This is interesting. A quick cooling in Europe together with an increase in humidity and particularly in windiness was found to coincide with a long-term reduction in solar activity 2800 years ago during something called the “Homeric minimum”.
The paper published in Nature Geoscience suggests that solar grand minima was the trigger for cooling of the climate in Europe. Approximately 2800 years ago, one of these Grand Solar Minima, the Homeric Minimum, caused a distinct climatic change in less than a decade in Western Europe. While they talk about UV, the forcing mechanisms still are unclear but the evidence in this paper suggests that solar effects are significant. Dr. Leif Svalgaard sent me the notice of the paper, and included this graph which he says:
Attached is one of the better reconstruction of solar activity.
There are, of course, several other excursions not mentioned, e.g. the more severe one around 650 AD
Here’s the abstract, bold mine:
Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum
by Celia Martin-Puertas, Katja Matthes, Achim Brauer, Raimund Muscheler, Felicitas Hansen, Christof Petrick, Ala Aldahan, Göran Possnert & Bas van Geel
Nature Geoscience (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1460
Large changes in solar ultraviolet radiation can indirectly affect climate1 by inducing atmospheric changes. Specifically, it has been suggested that centennial-scale climate variability during the Holocene epoch was controlled by the Sun2, 3. However, the amplitude of solar forcing is small when compared with the climatic effects and, without reliable data sets, it is unclear which feedback mechanisms could have amplified the forcing. Here we analyse annually laminated sediments of Lake Meerfelder Maar, Germany, to derive variations in wind strength and the rate of 10Be accumulation, a proxy for solar activity, from 3,300 to 2,000 years before present. We find a sharp increase in windiness and cosmogenic 10Be deposition 2,759 ± 39 varve years before present and a reduction in both entities 199 ± 9 annual layers later. We infer that the atmospheric circulation reacted abruptly and in phase with the solar minimum. A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model. We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago, coincident with a grand solar minimum.
UPDATE: Here’s the press release from the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres.
Climatic effects of a solar minimum
A grand solar minimum and the climate response recorded for the first time in the same climate archive highlights the need for a more differentiated approach to solar radiation
An abrupt cooling in Europe together with an increase in humidity and particularly in windiness coincided with a sustained reduction in solar activity 2800 years ago. Scientists from the German Research Centre for Geosciences GFZ in collaboration with Swedish and Dutch colleagues provide evidence for a direct solar-climate linkage on centennial timescales. Using the most modern methodological approach, they analysed sediments from Lake Meerfelder Maar, a maar lake in the Eifel/Germany, to determine annual variations in climate proxies and solar activity.
The study published online this week in Nature Geosience (06/05/2012) reports the climatic change that occurred at the beginning of the pre-Roman Iron Age and demonstrates that especially the so-called Grand Minima of solar activity can affect climate conditions in western Europe through changes in regional atmospheric circulation pattern. Around 2800 years ago, one of these Grand Solar Minima, the Homeric Minimum, caused a distinct climatic change in less than a decade in Western Europe.
The exceptional seasonally laminated sediments from the studied maar lake allow a precise dating even of short-term climate changes. The results show for a 200 year long period strongly increased springtime winds during a period of cool and wet climate in Europe. In combination with model studies they suggest a mechanism that can explain the relation between a weak sun and climate change. “The change and strengthening of the tropospheric wind systems likely is related to stratospheric processes which in turn are affected by the ultraviolet radiation” explains Achim Brauer (GFZ), the initiator of the study. “This complex chain of processes thus acts as a positive feedback mechanism that could explain why assumingly too small variations in solar activity have caused regional climate changes.”
Albeit those findings cannot be directly transferred to future projections because the current climate is additionally affected by anthropogenic forcing, they provide clear evidence for still poorly understood aspects of the climate system, emphasizes Achim Brauer. In particular, further investigations are required with a focus on the climatic consequences of changes in different wavelengths of the solar spectrum. Only when the mechanisms of solar-climate links are better understood a reliable estimate of the potential effects of the next Grand solar minimum in a world of anthropogenic climate change will be possible. In this respect, well-dated annually laminated lake sediments are also in future of crucial importance for these studies.
