[late]

Why have climate models, even old ones, been able to do fairly well in predicting the average world temperatures we see today?

Most computers are not kooks.

[Steve_American]

Why have climate models, even old ones, been able to do fairly well in predicting the average world temperatures we see today?

They do fairly well when they are given the correct concentrations of GHGs, over the time since they were finalized. I say finalized because they only had the correct data to enter up until then, then they were published months later.

All their predictions were made based on the author's best prediction of how much GHGs humans and natural forces, like huge forest fires, would release into the air. Because the authors were always somewhat wrong, their predictions were a little wrong.
.

[late]

Then why do actual physical events keep proving me right

The American Academy of Sciences, way back in the 1970s, said we needed to start making the transition away from a carbon fuels.

Again, in science, climate change has never faced a serious challenge.

You don't do science, you do propaganda. Or crazy. I used to think you were part of Koch's troll army. Having seen your position on other subjects, I am beginning to question that..

[Truth To Power]

The American Academy of Sciences, way back in the 1970s, said we needed to start making the transition away from a carbon fuels.

We do because they will eventually be exhausted, and events of the 1970s showed their supply is too easily disrupted.

Again, in science, climate change has never faced a serious challenge.

Right: everyone knows that climate changes, and has always changed. Some people just like to pretend they do not know that.

You don't do science, you do propaganda. Or crazy.

I have identified the scientific facts that show I am correct.

I used to think you were part of Koch's troll army. Having seen your position on other subjects, I am beginning to question that..

Why bother questioning your unsupported prejudices? They have served you perfectly well in relieving you of the responsibility of thought.

[Truth To Power]

Why have climate models, even old ones, been able to do fairly well in predicting the average world temperatures we see today?

They haven't. They have consistently overestimated future temperatures. Claims to the contrary are based on dishonestly cherry picking the models that predict the least warming, and comparing them to cherry-picked temperature records that show the most warming.

[wat0n]

They haven't. They have consistently overestimated future temperatures. Claims to the contrary are based on dishonestly cherry picking the models that predict the least warming, and comparing them to cherry-picked temperature records that show the most warming.

That doesn't seem to be the case from what I can see here:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-ho ... l-warming/

[late]

We do because they will eventually be exhausted, and events of the 1970s showed their supply is too easily disrupted.

Not what they said, but then all we expect from you is fiction.

[Truth To Power]

That doesn't seem to be the case from what I can see here:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-ho ... l-warming/

That is an example of what I said.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power is a conspiracy theorist when it come sto anthropogenic climate change, with all the intellectual and logical problems that go with that.

Besides, he has already won insofar as world governments and major corporations will do almost nothing until they are forced to by circumstances.

[late]

That is an example of what I said.

Nope, it's an example of what I said.. warming has *never* faced a serious challenge.

You are a fake.

[wat0n]

That is an example of what I said.

What do you mean? The only model that did so, towards the end of the projection, was the oldest one from 1975 (because it didn't consider a lag between the built up of CO2 concentrations and temperature changes). The others seem to be relatively spot on for the most part.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power is a conspiracy theorist when it come sto anthropogenic climate change, with all the intellectual and logical problems that go with that.

The climategate emails and ample other evidence have proved the "conspiracy" is real. Some academic publishers have even gone so far as to adopt a policy of rejecting unreviewed scientific papers that challenge the CO2 climate narrative.

Besides, he has already won insofar as world governments and major corporations will do almost nothing until they are forced to by circumstances.

They are already doing more to reduce CO2 emissions than circumstances will ever warrant.

[Truth To Power]

Nope, it's an example of what I said.. warming has *never* faced a serious challenge.

Right, because it is clear that thanks to the recovery of solar activity to the highest sustained level in thousands of years, the earth has warmed substantially since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. Attributing the warming caused by the sun to CO2 emissions is a blatant post hoc fallacy.

[Truth To Power]

What do you mean?

Just what I said.

The only model that did so, towards the end of the projection, was the oldest one from 1975 (because it didn't consider a lag between the built up of CO2 concentrations and temperature changes). The others seem to be relatively spot on for the most part.

They seem to be relatively spot on because they were cherry-picked from a much larger set of models that predicted more warming, and because they were compared to cherry-picked temperature records that show the maximum amount of warming.

[late]

Right, because it is clear that thanks to the recovery of solar activity to the highest sustained level in thousands of years, the earth has warmed substantially since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. Attributing the warming caused by the sun to CO2 emissions is a blatant post hoc fallacy.

"The amount of solar energy Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century."

If it's a choice between NASA scientists, and an internet nut...

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the- ... l-warming/

[wat0n]

They seem to be relatively spot on because they were cherry-picked from a much larger set of models that predicted more warming, and because they were compared to cherry-picked temperature records that show the maximum amount of warming.

Do you have a source I can read? Thanks.

[Truth To Power]

delete

[Truth To Power]

As I have informed you in the past, GIS is one of the most "uppity" global temperature records on the planet, as it massively undercorrects for urban heating effects, land use changes, etc. At the same time, TSI is known to be the worst index of the sun's effect on global surface temperature, as it does not vary enough to account for the known historical relationship between solar activity and temperature. IOW, your graph is bogus, nothing but a deliberate anti-science fraud, like Lyin' Michael Mann's hockey stick graph.

"The amount of solar energy Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century."

The total amount of solar energy is known not to vary enough to account for the known historical relationship between solar activity and global surface temperature. That is why anti-CO2 fraudsters reject, without review, all measures of variation in the type of solar energy the earth receives.

If it's a choice between NASA scientists, and an internet nut...

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the- ... l-warming/

The NASA scientists who are actually scientists have objected to NASA's anti-CO2 narrative political activist nonscience agenda:

https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-sc ... nge-2012-4

[Truth To Power]

Do you have a source I can read? Thanks.

https://www.science.org/content/article ... al-warming

[wat0n]

https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming

It's not too technical, but it is an accepted procedure to underweight or outright ignore bad models. And, yes, averaging many good models can outperform any particular one.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 5919898657