just break it down into smaller bits than countries. Surely each individual should do absolutely nothing. After all, their emissions are less than the UK!

You're hilarious.

I've shared evidence that computer models are using distorted data due to omitting normal readings in favour of extreme readings near airports.

Computer models don't distort temperature data. Those are measured not modelled.

I've shared actual weather station data from decades ago that counters the nonsense that it's warmer now than it was before.

Okay. So you don't believe that the globe has warmed.

You don't believe that species ranges are moving towards the poles.

You don't believe that glaciers are in retreat.

You don't believe that the sea level is rising.

You don't believe there mass loss in the sea ice.

Because that's a hell of a lot of information that you've missed.

You don't believe the instrumental temperature record, nor the satellite record, nor the measurements of the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere showing that the earth is warming, nor the observations that the upper atmosphere is cooling and the observations that it is shrinking.

How have you managed to stay away from all that information?

And yet here you are suggesting we will not have food or water if we don't succumb to globalist government policy to increase energy costs, fund net zero energy sources, and sell off farm land to solar panel firms.

Straw man. Don't claim I am suggesting things that I didn't suggest.

Simply, net zero will reduce fertile land availability, pour toxins into the water supply from battery production, reduce energy uptime due to unreliability of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, and will have no positive impact on our ability to future proof our food supply.

Fallacious argument from final consequences. You're also wildly speculating, but even if you weren't this doesn't refute that climate models have been remarkably accurate.

Net zero is a con

Global warming isn't.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

scholarly literature

You lost me at this. Seriously 🙄 so your professor is better than my professor because I like my professor more than yours and people like me like the professor too? This is your argument?

Computer models don't distort temperature data.

A model is only as good as the data you input. Omit data you don't like and you get a different resilt. You are proving yourself to be a retard, and you should probably retire. If you don't understand basic concepts in statistical analysis, perhaps you shouldn't comment so frequently about climate data.

Okay. So you don't believe that the globe has warmed

I don't believe temperature fluctuations on a planetary scale of one degree over decades amounts to anything noteworthy. Let us know if all the volcanoes erupt or the sky falls, otherwise you're wasting everyone's time. The Earth is billions of years old and has changed a lot, it's been warmer and colder. It doesn't mean much.

I've read many of your climate change posts over the years, you usually just regurgitate popular magazine talking points and go with whatever choice of data most supports your argument at that given time even if it is unreliable, such as your phase of using atmospheric data which is less reliable than surface data to avoid addressing the problem of manipulates data, just because it's more likely to support your climate emergency ideology. The planet is not going to die in 2 years from now, polar bears are not in decline, it's better to not be in an ice age than be in an ice age, and yes, I think the weather is being used as a global warming con.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

scholarly literature

You lost me at this. Seriously

Herein lies your problem.

so your professor is better than my professor because I like my professor more than yours and people like me like the professor too? This is your argument?

Not remotely.

The people who are studying and publishing on climate change know it's real. The denialists are not studying or publishing. They're making webpages and blogs.

You do find petroleum geologists, and Nobel laureates out of their field of expertise, and way past their use-by date that have been sucked into the denialosphere. But no one who is publishing in the field.

A model is only as good as the data you input. Omit data you don't like and you get a different resilt.

Do you know what a model is?

I think you're thinking of an equation.

A GCM uses equations based on the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology to describe the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, and ice. The temperature at an airport isn't an input to the model. It might affect the initial state of the model before its run. But the sensitivity to the temperature at one grid is negligible.

You are proving yourself to be a retard, and you should probably retire. If you don't understand basic concepts in statistical analysis, perhaps you shouldn't comment so frequently about climate data.

Oh the irony.

I don't believe temperature fluctuations on a planetary scale of one degree over decades amounts to anything noteworthy.

That's not what you said. You said "the nonsense that it's warmer now than it was before."

If you haven't missed all the evidence from so many fields of study that show the world is warming, why did you say that it's "nonsense" that the world is warming?