Therefore, scientists from the German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ) and other institutions search for such archives around the world in order to to obtain a more accurate approach to the solar-climate relationship and the different regional responses.
Celia Martin-Puertas, Katja Matthes, Achim Brauer, Raimund Muscheler, Felicitas Hansen, Christof Petrick, Ala Aldahan, Göran Possnert and Bas van Geel: “Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum”, Nature Geoscience, DOI 10.1038/NGEO1460
Pictures of Eifel maar lakes and drilling can be found here:
http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/portal/gfz/Public+Relations/M40-Bildarchiv/Bildergalerie+Klimaforschung
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
the sun doesn’t change in size, so why should it change much in visual intensity?
rather, what we should see is a change in frequency as the sun ramps up and down. a hotter sun should be shifted to the UV. A cooler sun shifted to the IR.
Climate changes would then be more a result of ionization rates than W/m2.
@Doug Proctor:
I speculate that there is a variable time lag in ocean warming and cooling, based on initial cooling in the central Pacific as an increased Circumpolar Current whacks into Drake Passage and sends more cold water up the spine of South America. It then takes 18 years to get to Alaska. At the same time, Australia cools a bit on the early side. The Indian Ocean is a bit isolated, so takes even longer. Then there is a current that leaves it, travels around the tip of Africa and out into the South Atlantic gyre, eventually moving north to become the Gulf Stream and at the end, reach Europe.
That would imply the East of the USA and Europe are last on the warming / cooling list and California / Australia / Peru are early. Recently we’ve seen cold deaths in Bolivia and Peru, lots of rain in Australia as it cools down, and a cold California, while the East Coast was warm.
So I think there IS a need to look at time delays in changes (i.e. a “Global Average” is exactly the wrong thing to do), but that the ‘shift’ is a global one. Just one with time lags.
Oddly, HadCrut uses a baseline 10 years later than GIStemp, each centered on a cold period in their local. I’m sure there’s nothing to it…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/sea-temperature-time-delay/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/drakes-passage/
@Rhys Jaggar:
Try:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/
and
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
ferd berple – the quote you attributed to me was in fact quoted from the Martin-Puertas et al paper in the WUWT post. You are IMHO absolutely correct in saying “solar science concentrates on a hopelessly misleading proxy to base its climate conclusions“.
Smokey
Smokey. you are wrong.
“Jan Perlwitz shows that he is ignorant of the Scientific Method. Perlwitz says:
“…there is nothing in there that is in contradiction to that greenhouse gases have been the dominant driver for the observed global warming over the last 35 years…”
1. The paper discusses the effect the sun may have on regional climate.
2. that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the effect that C02 may or may not have.
jan is correct. there is no logical connection between a paper that talks about the effect
the sun may or may not have and the effects c02 may or may not have.
stepping on the brake slows the car. This observation has nothing to do with the
effect of stepping on the gas. stepping on the gas makes the car go faster.
Your next comment shows some serious misunderstanding
“But Perlwitz cannot provide a testable, verifiable, empirical measurement quantifying the specific percentage of global warming due to anthropogenic CO2, because there exists no such verifiable measurement. If such measurements did exist, the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2 would be accurately known. It is not known. ”
Esteemed climatologists have postulated sensitivity numbers from ≈1ºC, ± 0.5ºC, down to under 0.5ºC, to zero. Their highly educated views are more reputable than the IPCC’s preposterous, model-based 3+ºC.
############
the 3C number is not BASED ON models. models do not constrain the estimate of sensitivity.
The 3C number is estimated ( It can ONLY be estimated because you CANNOT do controlled experiments with the earth )
The estimates comes from three sources:
1. Paleo: in particular work done on the LGM
2. Observations: work down on volcanos and temperature series
3. Models
in these 3 lines the models are the least informative. the sensitivity number is not based on models. If every model vanished tomorrow, the science would not change and the best estimate would still be 3C. models add very little to our confidence in the number. Hansen has even acknowledged this.
Finally, Sensitivity is a measure of how the earth system responds to ANY change in forcing.
So, if small changes in the sun cause big changes in temperature THAT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR HIGHER SENSITIVITY.
sensitivity is a measure of the change in C per change in WATTS of forcing.
Leif Svalgaard says
Attached is one of the better reconstruction of solar activity. There are, of course, several other excursions not mentioned, e.g. the more severe one around 650 AD
Who is to say which reconstruction is better. Solanki/Usoskin (14C) agrees with Steinhilber (10Be) in most areas but there is a noticeable difference at 650AD. The 14C proxy data shows 2800 years ago was a larger deeper grand minimum than 650AD. The solar AM position also agrees with the 650AD 14C values so we have two pieces of separate evidence agreeing. What does the 10Be have as verification at 650AD?
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/solanki_sharp.png
Steven Mosher says: May 7, 2012 at 11:53 pm
So, if small changes in the sun cause big changes in temperature THAT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR HIGHER SENSITIVITY.
No, that is WRONG approach. Changes in the sun are not small, they are huge,
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2009/03/picture-4.png
it is that the TSI changes are small.
TSI changes are small of order of 0.05%, the Earth response is large of order of 2% (see the link bellow). To any sensible and practical scientist that would indicate that it is not either matter or sensitivity or amplification, it clearly shows that the TSI is not the driver of the large climatic changes. It shows that there is a different mechanism at play which science needs to investigate further.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
No progress can and will be made while scientists run in circles chasing either the CO2 or the TSI tails.
Vuk.
Nice try.
The reason why people focus on TSI ( watts ) is that there is a clear physical connection between Watts INTO the system and the system temperature (C). You can blather all you want about other properties of the sun that change but to counts as science you have to establish a physical model of how the property you point and grunt at manifests itself as a change in temperature. You cannot merely assert that a change in property X, explains a shift in the system temperature. you have to supply the MISSING MATH AND PHYSICS.
Until you do you have mere speculation. you need a physical model ( with the right units ) that can be used to explain the past and predict the future. you don’t have that, so at best you have sun worship. An old religion, but religion nonetheless
“So, if small changes in the sun cause big changes in temperature THAT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR HIGHER SENSITIVITY.”
Those solar changes do not cause big changes in SYSTEM temperature. Instead they only redistribute energy within the system unless the changes go on for a long time resulting in a significant net increase or decrease in accumulated solar shortwave entering the oceans.
The observed climate shifts are actually the system reorganising so as to maintain thermal equilibrium as far as possible despite the solar changes.
The climate shifts alter the rate of energy flow through the system to minmimse system sensitivity.
The surface temperatures are affected due to the changes in air flow across individual regions but the system itself is very insensitive to changes.
Thus what we have is a highly sensitive water based ‘thermostat’ which makes the system highly insensitive to all and any forcings.
Liquid oceans for 4 billion years is no accident.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 7, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Hello Geoff,
Nice to see that you have picked up on the issue of differential ozone effects above and below 45km which is something I have been banging on about for some time.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How THe Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”
from November 2010.
Mind you I think it a bit early to pin it onto ozone alone. I suspect that a combination of multiple solar effects on the upper atmosphere is involved.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 7, 2012 at 3:58 pm
‘What about, instead of attacking my person, by disseminating falsehoods about me, you try to get educated? ‘
Does your pique at my daring to question your understanding of basic scientific principles mean that you now accept the Null Hypothesis, both as a fundamental concept and in the specific issue of climate science?
Stephen Wilde says:
May 8, 2012 at 2:17 am
Hi Stephen, I think we are pushing in the same direction and agree with your closing comment. There are many atmospheric scientists that dont get a mention here, working towards solving the solar/climate link. It is a pity this research is being drowned out by a vocal few, us amateurs have an important role in a world lead by gravy train riders.
This paper is but one more small piece of evidence to add to the mix.
Steven Mosher, you say “there is no logical connection between a paper that talks about the effect the sun may or may not have and the effects c02 may or may not have.
To my simple mind, you are absolutely wrong. I have read and re-read large tracts of the IPCC report, and it is very clear that the models are all based on the assumption that observed 20thC warming was caused by CO2, with only the absolute minimum possible allowed for other factors. For example, the sun is dismissed without discussion as not having any effect beyond its direct forcing. That means that any possible indirect solar effect is dismissed out of hand, yet indirect effects of CO2 are siezed on without any evidence that they exist. Why is this so? Simple. Without the claimed indirect effects, the warming would not be enough to explain the late 20thC warming. The IPCC even states that the computer models are the source of these indirect effects.
So where does this leave us wrt the sun? The answer is that any paper which indicates that the sun has an effect on climate is a threat to the IPCC story because it reduces the amount of warming that can be claimed for CO2.
And it is not only the sun that is a threat. The whole of the 20thC warming is included in the models’ equations for CO2 (after deducting direct solar) yet the 20thC was clearly influenced by a cyclical effect which had two upward phases and only one downward phase. Clearly that cyclic effect provided a significant part of the 20thC warming, probably around a third. Because the IPCC ignored it, the CO2 effect was overestimated. They needed it to be overestimated, otherwise CO2 could not be portrayed as powerful enough to be alarming. (I think I am justified in portraying it this way, because the IPCC has been shown by Donna Laframboise to be heavily influenced by the WWF).
All in all, the IPCC gave itself a very difficult problem – namely that the direct forcing of CO2 was not even close to delivering enough warming – and the solution was to invent indirect effects to boost the direct CO2 forcing by a factor of about 3.
The whole exercise was appallingly unscientific, and they have used every trick in the book to protect their position – and one of those tricks is to try to squash any suggestion that the sun or anything else can affect climate.
That is the connection you deny.
The scary part is that this whole thing is about political power.
I am still very much puzzled that nobody who is anybody in climate science seems to be plotting the maximum temperatures which actually tell us what the sun-earth duo is doing….
http://letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
One still has to come up with reasonable/testable explanations for how the magnetic solar cycle causes significant climate change. TSI varies by .1% from low to high points in the cycle, which comes out to ~.1C IIRC. UV varies more, but I still don’t see any convincing connection on how that changes the climate down at the surface. Yes, I’ve read ALOT of others’ speculations, but nothing convincing to me. Climate is a water-vapor-driven heat-engine “fueled” by regional solar radiation striking the surface. I think it’s pretty convincing that Milankovitch cycles control the majority of long-term (10k yrs) climate changes, and internally generated DO/Heinrich events the short-term “triggers” to initiate more sudden changes. Looking at the ice-cores, recent changes like the MWP and LIA are hardly more than minor blips compared to the big shifts.
Alec Rawls says:
May 7, 2012 at 8:43 pm
If Steinhilber’s Sporer estimate is right, how could the sun go magnetically quieter than during Maunder, when almost no sunspots were seen for 70 yrs? We got a picture of what that looks like in 08, with the surface of the sun looking like a even field of wheat gently waving in the breeze. Does the wheat get shorter?
I also have some questions re the Steinhilber reconstruction and note the divergence thru the LIA. The Maunder period does not agree with any other reconstruction I have seen (solar proxy or temp). When comparing the two records with an overlay the allowances made for the decline in geomagnetic strength also seems to differ, the Steinhilber reconstruction is much flatter?
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/solanki_sharp.png
Steven Mosher says:
“If every model vanished tomorrow, the science would not change and the best estimate would still be 3C.”
“Best estimate”? Hm-m-m…
Prof Richard Lindzen disagrees with that preposterous
best estimateWAG. The three Drs. Idso say sensitivity is even lower than Lindzen’s ≈1ºC per doubling; less than 0.5ºC. Dr. Spencer says sensitivity is less than than 0.5ºC per doubling. Dr. Miskolczi says it is 0.00ºC per doubling of CO2.So who should we rely on? Actual experts? Or on Mosh’s model-based “3C”?
I think I’ll go with the estimates of real experts, over the bought and paid for climate alarmism of the IPCC.
Mosh continues: “Sensitivity is a measure of how the earth system responds to ANY change in forcing.”
Then explain why climate sensitivity is routinely defined as the warming produced by a doubling of CO2 [“2xCO2”]. It is because the entire debate revolves around the demonization of “carbon” [by which both scientific illiterates and the CAGW propaganda alarmists mean carbon dioxide, a minor trace gas]. The entirely trumped-up scare story blaming CO2 for every routine weather event has been falsified by Planet Earth herself.
AGW remains an untested conjecture. It may be true, or not. But there is no measurable evidence showing conclusively that X amount of human CO2 emissions results in Y degrees of global warming. The most compelling argument is that the rise in CO2 is the result of prior ocean warming; just as a warming Coke will outgas CO2. The alarmist crowd has simply reversed cause and effect.
So in order to perpetuate the falsified CO2=CAGW nonsense, the IPCC is forced to claim that a doubling of CO2 [not “all” forcings] will raise global temperatures by 3ºC or more. But the fact is that there is no verifiable evidence supporting that wild-eyed conjecture. If there is, produce it.
CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Those are verifiable facts, as opposed to conjecture.
“To my simple mind, you are absolutely wrong. I have read and re-read large tracts of the IPCC report, and it is very clear that the models are all based on the assumption that observed 20thC warming was caused by CO2, with only the absolute minimum possible allowed for other factors.”
You are wrong. I suggest you read the MODELS. ModelE has been online since I started reading in 2007. The models do not assume that the observed warming was caused by C02.
Here is what the models do. The models use accepted and experimentally validated physical theory of radiative transfer. Those theories, the same theories used to design radars and to process satellite imagery, calculate the effect that increasing C02 and other gases has on the radiative balance. No factor is “minimized” You simply did not know what you are talking about. you read the IPCC report. That is a review of the science not the science itself.
When you get to the core, when you push through the secondary review literature and get
down to the actual science, you will have a better understanding. I welcome that day
Steven Mosher says:
May 8, 2012 at 9:25 am
That is the worst post I have seen from you Mosher.
Surely you agree there is more to solar output than pure heat?
Steven Mosher says:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/07/solar-grand-minima-linked-to-cooling-period-in-europe/#comment-979610
…….calculate the effect that increasing C02 and other gases has on the radiative balance….
Henry says
Pray do tell how you figured out that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming rather than cooling? I have been looking for those results (and the test methods) for more than two years now.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
You cannot “calculate” that which has never been tested!!!!!!
Smokey comments:
using following link:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-HadCrut15-years.gif
What does this graphic refute? The graphic refutes the hypothesis that carbon dioxide was the only factor controlling temperature and that the change in the temperature would linearly follow the carbon dioxide change.
Nicely done, Smokey! The only problem you have is, this is just one of the main strawman arguments applied by fake skeptics like you. No one in climate science postulates such a hypothesis. You have falsified nonsense you have created yourself, or whoever of your comrades.
For someone like Jan Perlwitz, who hadn’t even heard of the Null Hypothesis until this past week, to call someone who is questioning the repeatedly falsified CO2=CAGW conjecture a “fake skeptic”, I simply say: consider the source: a fake scientist.
Smokey.
There is no null hypothesis for “warming is natural”. That is an unfalsifiable null. A proper Null has numbers in it. Further, nobody asserts at C02 = CAGW. nobody. You will not find that in any published paper and you wont find it in any models.
C02, as Anthony, Willis, spencer, lindzen, scafetta, Singer, argue WILL CAUSE warming.
It will not cause cooling. The argument has always been what is the final effect.
Stepping on the gas in your car will, all other things being equal, cause the car to go faster.
Do other things effect your top speed? yes. the road, your traction, the amount of gas in the car, your drag, the wind, many factors play in the final number. Noting that a strong headwind can slow you down, says nothing about sentence ” adding power will make the car go faster”
noting that brakes slow the car says nothing about the sentence “adding power will make the car go faster”. Adding C02 to the atmosphere changes its opacity to IR. more clouds change the opacity as well. This is known. This is measured. Changing the opacity to IR leads to surface that cools less rapidily. You know this from sleeping outside on cloudy nights versus clear nights. More clouds, more opaque to IR, less rapid cooling. GHGs act the same way, but over much longer peroids of time. clouds come and go. C02 stays around in the atmosphere.
