What are your thoughts on “A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans?”?

Dirac is actually correct about the models being predictions and not real world. I have posted mounds of peer reviewed research showing:

1. Extreme weather events globally have declined/leveled, some since 1850.

2. There are more trees globally today than 35 years ago.

3. Most areas show polar bears are thriving.

4. Etc. etc.

Dirac being "worried" however, is not grounded in science, but his own personal beliefs and values.

You can either follow actual observation, science, and reality. Or, you can do your own personal hand wringing.

As Dirac says, the existing models do produce different results from one another. That should be a red flag.

Also, the way models are retained is also an issue. Why would you keep a model that constantly under-performed? A cynic would suggest that it might produce the right answer one day and at that point the "scientists" can point to that model and say "we were right!"

The current process is to average the results and present that as a "projection".

The first rule of modelling is that the model is ALWAYS wrong.

Models are theories and subject to continual change. That doesn't mean they're wrong - gravity still works even though we don't have a single consistent model (theory) that derives the law of gravity and with what we do know about gravity, we can navigate space just fine even though our model is incomplete.

My thought = It's about time.

We need someone whose expertise and evidential testimony

will be the rocket propelled grenade that many of us have wanted

to fire at the climate-p~ssies who think that their image of concern

and unfounded claims are not to be argued with.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" - George Box

People have some wrong ideas about climate modelling. Like, they are supposedly the only evidence that we have that adding carbon dioxide will cause warming. That is wrong. We know that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will cause warming because carbon dioxide absorbs some of the infrared that Earth sends into space.

We should not rely on models being perfect. But, we must never presume that questions about models are "good news." Perhaps reality might not be as bad as models predict, but reality can just as easily be worse than models predict.

"Dr. Nakamura accuses the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming."

He is either lying or is ignorant of the processes as to how adjustments to the temperature record are made.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq...

In 2013 Nakamura predicted a cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere starting around 2015, given that September 2019 was 0.57 Celsius hotter than the historical average -- on a par with September 2016, it's safe to say he doesn't exactly have much climate cred.

You can talk about climate models til the cows come home but you can't deny the fact that certain molecules absorb and emit radiation causing heating.

More horseshit probably, you should probably stop being so gullible

Models are not perfect--that why they're models and not reality. Clearly there are good reasons for not having absolute confidence in the models, since they don't all agree with each other. Personally I think information from models gives us our "best guess" at future climate, but no doubt things will be a bit different. I find it odd that he expects a 0.5 C rise from a doubling of CO2, since that's already been exceeded. Does he mean that much more increase? Also, if he doesn't believe in the models, where does he get that number, did he divine it?

Personally, I think models are overemphasized also. There is a lot of uncertainty about what will happen, but that should not give us comfort--if anything, it should make us even more worried. According to the article, Nakamura doesn't dispute the possibility of catastrophic warming. What it comes down to is that we are running a planet-wide experiment on the climate of the only place we live, with unknown consequences. The models are our best guess at what might happen, but there is no guarantee that things might not be much worse, precisely due to the nonlinearities that bother Nakamaura.

EDIT: The troll Horse gives a list of examples, the first of which is too vague to mean anything, and the second two pretty much irrelevant to the problem. He has given more specific examples asked to his science-deficient echo chamber--the worst kind of peer review. If he'd like true feedback he needs to give specific examples and open up his questions to everyone.

As for his statement "Dirac being "worried" however, is not grounded in science, but his own personal beliefs and values", that is false. The models--even the crude ones of Hansen, produced decades ago--are remarkably accurate. We also know that even small changes in the global mean temperature have big effects. We see ice melting, sea level rising, changes in phenology. This is all before the nonlinear effects have really kicked in. The science definitely tells us we need to be worried

He also gives an out-of-context quote from the late Joanne Simpson, which ignores that in her essay she specifically stated that we SHOULD be taking action against climate change.

More and more whistle blowers are coming out with the truth, I like it where he says, “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public,”. That statement is right on, I love it!!

Cool story, bro.....