Why do global warming deniers misrepresent the availability of climate models to the public?

Question

It's been said here that the global warming models are not available to the public. That statement is flat wrong. It no doubt came from repeating denier propaganda from politically biased websites.

It took me all of 5 minutes to find this one. I'm sure there are more available publicly.

Now, I'm very dubious of the technical ability of anyone here (except Trevor) to get this up and running. But it's available, complete with extensive documentation.

http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/

So there it is. Have fun with it. I look forward to proof that global warming is not man made. As does the rest of the scientific community. No one has managed to prove that yet, though many have tried.

campbelp - Next year is called "weather, not climate". They do a reasonable job of modeling the last 100 years.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

To model the ice ages, you should include the very long term Milankovic solar cycles. That's not important here, the cycles are known (in several different ways) to be at a pretty stable point. Solar radiation is modeled, of course, which includes the (very small) current effects of the Milankovic cycles, anyway.

FredHH - Are you seriously claiming that Sim Earth is used by professional climatologists? In peer reviewed papers? Completely absurd. Their actual models are just a touch better .

Scott L - see the link above. Pretty decent modeling. Note that, if you leave off man made greenhouse gases, you can't anywhere near the observed data. It's one reason scientists know that global warming _must_ be due mostly to man made greenhouse gases.

eric c - Thanks for proving my point about global warming deniers misstatements. I guess I need to shout. THE SECOND LINK ON THE WEBSITE IS THE SOURCE CODE.

I guess Dr. Evans can't find it, either.

amancalledchuda - Best not fly in an airplane. They're designed by models these days.

The thing about global warming is that it is so strongly driven by man made greenhouse gases that the models don't have to be perfect to prove it. In statistical jargon the "signal" from man made greenhouse gases is very strong.

There is simply no comparison to the Drake equation. That is oversimplified and the parameters mostly completely unknown. None of which applies to the global warming models.

Do you think thousands of scientists are idiots and don't fully understand the limitations of the models? They know the uncertainties very well. They also know that the models are more than good enough to prove that global warming is mostly man made, to a certainty. It's more than enough to say we need to get started on fixing this, now.

Anyway, I was simply responding to a bit of nonsense about availability that's been repeated here many times, including in this thread.

Answer 1

5 minutes? It took me maybe 2--but I have access to the databases at a major technical university. :)

Why? These "deniers" are basically ignorant--and so probably wouldn't know a cilmate model if they steppped on one. Or they are liaars--in which case that sort of answers your question from the getgo.

Answer 2

Bob,

I feel this is a pretty moot point.

Who cares whether the climate models are available to the public? Can you explain to me why this is important, because I’ve obviously missed something here?

The point is whether or not the climate models can be trusted to give an accurate representation of future climate. I believe that they cannot, because many of the variables used in them are not well understood.

To illustrate why this is important, here’s a quote from Michael Crichton’s Speech “Aliens Cause Global Warming” (http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html )

- - - - - - -

In 1960, [Frank] Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science.

- - - - - - -

So, let’s take a subject like clouds. No one is sure what the net effects of clouds are on temperature. A cloudy summer day is colder than a clear summer day, so the clouds cause cooling, but a cloudy winter day is warmer than a clear winter day, so now the clouds cause warming. So what value do we use for clouds? We guess. And as Crichton correctly points out, a guess is nothing more than an expression of prejudice. If you want to show warming you use a value for clouds (and the other uncertain variables) that will give you a warming result. Hey presto! We’re going to suffer catastrophic global warming. But if you choose values that will bring about cooling then, look out! Ice age on the way!

I know that your response will be that the models have, as you put it, done a reasonable job of modelling the last 100 years, but that’s completely irrelevant. It is a well known fact in forecasting that the ability to model that past, in no way implies that you can accurately model the future. This simple truth seems to be proved by the fact that none of your precious models have predicted that temperatures would stop rising in 2002.

In short, currently, computer models prove absolutely nothing; they are nothing more than “expressions of prejudice”. Unless and until it can be shown that they can accurately forecast what the climate will do for the next 10, or better yet 20, years there is no reason whatsoever to trust them.

Answer 3

I resent you calling us "deniers", with all of the holocaust connotations. It is an insult to those who died in the concentration camps.

Dr David Evans:

"Here’s the second challenge: Make the climate models public. Make a leading climate model, used to
make predictions, fully public, with all the working computer code and all documentation, so that I can
run it on my computer.
I want to inspect your model to see what assumptions were made. I want to see if solar effects such as
cosmic rays were omitted. I want to run your model with different possible inputs, to see what the range
of future temperatures it predicts. I’ll bet that that the model allows for possible scenarios where the
carbon emissions cause only insignificant temperature rises.
I know a thing or two about making contentious models public. I argued with the AGO to make the
source code of FullCAM public. The AGO baulked at that, but it did the next best thing and made the
full specifications and documentation publicly available, and you can run FullCAM on your computer
and put in whatever inputs you please. If the world is to go down the expensive and poverty-causing
route of curbing carbon emissions, the reasons had better be all above board and open to public scrutiny.
So show us your evidence and show us your models."

So according to Evans the
"the source code" is what is being kept a secret. The link you provided only shows the specification and documentation.

So nice try in trying to deceive the public.

Go ahead and criticize Evans for being in the pockets of big oil, but we all know that that is the standard tactic of alarmists to deflect criticisms.

Answer 4

The trend those circumstances/"debates" stick to is actual universal: the textbook distinction is of much less to no magnitude while the assumption is aggressively politicized. no less than, muddying the waters of the priority on the whole serves the objector because of the fact introducing the thought of "doubt" (pretty while all doubt has been erased from the learn, for this reason the findings gaining "medical theory' prestige) is the main significant ploy to those unaccustomed to the priority. working occasion: the theory of evolution - exhaustive learn with the aid of tens of hundreds of scientists over the span of the final a hundred+ years has delivered our wisdom to the area it somewhat is on the instant, yet that wisdom inadvertently steps on the ft of those in the religion based community on unrelated subjects, for this reason the huge backlash against the medical wisdom of evolution. an identical is complete with AGW with the aid of the lobbying potential of the those status to lose the main from our instantaneous would desire to opposite our carbon footprint. In the two circumstances, events exterior of the medical learn community are purely casting doubt with the aid of asserting unprovable issues. that is elementary to perceive.

Answer 5

Wow! You're so smart. Can you tell us what the climate is going to be 6 months from now? How about 1 year, 2 years and 5 years from now? You should because you have computer models that can predict the future.

How successful were you going back in the past? Were you able to see what caused the Medieval Warming Period with these models, or the reason for the little ice age?

Somehow, I doubt it. But your link is very impressive.

Answer 6

I certainly do not say that, but I am not so much a warming denier as a bad consequence denier. Global warming will not damage human life or civilization.

And I claim the models are not reliable. We do not know how to make models that really work. We can't even use them to correctly predict next year's climate accurately and they certainly do not explain the ice ages.

Answer 7

I believe the criticism is that no climate model has effectively predicted PAST behavior, not that there aren't any available.

Basically, a test of a simulation is that it can predict things accurately. If you can't predict the events we know happened using previous information, you can't predict the future using the present information. That's just common sense.

Answer 8

We don't deny that there are climate models available...

We deny that there are REALISTIC climate models available.

The game "Sim Earth" was essentially a climate model... and it predicts global cooling based on pollution and greenhouse gasses and so forth... it was touted as being VERY accurate.... by some of the same scientists that are now supporting global warming...

Which time were they lieing?

Answer 9

can you say "model" boys and girls, thats right mod------els see I knew you could. now can you say Proof? Sure you can. What do they have in common? Nothing.

Answer 10

They aint that much fun to look at with clothes on.