The question is: how much “warming” can we expect? The earth varies naturally. Nobody deines that. The question is, if we permenately change the IR opacity of the atmosphere, how will those natural cycles be amplified? what DC slope will we add to the natural up and down. It wont be zero. there is no evidence that it will be zero. Our best physics says the slope will be positive.
How big and how long will that take? that is the science debate.
HenryP at May 8, 2012 at 9:42 am commented
with respect to “…….calculate the effect that increasing C02 and other gases has on the radiative balance….”
Your assertion that is has never been tested is factually wrong.
These calculations can be done with line-by-line radiative transfer code that calculates the effect of the gases for each gas and for each spectral line. The skills of these codes are regularly tested against measurements from the real world. So are the skills of radiation codes applied in climate models.
More information can be found here:
http://rtweb.aer.com/
Our tax money
at workwasted: posting from the public trough in the middle of a work day during a work week. Must be fun.Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 8, 2012 at 10:08 am (responding to)
Smokey comments:
The entirely trumped-up scare story blaming CO2 for every routine weather event has been falsified by Planet Earth herself. … (trimmed, to avoid redundant posts) …
“Nicely done, Smokey! The only problem you have is, this is just one of the main strawman arguments applied by fake skeptics like you. No one in climate science postulates such a hypothesis. You have falsified nonsense you have created yourself, or whoever of your comrades.”
You’ve done this “trick” (of hiding behind the falsehood that “a so-called CAGW real scientist-did-not-specifically-say”) several times, and it is getting tiring.
Please name a single, CAGW-consensus-believing-peer-reviewed-so-called “scientist” who went on record when these lies and exaggerations WERE published and WERE propagandized by the “consensus” CAGW-theist ABCNNBCBS news media and liberal government-paid politicians.
No, instead, we see Hansen deliberately getting arrested in his demonstrations numerous times specifically to publicize such lies and exaggerations about the climate, drought, tornadoes, lunar-tides, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, and sea-level rise. And sea-algae-turbity. And turtle shells. And bird populations.
And dinosaur poots.
And a thousand other lets-put-global-warming-in-my-research-to-get-more-CAGW-funding-when-I-write-about-the-influences-of-CAGW-on-my-topic.
Again. Name ONE “climate scientist” who went on record saying that the UN’s/IPCC’s/your own/ every liberal politician’s CAGW-self-serving “exaggerations” were government lies and propaganda.
How pervasive is your CAGW-serving propaganda? Look at your own “google” search under “Images”. YOU are invisible, except for the self-funding list of government-funded taxpayer-paid research papers. But your boss, Jim Hansen, is shown 15 times in pictures (under YOUR search name and NASA-GISS) is photographed being arrested 12 times.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 8, 2012 at 10:23 am (responding to)
HenryP at May 8, 2012 at 9:42 am commented
with respect to “…….calculate the effect that increasing C02 and other gases has on the radiative balance….”
You cannot “calculate” that which has never been tested!!!!!!
Your assertion that is has never been tested is factually wrong.
These calculations can be done with line-by-line radiative transfer code that calculates the effect of the gases for each gas and for each spectral line. The skills of these codes are regularly tested against measurements from the real world. So are the skills of radiation codes applied in climate models.
Er, uhm, ah … No.
See, you merely claim that these calculations “have been done” by examining … (wait for it!) ..what else? … but MORE models of radiative heat transfer. Show us the measurements REAL TESTING these models have gone against the full scale-real-world data.
You can’t. Or more exactly, you have not done so at any time. You have only claimed “consensus” as your authority.
And, as stated before, EVERY “consensus” by EVERY “scientific authority” has been proved dead wrong EVERY time it has been claimed … before a new theory or a new finding has been exposed.