IPCC Climate Models Have Failed And Should Be Abandoned

[Ceist]

I prefer the word projection to prediction as that is what the models are doing. They are projecting trends for different future scenarios. Not predicting what will happen no matter what. And not predicting the exact weather and temperature at exact times in the future as some deniers seem to expect.

 

[Tim the plumber]

From your link:

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?

That would be 2 degrees c increase for a doubling of CO2. How long to you think that it will take to double CO2 from now? That's from 350 ppm to 700ppm.

I think we will have stopped using fossil fuels by 2200 and that means we will never get there.

 

[Mithrae]

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 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.

It's not just a scenario thing. According to IPCC AR5 there is "medium confidence that the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C" (ch 10.8.2).

It's unfortunate that there are some climate change alarmists out there who don't acknowledge that level of uncertainty in the scientific data.

Equally, there are plenty of economic alarmists out there who insist (contrary to the available analyses) that serious action on climate change would be economically devastating. Seems to me that once we get past that level of fear-mongering, it obviously makes more sense to prepare for the worst, within reason, than to merely do nothing and hope for the best.

 

[Ceist]

It's not just a scenario thing. According to IPCC AR5 there is "medium confidence that the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C" (ch 10.8.2).

It's unfortunate that there are some climate change alarmists out there who don't acknowledge that level of uncertainty in the scientific data.

Equally, there are plenty of economic alarmists out there who insist (contrary to the available analyses) that serious action on climate change would be economically devastating. Seems to me that once we get past that level of fear-mongering, it obviously makes more sense to prepare for the worst, within reason, than to merely do nothing and hope for the best.

Thanks Mithrae

 

[Ceist]

How many posters on this forum criticising climate models have even bothered to read Chapter 9 of the AR5 Working Group I report on Evaluation of Climate Models? Or for that matter, even know it existed?

Ch 9 - Evaluation of Climate Models

 

[LowDown]

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

View attachment 67177524

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?

Sorry, but most of what you show is hindcasting. That's worthless as a test of the models because we know good and well that the models were adjusted to match the data, which was already known. No, the only true test of the models was when they published the model outputs BEFORE the data was known, when they actually tried to predict the future. And in that test they failed miserably.

 

[LowDown]

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?

I note you have nothing to say about the substance of the paper. No doubt this is because you know of no way to refute it on the merits. And with good reason; on the merits it's a pretty solid analysis.

What good is your "science" if you have to resort to ad hominem arguments and subterfuge to defend it?

 

[LowDown]

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?

They used the same datasets everyone else uses. Do you know of any that should not be used for some reason?

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

What a silly question.

If you know of presentations that would be of interest then don't hesitate to post about them.

 

[Threegoofs]

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?

Do you think the amount of variation in the models is from incompetence or something?

Given that the lowest estimate is still pretty destructive, it only makes sense to take action.

 

[Threegoofs]

I note you have nothing to say about the substance of the paper. No doubt this is because you know of no way to refute it on the merits. And with good reason; on the merits it's a pretty solid analysis.

What good is your "science" if you have to resort to ad hominem arguments and subterfuge to defend it?

First of all, IT WASNT A PAPER. You don't even know what you're talking about!

It was a poster. Generally, it's a bit more than an abstract, not reviewed by anyone (except as to relevance of presentation at the AGU) and generally quite sketchy in terms of methods.

How do you critique a poster that we only can see in abstract form which is a guy who gets funded from energy companies to say 'models are wrong'? That's pretty much all of the substance we see. Yet you say 'on its merits, it's a pretty solid analysis'!

 

[LowDown]

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

The argument I make isn't the same as the argument being refuted in these monographs. I don't argue that CO2 absorption of IR is saturated in the way that the term "saturated" is being used in these papers (which actually never occurs no matter how high the CO2 level). I argue that the absolute amount of energy obtained from IR absorption is less with each step increase of CO2. This is in accordance with the Beer-Lambert law, which is true regardless of CO2 concentration.

Professor Weart confirms this is correct with the following paragraph:

When the product of the absorption factor times the amount of CO2 encountered equals one, then the amount of light is reduced by a factor of 1/e, i.e. 1/2.71282… . For this, or larger, amounts of CO2,the atmosphere is optically thick at the corresponding wavelength. If you double the amount of CO2, you reduce the proportion of surviving light by an additional factor of 1/e, reducing the proportion surviving to about a tenth; if you instead halve the amount of CO2, the proportion surviving is the reciprocal of the square root of e , or about 60% , and the atmosphere is optically thin. Precisely where we draw the line between "thick" and "thin" is somewhat arbitrary, given that the absorption shades smoothly from small values to large values as the product of absorption factor with amount of CO2 increases.

