IPCC Climate Models Have Failed And Should Be Abandoned

[LowDown]

Research presented at the American Geophysical Union this week.

The problem of divergence between climate model predictions and reality is reviewed. The authors show that the models relied on by the IPCC missed reality by a significant margin:

We conclude that at the global scale, this suite of climate models has failed. Treating them as mathematical hypotheses, which they are, means that it is the duty of scientists to, unfortunately, reject their predictions in lieu of those with a lower climate sensitivity.

Unless (or until) the collection of climate models can be demonstrated to accurately capture observed characteristics of known climate changes, policymakers should avoid basing any decisions upon projections made from them. Further, those policies which have already be established using projections from these climate models should be revisited.

If they use models with lower sensitivity then it's tantamount to admitting that catestrophic global warming isn't going to happen, and there is no reason for the billion dollar climate science industry to exist. They'd rather stick a hot poker in their eyes than do that. So, the nonsense will go on.

 

[blaxshep]

Research presented at the American Geophysical Union this week.

The problem of divergence between climate model predictions and reality is reviewed. The authors show that the models relied on by the IPCC missed reality by a significant margin:



If they use models with lower sensitivity then it's tantamount to admitting that catestrophic global warming isn't going to happen, and there is no reason for the billion dollar climate science industry to exist. They'd rather stick a hot poker in their eyes than do that. So, the nonsense will go on.

From your link:

Recent climate change literature has been dominated by studies which show that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is better constrained than the latest estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) and that the best estimate of the climate sensitivity is considerably lower than the climate model ensemble average. From the recent literature, the central estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity is ~2°C, while the climate model average is ~3.2°C, or an equilibrium climate sensitivity that is some 40% lower than the model average.

Ok, but doesn't that still indicate we have a problem? Do you also disagree with the effects of climate change as predicted by the IPCC or just that it will take longer to get there?

 

[LowDown]

From your link:



Ok, but doesn't that still indicate we have a problem? Do you also disagree with the effects of climate change as predicted by the IPCC or just that it will take longer to get there?

The feedback effects predicted by the modelers were supposed to have had an exponential effect on warming. Without that the warming is a ho hum issue, no more than a couple of degrees even after a 400% increase in CO2. Without the feedback the effect of CO2 is actually less the higher it gets, i.e. each increase in CO2 results in less of a change of temperature.

 

[blaxshep]

The feedback effects predicted by the modelers were supposed to have had an exponential effect on warming. Without that the warming is a ho hum issue, no more than a couple of degrees even after a 400% increase in CO2. Without the feedback the effect of CO2 is actually less the higher it gets, i.e. each increase in CO2 results in less of a change of temperature.

Not sure I follow the logic of the "exponential effect" given the data your link presents, a difference of ~2C to ~3.2C over 40 years does not indicate an exponential effect in one model over the other nor does the slope any of the IPCC models I have looked at, and agreed with as accurate; (FAR, SAR and TAR).

 

[LowDown]

Not sure I follow the logic of the "exponential effect" given the data your link presents, a difference of ~2C to ~3.2C over 40 years does not indicate an exponential effect in one model over the other nor does the slope any of the IPCC models I have looked at, and agreed with as accurate; (FAR, SAR and TAR).

Here are examples of exponential outputs from IPCC models. The more catestrophic the warming the model predicts the greater the exponential component:



If you remove the feedback from water vapor you get output in agreement with reality at least in terms of the overall trend, although it still misses the halt in global warming. No exponential component. Simple as that. The problem, of course, is that such a model predicts that no catastrophic warming will occur.

 

[blaxshep]

Here are examples of exponential outputs from IPCC models. The more catestrophic the warming the model predicts the greater the exponential component:


If you remove the feedback from water vapor you get output in agreement with reality at least in terms of the overall trend, although it still misses the halt in global warming. No exponential component. Simple as that. The problem, of course, is that such a model predicts that no catastrophic warming will occur.