It makes people think you're an idiot and you have waste time backing down like this.

Let us know if all the volcanoes erupt or the sky falls

There's no relevance to volcanoes nor falling skies.

otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.

Oh, the irony.

The Earth is billions of years old and has changed a lot, it's been warmer and colder.

That's right. By digging up carbon from the long dead, we're only returning the climate to a state that it was millions of years ago. So this will only negatively affect humans and ecosystems that exist now. Many of the long extinct ones will be fine. Alas, they're already extinct.

It doesn't mean much.

It's adding up already: Climate change is costing the world $16 million per hour: study

I've read many of your climate change posts over the years

The last 5 years, I read. Which is two more than I've been here.

The surface data is more reliable. I mention the satellite data because it shows that the surface data is not significantly distorted by the single station effect you want to focus on as if such this have any real effect.

The planet is not going to die in 2 years from now

True, and another straw man.

polar bears are not in decline

Not proven, and if it is true, it is because rebounding from overhunting is dominating the loss from increased starvation from decreased sea ice.

it's better to not be in an ice age than be in an ice age

True and irrelevant.

I think the weather is being used as a global warming con.

Meaning, again that you think the globe isn't warming?

You don't believe that species ranges are moving towards the poles.

You don't believe that glaciers are in retreat.

You don't believe that the sea level is rising.

You don't believe there mass loss in the sea ice.

How do you maintain such ignorance of what's happening?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Nice WEF study

authors Noy and Rebecca Newman

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What are you alluding to?

Newman is at the Reserve Bank on New Zealand.
Noy is a Professor of Economics and hold the Chair in the Economics of Disasters and Climate Change at the nearby Victoria University.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm offended that you dont know me better by now.

  1. They sound like KIKES
  2. They sound like they are married

Therefore... this is a bullshit 'science paper' created as propaganda for the KikES at the kikey WEF

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Rebecca Newman is not married to Ilan Noy. "Newman" is a Germanic Anglo Saxon Name.

Iian Noy did do his undergraduate at the Hebrew University, in Jerusalem. And his doctorate at University of California, Santa Cruz.

Dragging the discussion down to blatant racism is way too much. Get out of here.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Herein lies your problem.

No, herein lies the problem of modern academia. You have previously claimed that only the most peer reviewed studies are worthy of note, which means nothing more than citation and cliques of woke, far-left, youngsters who love popular science are sprouting the same rubbish and people like you soak it up. Universities are full of toxic left wing ideology now, you'd get kicked out or lose your tenure for going against the mainstream narrative. Besides, you pick and choose who you want to read, ignoring studies from people who've been in the field for decades and raised questions about the use of dodgy climate models that exaggerate the state of things.

The people who are studying and publishing on climate change know it's real.

Then this isn't science. Science is the study of things, not the writing of "things people claim to know is real".

Do you know what a model is?

Forecasting. Try it, open PowerBI, run some numbers, do some logistical regression, bit of Holt-Winters exponential smoothing, do some t.tests, get your p-values, adjust your error variance. Climate models are just forecasts, and they are inherently unreliable. Don't test me on this because you are trying to say that forecasting is something it isn't. A data model is a guess based on some data you feed I to it, and many of these models are setup for worst case scenario.

There's no relevance to volcanoes nor falling skies.

So you don't believe in volcanoes, natural disasters or the fa t they are a bigger danger to your scary co2?

True and irrelevant

Not irrelevant, you only speak of global warming when discussing climate change. Ice age is more likely and more dangerous to our species.

How do you maintain such ignorance of what's happening?

I open my eyes and see people subjected to propaganda and lies every day, and then some, like you, repeat it over and over and over, trying to get others to believe the hype too. Like COVID and 9/11. You're a puppet. There are literally papers on how the governments are using psychological manipulation to keep you in a state of fear and panic, to worry all the time and believe things are worse than they really are All this to make you a good citizen, pay your taxes, get a heat pump, get an electric car, CONSUME.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You have previously claimed that only the most peer reviewed studies are worthy of note

Peer review has it's flaws. But it the best system we have.