 

[LowDown]

First of all, IT WASNT A PAPER. You don't even know what you're talking about!

It was a poster. Generally, it's a bit more than an abstract, not reviewed by anyone (except as to relevance of presentation at the AGU) and generally quite sketchy in terms of methods.

How do you critique a poster that we only can see in abstract form which is a guy who gets funded from energy companies to say 'models are wrong'? That's pretty much all of the substance we see. Yet you say 'on its merits, it's a pretty solid analysis'!

What good is your "science" if you have to defend it with bogus semantics?

 

[Threegoofs]

What good is your "science" if you have to defend it with bogus semantics?

LOL. If you had any clue about science and scientific conferences, you'd know that papers are quite different from posters.

Especially a poster presented by a front group with an agenda. But its clear you care little for truth anyway, so I guess you'll run with it.

 

[LowDown]

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)

Because the feedback from water vapor is too high in the models.

That there has been a halt in global warming has been confirmed by numerous peer reviewed papers at this point. For example, this one from the journal Nature Geosciences. These authors offer one of what is now a list of over 60 different explanations for the failure of models to predict this. Previously climate modelers said that natural climate cycles were not important. Now they are using natural cycles in an attempt to save the models.

By the way, the IPCC also confirms that there is a halt in warming.

The best way to confirm that there is a halt is to look at the data.

This is the RSS data set. You may recall that RSS was set up to correct the satellite data from UAH because climate scientists thought that the UAH data was running too cold. Regardless, any of the data sets show about the same.

How people can look at the data and then deny that there is a halt is testament to the power of ideology over rational thinking and reality.

Some scientists are claiming that the halt is over based on higher sea surface temperatures (natural cycles to the rescue again), others say it could go on for another 15 years. In truth they have no bleeding idea.

 

[LowDown]

LOL. If you had any clue about science and scientific conferences, you'd know that papers are quite different from posters.

Especially a poster presented by a front group with an agenda. But its clear you care little for truth anyway, so I guess you'll run with it.

You keep using these meaningless distinctions. A poster is the presentation of scientific data and analysis, just like a paper or platform presentation. Why don't you speak to the data and analysis? Here's their conclusion in a nutshell: Climate model predictions of global temperatures were significantly higher than the reality. Therefore, the models in their current form should be rejected.

I would add that all the emphasis on global temperatures tends conceal the fact that in every other aspect that the models attempt to predict, such as local conditions on the earth over time, the models are so far off it's not even funny, and they don't agree with each other on those predictions, either. Actually, it has been apparent for some time that the models are hopelessly flawed and really only represent a preliminary effort at doing what the modelers purport to do. There's no way should we be basing policy on their predictions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Really?


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

This first one ignores an inconvenient truth, and weasels out of a proper explanation leaving the impression a doubling leads to 2.8 degrees of increase.

The inconvenient truth is that since CO2 is not competing for spectra in the upper atmosphere, changes have a dramatic effect on cooling. The more CO2 in the uppermost layers, the more it radiates outward, the thermal IR.

They say a 1% increase in forcing, then leave the impression saying a 1% change in temperature is 2.8 degrees. The fact of the matter is that 1.01^.25 is only a 0.25% increase in temperature, or 0.7 degrees, for a doubling of CO2.

Part II, whoop-t-do...

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

I didn't notice anything in disagree, except to say part 1 built a strawman to tear down and this is the tear down.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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)

Water vapor feedback is laughable. Sure, there is minimal water vapor feedback from CO2 as water vapor increases with any increases to ocean heating. Especially the sun.

 

[Threegoofs]

You keep using these meaningless distinctions. A poster is the presentation of scientific data and analysis, just like a paper or platform presentation. Why don't you speak to the data and analysis? Here's their conclusion in a nutshell: Climate model predictions of global temperatures were significantly higher than the reality. Therefore, the models in their current form should be rejected.

I would add that all the emphasis on global temperatures tends conceal the fact that in every other aspect that the models attempt to predict, such as local conditions on the earth over time, the models are so far off it's not even funny, and they don't agree with each other on those predictions, either. Actually, it has been apparent for some time that the models are hopelessly flawed and really only represent a preliminary effort at doing what the modelers purport to do. There's no way should we be basing policy on their predictions.