Based on what you are referencing as IPCC models I have two issues with the conclusion;

1) I don't see the FAR, SAR and TAR models represented.

2) The only real world data to current model comparisons that are verifiable occur from 1900 to 2014



Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions.

Given the accuracy of the comparisons shown above, even if, as I have stated before when looking at models that extend far into the future (Which I now think was an error of prejudice) where the slopes of the predictions are far from correlating with the known RSS data slopes, I now think it would be premature to simple say that all the models should be abandoned outright. I would agree with you however that most of the models which do not correlate well with the known data should be discarded. The question then which remains to be answered is are the models used in your article really the models currently in use by the IPCC or are they models that have, in fact, already been discarded?

 

[Mithrae]

1) I don't see the FAR, SAR and TAR models represented.

From what I gather the IPCC reports rely primarily on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) from the World Climate Research Programme. Many if not all of the individual modelling organisations listed in LowDown's graphic contribute to the CMIP project.

Contributors to CMIP1-3

Contributors to CMIP5

 

[blaxshep]

From what I gather the IPCC reports rely primarily on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) from the World Climate Research Programme. Many if not all of the individual modelling organisations listed in LowDown's graphic contribute to the CMIP project.

Contributors to CMIP1-3

Contributors to CMIP5

Thanks for the links.

 

[Threegoofs]

Research presented at the American Geophysical Union this week.

The problem of divergence between climate model predictions and reality is reviewed. The authors show that the models relied on by the IPCC missed reality by a significant margin:



If they use models with lower sensitivity then it's tantamount to admitting that catestrophic global warming isn't going to happen, and there is no reason for the billion dollar climate science industry to exist. They'd rather stick a hot poker in their eyes than do that. So, the nonsense will go on.

If I could just point out two teeny things:

First...this wasn't research.

It was an analysis of models done, which is basically doing an editorial comment with a little math thrown in. It was a bit more elaborate then a DP post...but not much.

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/20121

Secondly, it was presented by the Caro Institute! Hardly a non biased scientific bystander, considering they are a Libertarian think tank that fights the concept of AGW tooth and nail, and were founded by a guy who made his fortune in oil.

I can't hep buy notice neither of these things made it into Lowdowns post. Wonder why?

 

[blaxshep]

If I could just point out two teeny things:

First...this wasn't research.

It was an analysis of models done, which is basically doing an editorial comment with a little math thrown in. It was a bit more elaborate then a DP post...but not much.

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/20121

Secondly, it was presented by the Caro Institute! Hardly a non biased scientific bystander, considering they are a Libertarian think tank that fights the concept of AGW tooth and nail, and were founded by a guy who made his fortune in oil.

I can't hep buy notice neither of these things made it into Lowdowns post. Wonder why?

Ok first, a skeptic analysis of research is standard scientific practice.

Second it is hardly fair to disregard the opposition's bias outright when the source's position is that no one but their own predictions are credible.

Just saying.

 

[Threegoofs]

Ok first, a skeptic analysis of research is standard scientific practice.

Second it is hardly fair to disregard the opposition's bias outright when the source's position is that no one but their own predictions are credible.

Just saying.

What?

 

[blaxshep]

What?

You think we should just accept the climatologist's predictions without any skepticism? Is that your position? Name one science that did not undergo skepticism.

 

[Threegoofs]

You think we should just accept the climatologist's predictions without any skepticism? Is that your position? Name one science that did not undergo skepticism.

Not really. But taking a no experts opinion is kinda odd, isn't it?

 

[blaxshep]

Not really. But taking a no experts opinion is kinda odd, isn't it?

Science should be open to all takers of criticism, if the science is good it will stand.

 

[blaxshep]

Not really. But taking a no experts opinion is kinda odd, isn't it?

True science is open to all takers and good science will prevail.

 

[Threegoofs]

Science should be open to all takers of criticism, if the science is good it will stand.

