Twenty-five Climate Models Can’t All Be Wrong … Or Can They?

From the NIPCC report:

As seemingly never-ending work on developing and improving climate models progresses, there is also a seemingly never-ending set of assessments of how that work is progressing; and the study of Maloney et al. (2014) is one of the most recent such assessments, wherein its 31 authors provide a summary of projected twenty-first-century North America (NA) climate changes, as spewed out by 25 updated state-of-the-art climate and Earth system models used in CMIP5, i.e., phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, focusing largely on the representative concentration pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) in a core set of 17 CMIP5 models. So what did they learn? 

In terms of what most people would describe as shortcomings (or maybe even failures), they say (1) “the sign of mean precipitation changes across the southern United States is inconsistent among the models, as is the annual mean precipitation change in the core NA monsoon region,” (2) the models “also disagree on snow water equivalent changes on a regional basis, especially in transitional regions where competing effects occur because of greater snowfall and warming temperatures,” (3) “the western United States is characterized by large inter-model variability in changes in the number of frost days,” (4) “substantial inter-model spread exists for projections of how ENSO teleconnection changes will affect precipitation and temperature variability in western NA,” (5) “projected changes in seasonal mean Atlantic and east Pacific tropical cyclone activity are inconsistent among models, which disagree on the sign and amplitude of changes in environmental factors that modulate tropical cyclone activity,” (6) “models have substantial difficulties in simulating the historical distribution of persistent drought and wet spells,” and (7) “model success in producing historical climate has little bearing on regional projections,” as demonstrated previously by Pierce et al. (2009). Perhaps most important of all, however, is the 31 researchers’ conclusion that “even areas of substantial agreement among models may not imply more confidence that projections are correct, as common errors or deficiencies in model parameterizations may provide false confidence in the robustness of future projections.”

Reference
Maloney, E.D., Camargo, S.J., Chang, E., Colle, B., Fu, R., Geil, K.L., Hu, Q., Jiang, X., Johnson, N., Karnauskas, K.B., Kinter, J., Kirtman, B., Kumar, S., Langenbrunner, B., Lombardo, K., Long, L.N., Mariotti, A., Meyerson, J.E., Mo, K.C., Neelin, J.D., Pan, Z., Seager, R., Serra, Y., Seth, A., Sheffield, J., Stroeve, J., Thibeault, J., Xie, S.-P., Wang, C., Wyman, B. and Zhao, M. 2014. North American climate in CMIP5 experiments: Part III: Assessment of Twenty-First-Century Projections. Journal of Climate 27: 2230-2270.

NAmerClim_in_CMIP5_part3 (PDF)

Additional Reference
Pierce, D.W., Barnett, T.P., Santer, B.D. and Gleckler, P.J. 2009. Selecting climate models for regional climate change studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 8441-8446.

About these ads

54 thoughts on “Twenty-five Climate Models Can’t All Be Wrong … Or Can They?

  1. And all those models assume increase in trace C02 (as the prime variable) will warm the atmoshpere of the planet.
    They all work on the same unproven premise, therefore they could easily all be wrong.

  2. Just curious .. when will the current “pause” in the “warming” end, according to these ingenious models?

  3. And a mystery number 8 might comment on temperature projections but alas was edited out???

  4. Thus far, none of these models has produced workable forecasts. It seems that the argument above seems to be that the problem is that they are all different. If we make them all the same, I don’t see how that makes the product better. If the ingredients are wrong, proportion isn’t going to fix the cake.

  5. Looks like they are finally catching on…. Ya can’t model a system you don’t fully understand!

  6. In the real world, the conclusion would be: You’re fired!

    In climate science this conclusion is just an incentive to ask for more money.
    After all, 97% of scientists agree that they are right, by getting it wrong.

  7. Rule one of climate science ‘ if the models and reality differ in value its reality which is in error’ takes care of any variation across the models , has this variation just shows how badly and how often reality is wrong .