Right. And *I* could submit a poster saying the exact opposite, if I wanted. You must also confuse editorials with actual news too.

And my point is YOU CANNOT SPEAK TO THE ACTUAL DATA AND ANALYSIS. All we have is an abstract that basically says - "trust us - we did this right". As they got paid thru Cato indirectly thru energy companies to push out an 'analysis' that said exactly what they want to hear. I'm sure the Cato guys all had a nice fancy dinner in SF courtesy of Exxon as they congratulated themselves for fooling the suckers who werent at the conference.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That would be 2 degrees c increase for a doubling of CO2. How long to you think that it will take to double CO2 from now? That's from 350 ppm to 700ppm.

I think we will have stopped using fossil fuels by 2200 and that means we will never get there.

The direct forcing of CO2 sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 without competing gasses, like water vapor, is 0.75 degrees +/- 0.25 degrees. At least that's the consensus, which I disagree with. If water vapor is to more than double this number, then the feedback would be overstimulated, and a runaway climatic disaster would follow, regardless of CO2 levels.

For this reason, it is impossible for the feedback of water vapor to be as high as the alarmists claim.

 

[LowDown]

Right. And *I* could submit a poster saying the exact opposite, if I wanted. You must also confuse editorials with actual news too.

And my point is YOU CANNOT SPEAK TO THE ACTUAL DATA AND ANALYSIS. All we have is an abstract that basically says - "trust us - we did this right". As they got paid thru Cato indirectly thru energy companies to push out an 'analysis' that said exactly what they want to hear. I'm sure the Cato guys all had a nice fancy dinner in SF courtesy of Exxon as they congratulated themselves for fooling the suckers who werent at the conference.

What a cop out. We have enough data out our disposal to say whether or not the poster presentation is correct. The fact of the matter is that the authors are correct.

 

[Ceist]

I note you have nothing to say about the substance of the paper. No doubt this is because you know of no way to refute it on the merits. And with good reason; on the merits it's a pretty solid analysis.

What good is your "science" if you have to resort to ad hominem arguments and subterfuge to defend it?

You've decided its a 'pretty solid analysis' from what? All you've posted is the abstract from a Poster at the AGU conference. What did you base your 'assessment' of it's ''merits" on? That you liked their conclusions in the abstract?

If you have more information, including any graphics, please provide it, along with your detailed explanation of your assessment of what they did with means and trends, how long were the time periods they used, did they plot uncertainty error bars for the observations as well as the models - you know, the usual stuff you would need to comment on for an 'assessment' of it's 'merits'.

If you have nothing else but the abstract, then what good is your 'science' if you immediately just say something is ' a solid analysis' when you haven't even assessed it yet but you like the the abstract conclusions because they agree with your views?

I noticed this was posted on WUWT blog not long before you posted it here - is that where you found out about it before posting it here? Seems like a trend.

 

[Ceist]

What a cop out. We have enough data out our disposal to say whether or not the poster presentation is correct. The fact of the matter is that the authors are correct.

So why not present the data they used? And how they used it? Explain in detail how they were "correct".

 

[Ceist]

They used the same datasets everyone else uses. Do you know of any that should not be used for some reason?

How do you know what they used or how they used it? You've only posted the abstract from a Poster which doesn't mention much at all.

What a silly question.

If you know of presentations that would be of interest then don't hesitate to post about them.

No not a silly question. You seem to only post the same 'studies' the denier blogs do and pretty much nothing else. Curious bias for someone who claims to be a true "sceptic"

 

[Ceist]

Sorry, but most of what you show is hindcasting. That's worthless as a test of the models because we know good and well that the models were adjusted to match the data, which was already known. No, the only true test of the models was when they published the model outputs BEFORE the data was known, when they actually tried to predict the future. And in that test they failed miserably.

On what evidence do your claim that they 'failed miserably'? Please explain and back up your claim. I have no reason to trust the unsubstantiated personal opinions of an anonymous poster on an internet forum.


Gavin Schmidt (NASA) writes a pretty good article on the models/data here:

RealClimate: Updates to model-data comparisons


and Richard Alley (Prof Geosciences PSU) looked at the models/data in a lecture at last years AGU conference:

 

[Threegoofs]

What a cop out. We have enough data out our disposal to say whether or not the poster presentation is correct. The fact of the matter is that the authors are correct.

LOL. Sketchy data. Bad analysis. Clear bias.

You'll run with it.