• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Climate Models Even More Wrong

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There is a new generation of climate models. They do not represent improvement.

New climate models – even more wrong

Posted on 05 Nov 19 by PAUL MATTHEWS • Leave a comment
The IPCC AR5 Report included this diagram, showing that climate models exaggerate recent warming: If you want to find it, it’s figure 11.25, also repeated in the Technical Summary as figure TS-14. The issue is also discussed in box TS3: “However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period … Continue reading →

The IPCC AR5 Report included this diagram, showing that climate models exaggerate recent warming:

If you want to find it, it’s figure 11.25, also repeated in the Technical Summary as figure TS-14. The issue is also discussed in box TS3:
“However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error.”
​
Well, now there is a new generation of climate models, imaginatively known as CMIP6. By a remarkable coincidence, two new papers have just appeared, from independent teams, giving very similar results and published on the same day in the same journal. One is UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model, with a long list of authors, mostly from the Met Office, also announced as a “New flagship climate model” on the Met Office website. The other is Structure and Performance of GFDL’s CM4.0 Climate Model, by a team from GFDL and Princeton. Both papers are open-access.
Now you might think that the new models would be better than the old ones. This is mathematical modelling 101: if a model doesn’t fit well with the data, you improve the model to make it fit better. But such elementary logic doesn’t apply in the field of climate science. . . .
Even alarmist climate scientist and BDS-sufferer James Annan is scoffing at the paper’s claims, suggesting that it should say “UKESM1 does a great job at everything other than its primary function”.
Are these Met Office climate muddlers really so self-deluding that they think it shows good agreement? Yet again, Feynman deserves the last words:


 
Last edited:
I don’t really care what the skeptics put up.

The role of the extractive industries in keeping these memes active is well known.

I suspect that they’ll make more noise as the money starts to dry up.

And the money will dry up.

Wall Street, the investment community, the auto industry and the electric power generation industries have all made their decisions.

The future belongs to renewables and battery farms.
 
Modeling is always much better at accounting for the past and existing data than it is in predicting the future.
 
Drawdown said:
Modeling is always much better at accounting for the past and existing data than it is in predicting the future.
Click to expand...

We use it in most of science
 
Drawdown said:
Modeling is always much better at accounting for the past and existing data than it is in predicting the future.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Climate modeling is just fluid dynamics- the results depend on what you input, and if you make up what you input (which they do since clouds cant be predicted in advance) then its just a fantasy, which is why all their predictive climate models have been proven wrong.
 
PoS said:
Pretty much this. Climate modeling is just fluid dynamics- the results depend on what you input, and if you make up what you input (which they do since clouds cant be predicted in advance) then its just a fantasy, which is why all their predictive climate models have been proven wrong.
Click to expand...

It is not a point a care to argue with the climate cultist, but there has been enough criticism that I take as seriously concerning in that the data sets and models have become contaminated with modeled data passed off as raw data to fill in the gaps in "global" readings, particular when it comes to ocean water temps and things south of the equator. I argue for more research and more real world field gathered information. That is all when it comes to climate. I don't have much confidence that we know nearly as much as we pretend to know about global climate history.
 
Drawdown said:
It is not a point a care to argue with the climate cultist, but there has been enough criticism that I take as seriously concerning in that the data sets and models have become contaminated with modeled data passed off as raw data to fill in the gaps in "global" readings, particular when it comes to ocean water temps and things south of the equator. I argue for more research and more real world field gathered information. That is all when it comes to climate. I don't have much confidence that we know nearly as much as we pretend to know about global climate history.
Click to expand...

Climate is extremely complex. There are so many variables one must get right in order to make a proper prediction, and there are certain things (clouds, solar flares) that no one can simply predict well in advance. If you get one variable wrong or inaccurate, it throws the whole system into chaos.

To be fair, science can accurately predict weather up to 7 days in advance, but anything longer than that is nigh impossible. This is why you always see weather forecasts on the news at 7 days and not longer.
 