All educated takers, yes.
You said youre a biochemist.


When some dude selling a product tells you it's genetically engineered and he clearly has no clue what he's talking about, do you give him the benefit of the doubt?

 

[blaxshep]

All educated takers, yes.
You said youre a biochemist.


When some dude selling a product tells you it's genetically engineered and he clearly has no clue what he's talking about, do you give him the benefit of the doubt?

I understand where you are coming from but to be honest the climatologists predictions are just not convincing enough to say there can be no credible opposition, have I been convinced that the models predict short term data, yes absolutely I have and yes I was close minded against even that only weeks ago but look at what the predictions are for 100 years out, everything from 2 to 5 degrees. That is a HUGE discrepancy. It ranges from what they are calling acceptable to what they are calling a catastrophic event. Lets agree that ONLY climatologists are credible in these predictions, but again what are they predicting? Everything from 2 to 5 degrees based on the models they endorse. How is that a conclusion? Why should we invest in a policy that would destroy civilization as we know it based on such a wide ranging predicted result? Sorry but I am not there yet and frankly I ask you why are you?

 

[Threegoofs]

I understand where you are coming from but to be honest the climatologists predictions are just not convincing enough to say there can be no credible opposition, have I been convinced that the models predict short term data, yes absolutely I have and yes I was close minded against even that only weeks ago but look at what the predictions are for 100 years out, everything from 2 to 5 degrees. That is a HUGE discrepancy. It ranges from what they are calling acceptable to what they are calling a catastrophic event. Lets agree that ONLY climatologists are credible in these predictions, but again what are they predicting? Everything from 2 to 5 degrees based on the models they endorse. How is that a conclusion? Why should we invest in a policy that would destroy civilization as we know it based on such a wide ranging predicted result? Sorry but I am not there yet and frankly I ask you why are you?

2-5 degrees is not a huge discrepancy.

If you understand science, you know that a massively chaotic system is hard to predict with accuracy. You focus on the 2 degrees, but realize dice this is based on standard deviation, a catastrophic 5 degree rise I'd just as likely.

 

[blaxshep]

2-5 degrees is not a huge discrepancy.

If you understand science, you know that a massively chaotic system is hard to predict with accuracy. You focus on the 2 degrees, but realize dice this is based on standard deviation, a catastrophic 5 degree rise I'd just as likely.

It is a huge discrepancy based on the IPCC, they have said that 2 degrees is acceptable 3.6 is the turning point and 5 degrees would be catastrophic. I understand the complexity I just don't believe they have a enough understanding of the climate they study to make determinations based on the fact that their best models range from acceptable to catastrophic. No other science would allow such variation. Do we launch asteroid probes that land within meters of predicted landing points or is it acceptable if they land somewhere on the other side of the same planet? All I am asking for is a better and more reliable model before we go down the road of asking the globe to accept that unless we leave 80% of our current energy in the ground for alternatives that have yet to pan out as even close to being reliable. Is being a centrist on this so much to ask given the catastrophe of denial vs alarmism?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The feedback effects predicted by the modelers were supposed to have had an exponential effect on warming. Without that the warming is a ho hum issue, no more than a couple of degrees even after a 400% increase in CO2. Without the feedback the effect of CO2 is actually less the higher it gets, i.e. each increase in CO2 results in less of a change of temperature.

Yep.

This 2 degree stabilized number is with feedback over time, and far less than... what was it? Weren't they claiming something like six to 12 degrees?

 

[Ceist]

Research presented at the American Geophysical Union this week.

The problem of divergence between climate model predictions and reality is reviewed. The authors show that the models relied on by the IPCC missed reality by a significant margin:



If they use models with lower sensitivity then it's tantamount to admitting that catestrophic global warming isn't going to happen, and there is no reason for the billion dollar climate science industry to exist. They'd rather stick a hot poker in their eyes than do that. So, the nonsense will go on.