If you're trying to get obvious bullshit past the public, say young earth creationism, flat earth, iridology or climate change denial, you're going to need to rely on sources that are not peer reviewed, because although you may be able to couch your pseudoscience in a veneer of science sounding terms and science sounding approaches, you're not going to fool anyone in the field for 30 seconds.

Then this isn't science. Science is the study of things, not the writing of "things people claim to know is real".

It absolutely is. Science often reaches a consensus amongst people who study a particular field. For instance the world isn't flat, gravitation is a curved timespace phenomenon and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And then they still go one and study further into new unknowns. They've merely established the basic facts ... which almost invariably opens up the opportuning for more study: As the island of the known grows, so does the shoreline of the unknown.

Forecasting.

Not generally, no. The Hadley centre use the same model for forecasting as climate modelling, but they're the only ones.

Try it, open PowerBI, run some numbers, do some logistical regression, bit of Holt-Winters exponential smoothing, do some t.tests, get your p-values, adjust your error variance.

Has someone set up a powerbi interface to a weather model ... or a GCM? Do you have a link?

Climate models are just forecasts, and they are inherently unreliable.

No. They're not weather forecasts. If you inquire what days will have how much wind or rain, or what temperatures will be where, they will be unreliable and sensitively dependent on the model initialization.

But for climate variables such as global mean surface temperature, they have been reliable for 40 years. As the top post shows.

The reason for this should be clear, if you try to understand: To get the global mean surface temperature correct you need to get the energy flows correct only. Because conservation of energy is a constraint. So if you know how much energy the earth is taking in more than radiating out at the top of the atmosphere, which is a largely a function of the greenhouse effect and the earth's albedo, all you need to model correctly is how fast that energy is propagating into the oceans (and to a far lesser extent the crust). And you will get the increase in the global mean surface temperature correct.

So you don't believe in volcanoes, natural disasters or the fa t they are a bigger danger to your scary co2?

What?

I certainly believe in volcanoes and natural disasters.

What I said was letting you know if all the volcanoes erupt or the sky fall has no relevance to the accuracy the climate models have shown.

Not irrelevant, you only speak of global warming when discussing climate change. Ice age is more likely and more dangerous to our species.

There's no risk of a coming glaciation, hence irrelevant.

Your other claim is unlikely. The last glaciation finished 10,000 years ago. Every existent ecosystem and practically every existent species survived through it, including ours. The current climate has not been this warm for millions of years, so nothing has had to live through this warming. And there is where you find risks.

I open my eyes and see people subjected to propaganda and lies every day,

You realise that you've argued in the one comment above that

  • The warming isn't happening, because science is wrong.
  • The warming is good, because ice ages are bad.
  • Volcanoes and natural disasters. You don't saying anything about them. But you raise them as if it's an argument.

You realise that those first two points are contradictions?

You haven't even got a coherent position. You're merely repeating everything in the denialosphere, no matter how inconsistent, like a shotgun using bullshit for ammunition.

So it's kind of laughable that you think the scientific one is "propaganda"

You're a puppet.

Oh, the irony.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A data model that aims to project or predict is a FORECAST.

Your misunderstanding of my position is profound. My stance is that I do not deny that climate changes, but that the study of it is used to hyper exaggerate the risks of climate change to benefit elitist government actors at the detriment of society, not for the benefit of society. It is a political tool to make ordinary people suffer and inflict guilt on those who do what they are encouraged to do which is to live their lives as best they can. You are part of the problem. When those who go so deep into the ideology they cannot believe anything else than human contribution to co2, you are clouded from any other risk to our lives. Oh, what a shame we didn't feed the hungry and house the homeless, but at least we lowered co2 level by 0.00000001% this year at a cost of 40% of our GDP. It's delusional.