German Scientists: IPCC Climate Models “Out Of Control”…”Exclusion Of Critics A Historic Mistake”

By P Gosselin on 6. November 2019
New IPCC report under doubt: models out-of-control and a new hockey stick

By Die kalte Sonne
[German text translated/edited by P Gosselin]
IPCC authors “politically handpicked”
The IPCC climate status report serves as an important reference for climate policy and public discussion. However, very few people are aware that the authors of the report are politically hand-picked. . . .
Huge uncertainty persists
The 6th IPCC report (Assessment Report 6, AR6) is currently being prepared. The first round of reviews has been completed and work on the second draft is in full swing. One of the central topics of each report is the warming effect of CO2, so-called CO2 climate sensitivity. Hardly anything has changed in the last 30 years. . . .
Climate sensitivity in the lower range
In recent years it has become increasingly clear that the value is probably located in the lower half of the IPCC range. . . .
Model Chaos

Paul Voosen spoke on this in Science on 16 April 2019. The IPCC modelers had “improved” some processes in their climate simulations and were then quite surprised that the models suddenly ran much hotter than before. The CO2 climate sensitivity was now suddenly above the range previously thought possible, namely 5°C. The climate sensitivity of the models was suddenly much higher than before. Wow! The alarmists celebrated a feast of joy. However, more serious colleagues obviously threw sand in the alarmist gears and reported concerns.
Excerpt from Voosen’s article:
New climate models predict a warming surge
For nearly 40 years, the massive computer models used to simulate global climate have delivered a fairly consistent picture of how fast human carbon emissions might warm the world. But a host of global climate models developed for the United Nations’s next major assessment of global warming, due in 2021, are now showing a puzzling but undeniable trend. They are running hotter than they have in the past. Soon the world could be, too. . . .
[…] Many scientists are skeptical, pointing out that past climate changes recorded in ice cores and elsewhere don’t support the high climate sensitivity—nor does the pace of modern warming. The results so far are “not sufficient to convince me,” says Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. In the effort to account for atmospheric components that are too small to directly simulate, like clouds, the new models could easily have strayed from reality, she says. “That’s always going to be a bumpy road.”
​
“Modelers at a loss”
CO2 climate sensitivity remains uncertain, modelers are at a loss. They had planned everything so beautifully for the AR6. Shortly before the end of the work, they quickly installed a new aerosolset, which then knocked everything down. The models suddenly showed hardly any warming for the 20th century. Ouch!
Perhaps the modelers were closer to the truth than they had thought, since there was now plenty of room for natural climatic factors, which they had previously set to zero as a precaution. So the models were completely changed again. And that finally led to the crazy high values of 5°C per CO2 doubling. . . .
What consequences does the modeling chaos have for AR6?
In assessing how fast climate may change, the next IPCC report probably won’t lean as heavily on models as past reports did, says Thorsten Mauritsen, a climate scientist at Stockholm University and an IPCC author. It will look to other evidence as well, in particular a large study in preparation that will use ancient climates and observations of recent climate change to constrain sensitivity.”
​
“Total failure by climate models”
. . . .
 
Comments by Ross McKitrick on the Continuation of Climate Model Failure

November 12th, 2019The following is a re-posting of an article by Dr. Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph, published yesterday, November 11, 2019. I have a comment that follows his post.
Climate Models vs Observations: 2019 Update
Back around 2014 many people, me included, were commenting on the discrepancy between climate models and observations. In a report for the Fraser Institute I showed the following graph:
The HadCRUT4 series (black) was then dipping below the 95% lower bound of the model distribution. The IPCC itself in the 5th Assessment Report (2013) noted that out of 114 model runs, 111 had overstated observed warming since the late 1990s. . . .

Roy W. Spencer comment: With the new CMIP6 models coming out suggesting even more warming than the CMIP5 models did, I fear we will see continuing “adjustments” of the instrumental temperature record to produce even more warming. This is the only way that the models can retain credibility in the face of real-world evidence that warming has been modest, at best.
 
Jack Hays said:
Comments by Ross McKitrick on the Continuation of Climate Model Failure

November 12th, 2019The following is a re-posting of an article by Dr. Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph, published yesterday, November 11, 2019. I have a comment that follows his post.
Climate Models vs Observations: 2019 Update
Back around 2014 many people, me included, were commenting on the discrepancy between climate models and observations. In a report for the Fraser Institute I showed the following graph:
The HadCRUT4 series (black) was then dipping below the 95% lower bound of the model distribution. The IPCC itself in the 5th Assessment Report (2013) noted that out of 114 model runs, 111 had overstated observed warming since the late 1990s. . . .

Roy W. Spencer comment: With the new CMIP6 models coming out suggesting even more warming than the CMIP5 models did, I fear we will see continuing “adjustments” of the instrumental temperature record to produce even more warming. This is the only way that the models can retain credibility in the face of real-world evidence that warming has been modest, at best.
Click to expand...

Question for you, Jack... Why do all the cut and pastes of denialist misinformation that you post around here that have an update to the data never include any of the updated data?
 