  8. This assessment will be ignored, as it is from NIPCC. Even if it were from IPCC, its findings would be rationalized and then, ignored

  9. Aphan says:
    Anthony-where was Maloney et al 2014 published for future reference? Thanks.

    Reference
    Maloney, E.D., Camargo, S.J., Chang, E., Colle, B., Fu, R., Geil, K.L., Hu, Q., Jiang, X., Johnson, N., Karnauskas, K.B., Kinter, J., Kirtman, B., Kumar, S., Langenbrunner, B., Lombardo, K., Long, L.N., Mariotti, A., Meyerson, J.E., Mo, K.C., Neelin, J.D., Pan, Z., Seager, R., Serra, Y., Seth, A., Sheffield, J., Stroeve, J., Thibeault, J., Xie, S.-P., Wang, C., Wyman, B. and Zhao, M. 2014. North American climate in CMIP5 experiments: Part III: Assessment of Twenty-First-Century Projections. Journal of Climate 27: 2230-2270.

  10. Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t these new and/or improved models tend to start from “now” to project alarm and ignore how far off the previous models that present is based on have diverged from reality?
    Are they just a backdoor way to “move the goal posts”? Or should we just “DO SOMETHING NOW!!” for another 17+ years?

  11. Mmmm … the blog doesn’t like criticizm of the Mosh. Sent a couple of posts to the black hole.

    [snip – it is broadly off topic, and will do nothing but start an argument over a person which will disrupt the thread -mod]

  12. Joe Crawford says:”Ya can’t model a system you don’t fully understand!”
    Sure you can, it’s done all of the time, the reputable scientist will note where the assumptions are made and work dilligently to replace the assumptions with verifiable data and well concieved hypotheses. Contrast this with Climatologist who seem to ignore that their assumptions are unproven and their models don’t have any demonstrable predictive value.

  13. If one adopted the assumption that tiny changes in global temperature (somewhere in the order of say 0.5C-2C) were attributable to natural variability, such as ocean overturning over long time scales, then all models of this type must fail.

    Given the fact that all models of this type have so far failed, this is at least suggestive evidence for the above.

  14. “even areas of substantial agreement among models may not imply more confidence that projections are correct,….

    ..and they are going to verify these models……how?

    The US temp history is a sham…..

    Even if one model was accurate with one parameter….it won’t be accurate the second that parameter changes

  15. Curious George says:
    June 17, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    Just curious .. when will the current “pause” in the “warming” end, according to these ingenious models?
    ————————————————————————————————————————————–
    That is a great question. I have never heard any warmist ever attempt to answer or propose an approximation of ‘when’. That is also an inadvertent admission that their side does not understand what caused the plateau. So there is no way for them to define a ‘when’, if they do not yet know the ‘how’.

  16. The accuracy of their future global temperature predictions is no bettrer than the original Hansen predictions were in 1988. Hansen had just thee models, A, B, and C, which he did on an IBM mainframe. His model A was for business as usual, what we lived through. Having experienced his projected future we now know he was way off, his prediction much higher than what really happened. Today the modelers have switched to supercomputers, each costing 50 million plus, and there are dozens of them because of the billions that are spent for “climatre research.” And model software sports million-line code. They have now had 26 years to polish these models since Hansen first came out with them and you would think that by now they would have a pretty good grip on what the climate is doing. But no such luck – their predictions are no better thsan Hansen’s originals were and sometimes much worse. All you need to convince yourself of this is to look at some CMIP5 outputs. When it comes to modelling the current warming pause they all completely fail because their code demands warming when there has been none for 17 years. It is time to admit that climate modeling does not work and shut it down. It is no damn good and a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars of research money. Their only output is wrong climate predictions, passed off to governments as latest scientific facts.