An abstract from Pat Michaels- a Creationist who doesn't believe in climate change because of his religious beliefs and has a known history of misrepresentation? (Cornwall Alliance signatory)

So what datasets did they use in their presentation?


There are 1000's of scientists who attended the AGU conference. What about their research? Are you going to post any?

 

[Ceist]

The feedback effects predicted by the modelers were supposed to have had an exponential effect on warming. Without that the warming is a ho hum issue, no more than a couple of degrees even after a 400% increase in CO2. Without the feedback the effect of CO2 is actually less the higher it gets, i.e. each increase in CO2 results in less of a change of temperature.

Really?


Part I: A Saturated Gassy Argument -Prof Spencer Weart - Physicist

Part II: What Ångström didn’t know

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature - Prof Raymond Pierrehumbert - Geophysical Sciences

 

[Ceist]

Here are examples of exponential outputs from IPCC models. The more catestrophic the warming the model predicts the greater the exponential component:

View attachment 67177520

If you remove the feedback from water vapor you get output in agreement with reality at least in terms of the overall trend, although it still misses the halt in global warming. No exponential component. Simple as that. The problem, of course, is that such a model predicts that no catastrophic warming will occur.

Why would you remove the feedback from water vapor? And where has there been a 'halt' in global warming? Or are you referring to a slow down of the rate of rise in surface temperatures after an outlier high during the strong el Nino year in 1998? Seems you might be conveniently forgetting a few facts there. Like rise in ocean temperature, rise in sea-levels, most of the warmest years on record this century etc

Global Analysis - November 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

 

[Ceist]

Ok first, a skeptic analysis of research is standard scientific practice.

Second it is hardly fair to disregard the opposition's bias outright when the source's position is that no one but their own predictions are credible.

Just saying.

I agree that honest sceptical critical analysis is extremely useful and is standard practice - that's what peer review is all about. Not so much when it's just blatant misrepresentation like Pat Michaels is paid to do.

 

[Ceist]

It is a huge discrepancy based on the IPCC, they have said that 2 degrees is acceptable 3.6 is the turning point and 5 degrees would be catastrophic. I understand the complexity I just don't believe they have a enough understanding of the climate they study to make determinations based on the fact that their best models range from acceptable to catastrophic. No other science would allow such variation. Do we launch asteroid probes that land within meters of predicted landing points or is it acceptable if they land somewhere on the other side of the same planet? All I am asking for is a better and more reliable model before we go down the road of asking the globe to accept that unless we leave 80% of our current energy in the ground for alternatives that have yet to pan out as even close to being reliable. Is being a centrist on this so much to ask given the catastrophe of denial vs alarmism?

I think you might not be taking into account that the projection models are for different future scenarios, so they are going to vary based on the different scenario. Using your analogy - Like planning the launch of an asteroid probe, the scientists would plan for several different scenarios eg based on time of year it was launched, where other large asteroids are at the time, where the earth is in it's orbit, different fuels used etc.

I posted this in another thread:

In my opinion (as a non climate scientist), one of the most difficult aspects for climate scientists in projecting future long term climate trends is they also have to incorporate in their models, different scenarios of what humans might or might not do in the future.

We don't know if we humans will continue to emit GHGs exponentially or change the ecosystem drastically (hence the more 'catastrophic' scenarios and projections) or if we will ameliorate emissions etc or improve technology and use more alternatives to fossil fuels etc (hence the lower end scenarios and projections). As far as I understand, the long term projections in the middle of the graphs of the projection models tend to be Business As Usual (BUR) scenarios and projections.

The projection models will never be 100% accurate as there are variables that are difficult to predict (including human actions, feedbacks like clouds etc) which is obviously why there are various scenarios and uncertainty error bars, but based on the science and the evidence, the long term trend is not likely to be going anywhere but UP the more we add GHGs into the earth's atmosphere and oceans.

If someone can show I have this wrong and provide links to a credible source to support it, I am happy to be corrected.