Yesterday on WUWT, a post from Luboš Motl told us how climate science has been proposed as a vehicle for wealth redistribution by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber who is the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the main German government’s climate protection adviser. Interestingly it has been discovered that he co-authored a paper critical of Global Climate Models (GCM’s) in 2001. The paper and list of co-authors is below.
Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability (link to PDF here)
R. B. Govindan,1,2 Dmitry Vyushin,1,2 Armin Bunde,2,* Stephen Brenner,3
Shlomo Havlin,1 and Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber4
1Minerva Center and Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
2Institut für Theoretische Physik III, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 16, 35392 Giessen, Germany
3Department of Geography, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
4Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany
(Received 1 November 2001; revised manuscript received 22 April 2002; published 21 June 2002)
We test the scaling performance of seven leading global climate models by using detrended fluctuation
analysis. We analyze temperature records of six representative sites around the globe simulated by the
models, for two different scenarios: (i) with greenhouse gas forcing only and (ii) with greenhouse gas
plus aerosol forcing. We find that the simulated records for both scenarios fail to reproduce the universal
scaling behavior of the observed records and display wide performance differences. The deviations
from the scaling behavior are more pronounced in the first scenario, where also the trends are clearly
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.028501 PACS numbers: 92.60.Wc, 02.70.Hm, 64.60.Ak, 92.70.Gt
In the conclusion the authors write:
To summarize, we have presented evidence that
AOGCMs fail to reproduce the universal scaling behavior
observed in the real temperature records. Moreover, the
models display wide differences in scaling for different
sites. When comparing the two scenarios, our results
suggest that the second scenario (CO2 plus aerosols)
exhibits better performance regarding the values of the
scaling exponents as well as the trends. The effect of
aerosols not only decreases the trends but also modifies
the fluctuations, to more closely resemble the real data.
This confirms in a way independent of the evaluations
made so far  that the incorporation of aerosols is
necessary to approach reality.
It is possible that the lack of long-term persistence is due
to the fact that certain forcings such as volcanic eruptions
or solar fluctuations have not been incorporated in the models.
However, we cannot rule out that systematic model
deficiencies (such as the use of equivalent CO2 forcing to
account for all other greenhouse gases or inaccurate spatial
and temporal distributions of sulphate emissions) prevent
the AOGCMs from correctly simulating the natural variability
of the atmosphere. Since the models underestimate
the long-range persistence of the atmosphere and overestimate
the trends, our analysis suggests that the anticipated
global warming is also overestimated by the models.
Oddly, though by his own peer reviewed admission, GCM’s don’t fully represent reality, and “global warming is also overestimated by the models”, that doesn’t stop Schellnhuber from using the conclusions of GCM’s to create his own alternate world reality where the industrialized nations have to pay carbon reparations to poorer ones.
h/t to Steve Mosher