  17. So, who is Anthony Watts, who is active 24 hours a day? Does he exist?

    [ Apparently you were too impatient and missed the previous comment on the other thread, so here it is again:

    REPLY: Oh I indeed exist, and I use something called SCHEDULED PUBLISHING to post stories overnight and sometimes during the day. – Anthony ]

  18. Do any of the models agree exactly? No? Then —at a minimum— 24 of them must be wrong. No one model has a better than 4% chance of being right. Odds are quite good that all 25 are wrong.

  19. I would like to see just one simple question answered…
    What is the ideal temperature of the Earth??
    If we don’t know what that temperature is, then how do we know if any warming is moving towards the ideal temperature or away from it? How do we know what to spend money on?
    Hansen? Mann? Gore? Anybody??

  20. How about we strip the models of all data, load the last 40 years of observations into them. Then query for a forecast?

    When do we start using something other than model addon’s from grad students?

    Just sayin, am I wrong?

    Hopefully, that data does not disappear like the server based emails of the IRS……

  21. Jim, too. says:
    June 17, 2014 at 6:05 pm
    I would like to see just one simple question answered…
    What is the ideal temperature of the Earth?? /snip

    ====================================

    You an everyone else!

    We simply don’t know.

    If someone tells you the answer, they are not telling you the truth……..

  22. Well an adjunct to this modeling problem, which I see as a total failure of any of the models, or all of them collectively, to simply replicate what we already know; at least to some extent, has already happened.

    So go back to 1850 or when measured data of any kind was collected, and simply get to where we are with your models.

    But part of the problem, as I see it, relates to “Kevin Trenberth’s missing heat.”

    As some may have noticed, I’m a firm believer, that we err when we teach (universally) that “”..HEAT..”” is propagated in three ways, Conduction, Convection, and Radiation.

    HEAT is a form of ENERGY. A very disorganized form of energy. Thermodynamics teaches us that other forms of energy (mechanical work for example) can be converted to heat, sometimes totally. Heat can NEVER be converted to ANY other form of energy with 100% efficiency.

    In particular Electro-Magnetic Radiation, is a form of energy, but it IS NOT “heat”. EM radiation of ANY frequency or wavelength can be converted to heat, but the radiation itself is NOT heat, no matter what its frequency is.

    So what does this have to do with KT’s “missing heat.”

    Well you see, earth gets essentially ZERO HEAT from the sun; there is no heat conducting or convecting medium, between here and the sun, to bring us any heat; other than microscopic amounts from energetic particles.

    Nor can heat leave this planet, for the same reason.

    So we make all of earth’s heat, right here. It is home grown, mostly from solar EM radiant energy.

    Well the trouble is, that we assume that ALL of the insolation of radiant energy, that we receive at a rate of about 1366 W/m^2 at mean earth orbit, is simply converted to heat, mostly in the dim dark oceans.

    Well, we do know, by direct experiment, that some of that EM energy, can in fact be converted into electricity, instead of “heat”. That electricity, might eventually be converted to heat, by simply wasting it in a resistor. Or we could turn it into “light” with an LED, and then resend that back out into space..

    So all of the solar energy is not converted to waste heat on earth.

    So what about the solar energy that is turned into stored chemical energy, in the form of grass or wood. What about ALL of the energy that is converted into any and all biological materials.

    We know that coal itself is simply stored solar energy, in chemical form. It is claimed that petroleum and natural gas are also of biological origin.

    Well you get the idea. HOW MUCH of the TSI incoming radiant energy, is actually NOT being converted directly into “heat”, that can propagate by the twin thermal processes of conduction and convection.

    How much of it is actually being stored, mostly as chemical energy, available for our later use, in the form of charcoal or presto logs, that we can transport by shopping cart. But presto logs, like EM radiation are NOT heat; but both are convertible into heat, by combustion, or other well understood energy transformation processes.

    Kevin Trenberth’s Earth Power (not energy) budget, so far as I recall, has ZERO conversion of solar energy, into non-heat forms of energy storage media; mostly biological (think of the ocean life).

    So MY personal choice for KT’s missing heat, is simply, we never made that heat in the first place, so there isn’t ANY missing heat; it’s now in other forms of energy.

    I leave it as a mind experiment, to any who care; go out into space at earth’s mean orbital radius, and point your radiometer directly at the sun; our principal source of extra-terrestrial energy.

    If you EVER get a reading within +/- 25 % of 342 W/m^2; please come back, and report that to Kevin Trenberth.

  23. Regarding: ” I would like to see just one simple question answered…
    What is the ideal temperature of the Earth??
    If we don’t know what that temperature is, then how do we know if any warming is moving towards the ideal temperature or away from it? How do we know what to spend money on?
    Hansen? Mann? Gore? Anybody?? ”

    Most climatologists agree that it was warmer than today several times since the last ice age. A new paper shows Medieval Warm Period was global in scope…Per this technical treatise: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617 : “water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.”

    OK, so it has been warmer in the past than now. “The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm climate in Europe and around the world. The warmest part of the Medieval Warm Period was from about 950 until 1100 A.D. The warm climate overlaps with a time of high solar activity called the Medieval Maximum. The Medieval Warm Period occurred before the Little Ice Age, a time of cool climate in Europe and other places around the world.”

    97% of historians say that civilization thrived during the warm periods and suffered during the cold periods. In this Forbes article “Global Cooling, Not Global Warming, Doomed the Ancients”, it was said that “Global cooling rather than global warming or “climate change” doomed ancient societies, despite the New York Times’ latest efforts to invent a new global warming alarm. The Times published an article Tuesday claiming “climate change” doomed ancient societies to famine and collapse, but those societies thrived while temperatures were significantly warmer than today. It was only when temperatures cooled that shorter growing seasons and less favorable climate conditions doomed crop production and the food supplies of ancient civilizations.”

    It appears from the historical record that an ideal temperature is what we are experiencing right now, or maybe a little higher. If we get another Little Ice Age, we will see just how much stress that can impart on civilization, due to decreased harvests and energy expenditure just to survive. It wasn’t pretty in the past and it won’t be a picnic in the future.

  24. Warmer temperatures require less “energy” to actually “exist” on “all” fronts.

    Think about it………. no matter the fuel/energy needed. ………

  25. Arno Arrak says:
    June 17, 2014 at 5:20 pm
    __________________
    Absolutely spot on.
    Only i thought Hansen did his first climate modeling on the then coming ice age in the very late 1970’s as a student, not that it matters much.
    Climate modellers have one hell of a lot to answer for .
    They have deliberately committed fraud by claiming a level of predictability in their models which simply does not and never has existed and they knew it all the time.
    They have used their completely fraudulent claims about the reliability of their model’s predictions to convince the politicals that the Earth is heading for some sort of climate armageddon.

    They and their models have never ever proven to the slightest degree their proposition that the entire basis for their models predictions, the increase in atmospheric CO2 is responsible in any way except theoretically, for the recent and now plateaued increase in global temperatures.

    They have predicted all types of disasters for over twenty five years from rising global temperatures, not one of which has ever come to fruition or has ever shown any sign of or long term proof of being caused by modeled climate warming if it has appeared.

    Consequently the climate modellers have been totally and solely responsible for the destruction of untold wealth in our society.
    They and their climate model’s predictions have been directly responsible for the immense suffering amongst those who can no longer afford the costs of energy increased at the behest of the climate modellers to reduce the emissions of CO2.
    They are directly responsible for the massive transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest in our society through their support for high cost and for many unaffordable renewable energy run by the usual line up of straight out scammers and profiteers.

    They have ensured the rise of utterly inefficient means of power generation, wind and solar that can only exist if further supported by huge publicly funded subsidies.
    Through the huge increase in energy costs in the countries that followed the dictates of the climate modellers, they have destroyed entire industries and led to increased levels of inefficiency in most industries.
    They are directly responsible for destroying millions of jobs across the western world due to high energy costs.
    The climate modellers who promoted the supposed predictions of their models as real world reality for the future have been directly responsible for creating wide spread, completely unnecessary societal disrupting dissension leading to a quasi climate catastrophe cult that is now believed by many, a cult like belief in a climate catastrophe that has NEVER been publicly repudiated by any of the climate modeling profession.

    They and their climate models are directly responsible for the destruction of immense amounts of society’s wealth and all for no percievable outcomes let alone benefits to society, wealth that would have been far better spent elsewhere in our society.

    The climate modellers and their ongoing heavily promoted and now publicly recognised totally failed predictions are the only science group who have led and are leading to the increasingly rapid fall in the public’s respect for science of every discipline by their stupidity in promoting every prediction from their models as being of some sort of catastrophic outcome, catastrophic outcomes which have never ever come to any sort of fruition.

    In the end! Why?

    For a lot of us out here and on the street it appears to be for no more reason than it made for a very nice lucrative living in very comfortable surrounds in a sympathetic academia who were also intent not on advancing science but on ensuring a comfortable living until they retired.

    And if their damn climate models had ever worked it would have only needed just one to make good predictions on the future of the global climate.

    Smart politicians might one day awake to this and just say to the climate modellers; Choose one as that is the only model we will fund and the rest of you can go and sweep streets, something that is in line with your demonstrated scientific skills and your non existent committment to try and advance society through truth and honesty in the science you purport to practice.

  26. Even a badly made suit fits where it touches.

    Can someone answer this question: why do the AR reports continue to show the multiple “scenarios” that go from nil to extremes in 2100, and do not reflect the 1996 to 2014 “pause”? Have we truly learned nothing about sensitivities and GHG production to narrow the projected outcomes, and could any projection at any time suddenly jump from where the temperatures are in 2014 to a track to any of the range projected for 2100?

    If my stockbroker tried this trick with me, I’d call his boss and ask if they served crack to their advisors at lunch. But with Schmidt et al, the previous range of scenarios seems to be just as legitimate today as back in 1988. I can’t figure it out.

  27. Joe Crawford says:
    June 17, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    Looks like they are finally catching on…. Ya can’t model a system you don’t fully understand!
    ====================

    trying to deterministically model non-linear chaotic complex processes is bound to fail with what we know today.
    empirical modeling may suceed one day many centuries from now when past patterns can be set as historical proxies of likely climate trajectories when constrained with orbital variations and solar cycle dynamics.

  28. goldminor says:
    June 17, 2014 at 5:06 pm
    ///////////////////////////////////

    About 12 to 20 months ago, the Met Office said that there would not be a return to warming before 2017.

    I do not know on what basis they made that statement, and in particular whether it was baseed upon the output of models, or whether it was based upon some assessment of ENSO, or just some ‘guess’. I have always found it curious; they were predicting the ‘pause’ to be approx 20 years in duration (and they consider that warming will return after the pause – no surprise on that count since they are wedded to rising CO2 levels means rising temperatures)..

    I raised this point several times when there have been discussions on the length of the pause, climate sensitivity, model predictions verses reality etc.

  29. george e. smith: “Well you get the idea. HOW MUCH of the TSI incoming radiant energy, is actually NOT being converted directly into “heat”, that can propagate by the twin thermal processes of conduction and convection.”

    This is an EXCELLENT point. If CO2 is causing more plant growth, more of the surface is being covered with vegetable solar panels, converting solar energy to chemical bonds (sugars, etc). It’s well-established that greened areas have lower temperature than bare soil, rock, asphalt, etc. This could very well be a substantial portion of the negative CO2 feedback.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2/

    http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/mitigation/trees.htm

  30. If the earth-atmosphere climate system is, as the IPCC agrees, a non-linear, complex, chaotic system, then the models, no matter how many agree or disagree can never be used to provide a ‘prediction’ of the future state of the system. One of the hallmarks of a chaotic system is just that. even a small error in the initial state of the system or its processes can introduce wildly divergent results. In my opinion, we will never have knowledge of all the parameter values and complete functioning of all the processes that affect the climate system to a degree that we can rely on their predicted climate states for planning.

  31. “If the earth-atmosphere climate system is, as the IPCC agrees, a non-linear, complex, chaotic system, then the models … can never be used to provide a ‘prediction’ of the future state of the system. One of the hallmarks of a chaotic system is just that. even a small error in the initial state of the system or its processes can introduce wildly divergent results.”

    The IPCC are not claiming that “in the long run” the atmosphere is purely chaotic or behaves like a random walk. They consider only “short term” fluctuations in the atmosphere to be like this.

  32. george e. smith says:
    June 17, 2014 at 6:56 pm

    Not only chemical, but entropy, in cracked and weathered rocks, melted ice etc. But by far the greatest loss is kinetic energy, in the form of wind, waves and currents even rain hitting the surface amounts to about 0.6W per square meter. These do not reemerge as heat but rather the bulk is expended into the gravitational system, in trying to affect the mass of the earth, and via gravity the solar system. Mostly kinetic energy ends up expending as a drag on the earth rotation.

    Apparently an Average ocean swell has about 36 kW/ square meter given that total insolation is only about 400 watts on average its likely that wave energy is mostly gravitational too, but its clear that some of the wind and waves and currents are due to thermals. How much does it extract from the incoming insolation…. well thats anyone’s guess, nobody knows, so Trenberths energy balance is totally wrong, until that component ( and photosysthesis energy sinking plus entropy energy sinks) are accounted for

    • Can’t ocean wave energy be stored energy, like the heights you get on a swing by “pumping” small pushes? Same for the El Nino energy: cumulative and incremental.

  33. The models failed, because the coding was a fraud to start with. The presupposition was that the 20 ppm of natural necessary Co2, which is emitted by mankind, causes Venus, where Co2 is 95% of the atmosphere. There are 1 million interactions in climate, local, regional, cosmic, and feedback loops are complicated. I have been in Software for 20 years, I can assure you, that modeling the climate is impossible and will always be inaccurate. You can’t model many to many relationships, that you don’t even understand……

  34. They are mainly looking at agreement between models, which I’m sure is fascinating to them, but doesn’t tell you much about accuracy, validity or reliability. For example, though not discussed in the article, the models agree there ought to be a tropical upper tropospheric hot spot, which 35 years of satellite observations and 50+ years of balloon data show does not exist to a very, very high level of confidence. The modeling folks can’t explain it – as the Second Order Draft of AR5 WG1 Chapter 9, Section 9.4.1.3.2 admitted:

    “In summary, there is high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.”

    This was of course air-brushed out of the final report, and 95% confidence in attribution – based on models – was proclaimed. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

    But it is a critically significant point. The theory and the models require the hot spot. Nature stubbornly refuses to oblige. Cue Feynman on what is science.

  35. Doug Proctor says:
    June 18, 2014 at 8:00 am

    Can’t ocean wave energy be stored energy, like the heights you get on a swing by “pumping” small pushes? Same for the El Nino energy: cumulative and incremental.
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    That is similar to my thoughts. Does the energy for an El Nino build up to a threshold where it has to slough off a portion of the load?

  36. Yes wave energy could be like that, but you such a reasonant source cant be exrtacted from, because the wave would be damped down. I imply that because a fair amount of that energy is extractable that reasonance doesn’t affect wave energy to large degree.

    • Waves are a resonant phenomenon. But have negative feedback by the wind clipping off the top for spray and the whitecaps as the wave breaks.

  37. Monkeys throwing darts will get it right sometime. It’s not a science if they can’t get it right.

  38. Perhaps when they close down some of the modelling there will be some spare computing power available to predict the lottery winners. This will be a cinch as ALL the data is available – start positions, initial velocity, elasticity, timing etc much, much easier than forecasting climate changes where most of the variables are unknown or not measurable (or both).

    Can’t wait!

    SteveT

  39. How blankets warm.

    Sometimes, the greenhouse effect is explained as a “blanket effect”.

    Blankets don’t warm you. Your body is warmed by the “combustion of stored chemical energy. Your food is metabolized to form necessary construction materials, and generate heat internal to your body; that is what heats you up.

    The skin cools you through various processes including evaporation.

    I won’t attempt to explain it as IANABist.

    So a blanket is simply a low thermal conductance insulator, that also inhibits air flow and thus convective cooling.

    If your body keeps on generating internal “heat” through metabolism, and the blanket slows down the cooling processes of “heat” loss, your steady state temperature must rise. This will accelerate your “heat” loss rate, so a new balance is reached.

    That’s how blankets work.

    The GHG IR capture processes, also delay / slow down, the radiative energy escape processes, while the sun continues to pour in more erergy in the form of solar radiation.

    This is not exactly comparable to the blanket concept, since in the earth cae, the energy source that creates the heat on earth, is external to the “blanket”, rather than internal.

    So this is much more complex, inthat there are processes, which interfere with the solar energy input, as well; namely clouds (and other things of course).

    But the escape delay by GHG capture, results in a heating increase by the sun’s energy, specially if the other conditions stay the same. (cloud cover).

    So the GHG “blanket is squirmier than your bed blanket.

    The key idea of the heating, in both cases, however, is still the escape delay time.

    So now let us look at the solar energy heating processes of the earth.

    For example, solar EM rays pass deeply into the ocean, and eventually are totally absorbed by water molecules, and turned into “heat”. Rather quickly, I might add.

    BUT !! Now we know, that not ALL solar EM radiation is turned into “heat”, (directly).

    Some is turned into New Zealand green shell mussels (yummy).

    Well they too will eventually become “heat”, once I get done eating them.

    Well you see, ALL of the bio-conversion processes of solar EM radiant energy, into non-“heat” forms of stored energy, are also heating delay processes.

    Instead of a prompt radiation -> “heat” conversion, we get : radiation -> phyto-plankton -> zoo-plankton -> anchovies -> mackerel -> Tuna -> sushi -> “heat” (plus yummy).

    So not only is earth’s cooling process delayed by processes like GHG absorption, but also the solar energy input heating processes get delayed by various bio-conversions, and other radiation -> “heat” processes, as other folks have mentioned here.

    So KT’s stationary average power budget description is a pitiful excuse for what is really going on out there.

    No wonder, that THEY can’t model it.

  40. If you had 25 models starting with a different perspective one would be right or at least close. The fact that all 25 are wrong means that they all start from the same, there is essentially nothing different about any of the models. It’s just one model or assumption and it is wrong. Otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it. Well, we might if it were correct, we’d be talking about what to do and how to do it. They keep doing the same thing over and over expecting to see the result they want or expect. Isn’t that the definition of insanity? Einstein? It’s kind of funny.. not irony, ok, it’s funny irony.

  41. CMIP 5 or CHIMP 5 to me.
    What they simply do not comprehend is a cloud has the same properties on top as it does at the bottom. Rain is made and precipitated to a net zero energy change. Light and day has a net average. Latency of the atmosphere created by CO2 etc. follows greater radiation at night.
    Net energy going in always matches net energy going out.

    The mechanism for this is called “the weather”. It is not climate.

    Where we could be aiding a slight change, is in air mass. No doubt the 100ppm of CO2 will be accountable for in air pressure. However, incredibly slight. I know CHIMP 5 have not considered this basic fact even though gas pressure raises the temperature of every planet irrespective of the mix..

  42. Whatever has Paused the Warming the GCMs so desperately need and project, it’s in charge.

Comments are closed.