[Vision2020] The scientific debate on climate change: 67 comments

[Paul Rumelhart]

The point is that the climate models are predictions, and those predictions are not turning out well in precise areas, and that means they have a problem.  They should be comparing the predicted data with the observed data and trying to find out exactly where they are wrong.  Are they inflating the positive feedback values for clouds?  Are they not putting enough emphasis on solar changes?  Are they not taking ENSO into account, are they not taking the jet stream into account?  Whatever the problem is, if they want skeptics to accept their climate models as accurate, they have to show how well they predict future data.  This isn't some kind of egregious task set before them, it's basic science.  Their climate models are in effect hypotheses, and the observations will either validate those hypotheses or fail them.

So why, when you do a google search for climate models vs. observations, do you turn up mostly Spencer and Curry's work, but not that of more mainstream climate scientists?

Paul




________________________________
 From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>; Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The scientific debate on climate change: 67 comments
 


Is the point that it might take an extra generation for the polar ice caps to melt? When you are talking about climate change I fail to see how "less dire" isn't still DIRE.




On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

The observations I'm talking about are temperature measurements.  They tend to be much less dire than the predictions.  Here is one example: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
>Cc: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>; Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:52 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The scientific debate on climate change: 67 comments
> 
>
>
>Observations? Skeptic observations? What is the observable data you allude to?
>
>On Jun 18, 2013, at 4:48 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>That's cute.  If you erased the words "SKEPTIC MODELS" and replaced them with "OBSERVATIONS" and then drew, say, the Incredible Hulk in the other corner it might be a funnier cartoon.  Or maybe Iron Man, or even the boxing kangaroo from the old bugs bunny cartoons.
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
>>To: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:24 PM
>>Subject: [Vision2020] The scientific debate on climate change: 67 comments
>> 
>>
>>
>>http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=15488
>>
>>The scientific debate on climate change
>>Filed under: 
>>	* Climate Science
— david @ 24 May 2013 
>>by Jill and David Archer
>> -----------------------------------------
>>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>=======================================================
>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>>
>>
>=======================================================
>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130619/eb7b9c1c/attachment-0001.html>