Buzz said:
Question for you, Jack... Why do all the cut and pastes of denialist misinformation that you post around here that have an update to the data never include any of the updated data?
Click to expand...
Had you bothered to read the linked article, Spencer shows the more recent graphs.
McKitrick-03-900x900.jpg
This graph, like the earlier one above, compares the HadCRUT4 surface temperature average (black line) against the CMIP5 mean (red line). The pink band shows the 1-sigma (67%) distribution and the tan band extends out to the 2-sigma (95%) distribution. The outer yellow bands show the lower and upper 2.5th percentiles. The lines are positioned so all models and observations are centered on a 1961-1990 zero mean. The model runs follow the RCP4.5 scenario and extend out to 2050.

Let’s zoom in on the post-1950 interval.
Click to expand...
The main point of the article IMOHO, is that while the 2016 El Nino event pushed temps back in line with the models,
it was only temporary. Even with the low RCP4.5 scenario, actual temperature are at the low outer edge of the
mean of the model runs.
We should bear in mind that CO2 levels are closer to RCP6.
 
Buzz said:
Question for you, Jack... Why do all the cut and pastes of denialist misinformation that you post around here that have an update to the data never include any of the updated data?
Click to expand...

Translation:

I am greatly disturbed by this chart, (which is fully updated with real data), by Dr. Spenser, that I feel the need to make attacks with name calling as MY way of arguing against it.

Carry on.................

:2wave:
 
Aberration said:
Explain how. On their face they have nothing to do with the topic and appear to be the typical petulant knee jerk response.
Click to expand...

He is DEFLECTING from it, because he has no argument to offer against post one. He will never fully address it since he doesn't understand it, since he is a proven science illiterate, he is CUT and PASTE artist.

There will be no debate with this one.........
 
Buzz said:
Question for you, Jack... Why do all the cut and pastes of denialist misinformation that you post around here that have an update to the data never include any of the updated data?
Click to expand...

The update is the post.
 
[h=2]Scientists: CO2 Causes Cooling When Not Causing Warming And It’s A ‘Weak’ To ‘Negligible’ Climate Factor[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 14. November 2019
[h=4]It’s been acknowledged by mainstream scientists for years now that at certain locations on planet Earth, rising carbon dioxide levels cause cooling. It’s now been determined that rising CO2 also causes “negligible” cooling (or warming) depending on the season.[/h]A few years ago a seminal paper (Schmithüsen et al., 2015) was published in Geophysical Research Letters that indicated raising the concentration of CO2 causes a negative greenhouse effect, or cooling, in central Antarctica.
The forcing from the CO2 greenhouse effect ranges from -2.9 W/m² to +1 W/m², and the forcing for the Arctic (central Greenland) is said to be “comparably weak”.
Schmithusen-2015-Increasing-CO2-leads-to-cooling-for-Antarctica-Greenland-comparatively-weak.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Schmithüsen et al., 2015[/h]Now scientists have found that CO2 – to the extent that it has a “negligible” influence on temperature – causes the climate to cool from winter to summer and to warm from summer to winter.
CO2-is-a-warming-and-cooling-gas-Lightfoot-and-Mamer-2018.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Lightfoot and Mamer, 2018[/h]For the most part, CO2 varies due to temperature and water vapour level changes. The variance can range from 403 ppm during the drier winter to 377 ppm during the summer.

CO2-cooling-vs-warming-by-season-Lightfoot-and-Mamer-2018.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Lightfoot and Mamer, 2018[/h]Similar seasonal CO2 variability can be found in pristine cave environments.
A paper published earlier this year (Al-Manmi et al., 2019) also finds CO2 rises to 756 ppm in winter but drops to 484 ppm in summer.
So observations indicate higher CO2 concentrations are linked to cooler temperatures, not warmer temperatures.
CO2-caves-Al-Manmi-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Al-Manmi et al., 2019[/h]Nowhere do these observations support the paradigm that says real-world temperature (and water vapour) changes are driven by variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
If anything, it’s the other way around.
 
Sunsettommy said:
He is DEFLECTING from it, because he has no argument to offer against post one. He will never fully address it since he doesn't understand it, since he is a proven science illiterate, he is CUT and PASTE artist.

There will be no debate with this one.........
Click to expand...

YOu will find that most extremists are like that.

1. They will never address what is said
2. Their first response is 9/10 a denial argument
3. Their next response after that fails is the ignorance argument
4. when that fails their last resort is an ad hominem.
the ad hominem is usually combined with any of the 4 above it just depends on how
triggered the extremist is at that moment.

they are not worth responding too as it doesn't matter what facts are posted they simply cannot process factual information
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom