From NCAR:
Future warming likely to be on high side of climate projections, analysis finds
November 08, 2012
BOULDER—Climate model projections showing a greater rise in global temperature are likely to prove more accurate than those showing a lesser rise, according to a new analysis by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The findings, published in this week’s issue of Science, could provide a breakthrough in the longstanding quest to narrow the range of global warming expected in coming decades and beyond.
NCAR scientists John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth, who co-authored the study, reached their conclusions by analyzing how well sophisticated climate models reproduce observed relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics.
The climate models that most accurately captured these complex moisture processes and associated clouds, which have a major influence on global climate, were also the ones that showed the greatest amounts of warming as society emits more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
“There is a striking relationship between how well climate models simulate relative humidity in key areas and how much warming they show in response to increasing carbon dioxide,” Fasullo says. “Given how fundamental these processes are to clouds and the overall global climate, our findings indicate that warming is likely to be on the high side of current projections.”
The research was funded by NASA.
Moisture, clouds, and heat
The world’s major global climate models, numbering more than two dozen, are all based on long-established physical laws known to guide the atmosphere. However, because these relationships are challenging to translate into software, each model differs slightly in its portrayal of global climate. In particular, some processes, such as those associated with clouds, are too small to be represented properly.
The most common benchmark for comparing model projections is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), or the amount of warming that eventually occurs in a model when carbon dioxide is doubled over preindustrial values. At current rates of global emission, that doubling will occur well before 2100.
For more than 30 years, ECS in the leading models has averaged around 5 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius). This provides the best estimate of global temperature increase expected by the late 21st century compared to late 19th century values, assuming that society continues to emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide. However, the ECS within individual models is as low as 3 degrees F and as high as 8 degrees F (, leaving a wide range of uncertainty that has proven difficult to narrow over the past three decades.
The difference is important to reconcile, as a higher temperature rise would produce greater impacts on society in terms of sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, and other threats.
Clouds are one of the main sticking points, say the NCAR authors. Although satellites observe many types of clouds, satellite failure, observing errors, and other inconsistencies make it challenging to build a comprehensive global cloud census that is consistent over many years.
However, satellites perform better in measuring water vapor, and estimates of the global distribution of relative humidity have become more reliable. Relative humidity is also incorporated in climate models to generate and dissipate clouds.
Fasullo and Trenberth checked the distribution of relative humidity in 16 leading climate models to see how accurately they portray the present climate. In particular, they focused on the subtropics, where sinking air from the tropics produce very dry zones where most of the world’s major deserts are located. The researchers drew on observations from two NASA satellite instruments — the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) and Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) – and used a NASA data analysis, the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA).
The seasonal drying in the subtropics and the associated decrease in clouds, especially during May through August, serve as a good analog for patterns projected by climate models.
“The dry subtropics are a critical element in our future climate,” Fasullo says. “If we can better represent these regions in models, we can improve our predictions and provide society with a better sense of the impacts to expect in a warming world.”
Accurate humidity yields higher future temperatures
Estimates based on observations show that the relative humidity in the dry zones averages between about 15 and 25 percent, whereas many of the models depicted humidities of 30 percent or higher for the same period. The models that better capture the actual dryness were among those with the highest ECS, projecting a global temperature rise for doubled carbon dioxide of more than 7 degrees F. The three models with the lowest ECS were also the least accurate in depicting relative humidity in these zones.
“Because we have more reliable observations for humidity than for clouds, we can use the humidity patterns that change seasonally to evaluate climate models,” says Trenberth. “When examining the impact of future increases in heat-trapping gases, we find that the simulations with the best fidelity come from models that produce more warming.”
The authors focused on climate models used for the 2007–08 assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The next-generation models being used for the upcoming 2013–14 IPCC assessment were found to behave in a similar fashion, as described in a preliminary analysis by the authors in a supplement to their paper.
“In addition to providing a path forward and focus for improving models, results strongly suggest that the more sensitive models perform better, and indeed the less sensitive models are not adequate in replicating vital aspects of today’s climate,” write the authors in the paper.
About the article
Title: A Less Cloudy Future: The Role of Subtropical Subsidence in Climate Sensitivity
Authors: John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth
Journal: Science
markS says:
November 9, 2012 at 4:33 am
It’s hard to get rid of conmen like Mann and Trenberth when the whole US government machinery and financial sector is behind them. The banks and hedge funds can’t wait for the US to get into carbon trading and Obama is praying the carbon taxes raised will help chip away at the $16 trillion debt he’s got the US into. The whole game is stacked against honest people opposing the scammers like Mann and Trenberth. Dark times, bro, dark times.
____________________________
You forgot to mention those who wish for open rebellion in the USA so the Constitution, gun rights, property rights and individual rights can get tossed and the UN constitution can be implemented.
See Ian W comment at November 9, 2012 at 4:32 am Despite what many think the USA is not immune to starvation followed by riots/rebellion. All the factors (laws & regs) are now in place.
US Hunger & Poverty Statistics
The attitude of those in control of the food supply:
Unfortunately the braindead here in the USA think the government safety net and handouts are carved in stone. They are not Government spending is now above 40% of the GNP while the tax revenue has nose dived.
Federal Tax as % of GDP
Chart: US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP
Trenberth and his buddies are just holding the line until they can get the closing down of all our Coal powered plants implemented. All it will take is a couple more years. Once Manufacturing has packed up and left, power has been shutdown, private farms sold off to the likes of George Soros it will be too late.
“The Socialist Revolution in the US cannot take place because there are too many small independent farmers there. Those people are the stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our government is stupid enough to not encourage and support the independent farmership.” V. Lenin, the founder of the Russian revolution
Quote provided by Anna Fisher
Matthew R Marler:
At November 9, 2012 at 9:53 am you say
Nonsense!
Each model emulates a different global climate system from every other model. But the Earth has only one global climate system. So – at most – only one of the models emulates the climate system of the real Earth, and probably none of them do.
The existing climate models are completely inaccurate and unreliable and have no possibility of being better. Only a model of the Earth’s climate system could be better than the almost completely useless climate models which now exist. The only use the existing climate models have is to con the gullible into financing the employment of the modellers.
The Earth’s climate system has to be adequately understood before a model of it can be constructed. After that its accuracy and reliability may be determined and then improved such that the – at present only imagined – model of the Earth’s climate system can be developed for it to be a useful predictor.
Richard
KR says:
November 9, 2012 at 7:51 am
The opening post appears to be an uncredited copy of the article in http://phys.org/news/2012-11-future-high-side-climate.html – directly reproducing someone else’s article, in entirety, without attribution, is both a copyright and intellectual property violation.
__________________________
The direct link to the paper is at the bottom of the page AS USUAL. Seems you can’t read.
{Leo Morgan says:
November 8, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Please name the models that you admit are now proven to be inadequate.}
LOL Good one!
So what these guys are saying is that because a couple of models got near to predicting humidity, that means that even though they didn’t get temperatures right, they are convinced that the models temperature projections will be right some time, they’re just delayed and will catchup.
The longer that temperatures stay plateaued or even, as is increasingly likely go down, then the more catching up temperatures will have to do to meet their models expectations.
Since temperatures may even decline all the way to 2100, their poor old models will then need a near infinite rate of temperature increase to meet their preconceived notions of magic.
In due course the quiet sun may wake them from their stupor as they find temperatures dropping even though their models offer no explanation for it. No doubt they will say that their models have predicted the cooling and that temperatures will climb even faster and we must all atone for our co2 sins even more urgently than before.
The easiest person to fool is oneself. These people have made fools of themselves and really, are committed to doing so until they retire or are forcibly retired / fired.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 9, 2012 at 9:55 am
…Looks like global cloud cover decreased until around 2000 and has increased a little since then.
The inflection point is approximately when I first noticed the jets becoming more equatorward / meridional so I suspect a link between global cloudiness and jet stream meridionality.
________________________________
Thanks for pointing that out. I too have noticed the jet stream has changed. Wunderground is showing those meanders quite nicely right now as usual.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 9, 2012 at 9:55 am
“Looks like global cloud cover decreased until around 2000 and has increased a little since then.”
Slightly different for low level clouds where they decreased until 2006.
“… the more sensitive models perform better, and indeed the less sensitive models are not adequate in replicating vital aspects of today’s climate,” write the authors in the paper.”
But NONE of these models include any solar forcing beyond TSI. In my review of the Second Order Draft of AR5 (which I will post about in December, after the comment period closes), it seems they actually were responsive to my criticism on this point and have now added a crucial sentence acknowledging strong evidence that there is SOME mechanism by which the sun seems from the paleo data to be driving climate more forcefully than can be explained by TSI.
They still don’t buy Svensmarks GCR-cloud theory of what this mechanism might be, but they are no longer using their dissatisfaction with Svensmark’s theory as a grounds for dismissing the evidence that SOME such mechanism exists.
That mechanism most likely works through cloud formation, whether by GCR-cloud, solar effects on the planet’s electrical circuit, or the effects of solar-uv-shift on atmospheric circulation. The relevant comparison would be between models that include enhanced solar forcings (by having cloud formation increase as solar activity increases) and CO2 driven models, but all that Trenberth and his “consensus” friends ever look at is different CO2 driven models. It’s called “begging the question.”
Gary Pearse says:
November 9, 2012 at 9:55 am
…. You could substitute the growth in wine consumption in the United States for CO2 probably and get the same result.
______________________________________
The amount of leg shown by women would be a better parameter.
Gail Combs,
You’ve probably read these, but in case you haven’t;
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/cameron-meets-smith-keynes-and-laffer/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/demographic-bomb-and-us-debt-explosion/
That last link makes a pretty convincing case for the complete breakdown of US society starting about 2030 / 2040.
By then we may be on our way into a repeat of the LIA, elsewhere in the world, more than 50% of the Russian army will be muslim, (~2020) and about 15 years after that, more than 50% of the Russian population will be muslim. (~2035). So by 2045 muslims will be able to outvote non muslims in Russia.
If Russia continues it’s current rate of growth (provided they retain their current taxation regime), then by 2045 the Russian economy will (may) have overtaken that of the US.
I’ve never had adequately explained to me how you take a set of complex differential equations and such apply them over thousands of grids maybe millions of grids of the world, perform a godawful number of calculations and repeat this over and over many many thousands of times and the result has any accuracy at all to the real world in 100 years.
When I asked the climate modeling head of Lawrence Livermore 2 years ago he said that the results of the models are good. They have gotten them so they don’t look like something impossible. They used to get infinities or ridiculous things like temps of -200 or +200. Now they produce something you could imagine wasn’t just ridiculous. That sounds great that they’ve gotten them so they have things like clouds moving sort of like clouds look like they move, that weather kind of doesn’t look crazy. It didn’t seem to occur to him that the distance between that and models that actually could tell us what the future temperature or rain was potentially infinitely far away. He said the models were based on physical formulas of the processes. So I asked if there was a model that absolutely was better than the others then you would throw away the others. He said averaging the models produced better results. I said but if one model actually did model the physics at all then averaging it with models that didn’t would produce lower convergence not more, He said that a recent study came out that showed that the models had no predictive power over each other at all. A study comparing all models showed that one model that happened to predict one parameter in one place or time was no better at predicting the next period or place. Other studies I’ve seen recently showed that the models drastically underperform the simplest model you can construct which is simply to use the same data point as last year. It seems the models “standard” for good is “it looks like what weather looks like sort of”. They’ve not really got the models to the point they actually can predict things. Wen I said it seems to me that by averaging the models and getting a better result you are proving that in fact what you have in these models are simply fits to the data that everyone has, the historical data. He said they don’t fit. I said, but obviously if a model was wrong you’d fix it? Over all the models the scientists are all trying to find ones that work approximately to the real world given the data? He agreed. So then he conceded that they were essentially fits to the data. Of course they are. So as any good mathematician knows if you fit a curve to some data that there is no guarentee that the next data point will be predicted by that fit. Therefore you would expect the result that none of the models would work better because they all are just fits to the data. There are an infinite number of ways to fit the data to models. If there is no real physical basis for these fits then one would expect the result that none would return the “next” data point any better than the others. That’s what We see.
Everything points to the fact that these models are simply elaborate expansive mathematical exercises in fitting data. So far there is no proof any of these models represent real physics. Therefore their ability to say this is what we expect in 100 years is completely without foundation.
They then say that the models correspond to the paleo record. Of course they do. They’ve been fit to the paleo record. That’s a redundant statement. I’m brown haired guy. If I say I’m going to change my hair to brown you say : but your hair was already brown. Yes. The question is what if I tell you that there was a MWP? Do any of the models model a MWP? The climate model head from LLR said ” well the mwp was a local phenomenon”. So no. Now we have proof from over a dozen papers in the last 2 years that the mwp is cyclical and is global and repeats. None of the models fit that. I asked about Enso/amo/pdo in the models. He said that those were short duration phenomenon like volcanos and weren’t modeled in the forward looking models.
T be frank he was very honest. He said to the class at Stanford I was in: the models are wrong. When the classes jaw dropped and people looked at him in shock he repeated himself. He said ” the models are wrong. Get used to it. They are all wrong.” Amazingly frank statement.
I feel like I’m reading this wrong. The way it reads to me is
“Our studies predict that the models that predict more warming will be more accurate than those that predict less.”
Isn’t that effectively a tautology?
Alec Rawls said:
“That mechanism (climate change via solar influences other than TSI) most likely works through cloud formation, whether by GCR-cloud, solar effects on the planet’s electrical circuit, or the effects of solar-uv-shift on atmospheric circulation.”
I’ve been proposing the uv effect on global air circulation for some time and have worked it into a general climate overview that fits more observations than any other hypothesis without offending basic physics.
The reasoning behind that conclusion is set out in my various articles here and elsewhere.
The essence is that variations in the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun have differential effects on the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere between equator and poles as a result of changes in the balance between ozone destruction and creation at different heights. There have been recent data findings that support that as referred to by Joanna Haigh in a paper that she referred to a while ago.
That variability leads to changes in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles leading to latitudinal climate zone shifts and / or changes in the zonality / meridionality of the jet stream tracks.
The outcome is variations in global cloudiness and albedo as the lines of air mass mixing lengthen or shorten over time which affects the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.
Fits everything we see and I await an alternative hypothesis from anyone who knows better.
The CO2 effect seems to be miniscule in comparison.
Alec Rawls said:
“The relevant comparison would be between models that include enhanced solar forcings (by having cloud formation increase as solar activity increases) ”
In fact, as shown by Gail Combs, cloudiness decreased when the sun was more active and has increased since.
Which is why I insist on a reverse sign solar effect on certain heights within the atmosphere as a critical test of my hypothesis.
The last I heard on the point was that Joanna Haigh and / or others had found just such a reverse sign effect for the period 2004 to 2007.
I await updated data.
Tony G: “Our studies predict that the models that predict more warming will be more accurate than those that predict less.”
You are reading that wrong. The models that most accurately predict the previously unmeasured relative humidity predict the highest equilibrium climate response. This is the usual “novelty test” of science: the models that most accurately predict what was not known at the time of the prediction acquire the most credibility.
Criticism: it’s still an “equilibrium” derived from means, not actual change derived from full spatio-temporal distributions. The sample of models all attribute much warming to CO2 increases, so none of them predict the CO2 effect or future temp if there is no CO2 effect.
I think the models that best fit the humidity are also the models that most overpredicted the temp rise of the last 2 decades. That requires more checking than I have done so far. If so, the models that fit the RH best fit the temp worst — an ambiguous result for model testing, and a reason to discredit the message in the title.
Also, if I read correctly, the models do not actually predict the relative humidity, but the Clausius-Clapayron relationship, which is an equilibrium approximation to the constantly changing actual humidity distribution. How much error that introduces into the model results I do not know. If at all locations, temperatures and pressures the approximation is wrong by 5% in square root of mean squared error, then the model predictions may not be accurate enough to support planning for the future, though 5% RMSE is pretty good accuracy in many settings.
richardscourtney: Each model emulates a different global climate system from every other model. But the Earth has only one global climate system. So – at most – only one of the models emulates the climate system of the real Earth, and probably none of them do.
The existing climate models are completely inaccurate and unreliable and have no possibility of being better.
The models have different accuracies for the the same modeled system. No model will ever be perfect, but more than one may be accurate enough for good work. The only “complete inaccurate” models are those that have 0 correlation with observations; all the models in the study have positive correlations. There is no fundamental reason why the models can not be improved.
The goal is not to predict the weather, the goal is to predict the spatio-temporal distribution of the weather: percentiles, means, standard deviations and such for temperature and rainfall. So far, the focus is on means. There is no fundamental reason why they can not do that. No model does it very well now for very far in advance, but there is no reason to think that some model might be accurate enough and reliable enough if enough work goes into its development and testing.
richardscourtney: In common with most regular readers of WUWT, I skip over posts by KR because I don’t want to waste time on them. However, in this case his error is not only blatant but is also offensive to our host. And, importantly, it clearly shows the validity of posts by KR so it needed to be pointed out for the benefit of people who may be tempted to take his posts seriously.
KR discovered and corrected his own error, and apologized.
Curt: Now we’re told that the models that have the smallest increases in water vapor show the most warming…
Sounds like your comment may have confused total water vapor with relative humidity.
Matthew Marler:
Models are useless if they cannot make accurate predictions. Thus, they are an enormous waste of money.
@Gary Young Pearse
Thank you for that explanation. If I understand you, my statement was mistaken. If humid air is by definition air with water vapor, then it has nearly the same heat capacity as dry air. It’s only if there are water droplets (which I guess means clouds or fog) that the difference occurs due to the need to evaporate before temperature can rise. It seems to be another aspect of the difficulty that clouds present in climate science.
{Gary Pearse says:
November 9, 2012 at 9:55 am
…. You could substitute the growth in wine consumption in the United States for CO2 probably and get the same result.
______________________________________
Gail Combs says:
November 9, 2012 at 11:24 am
The amount of leg shown by women would be a better parameter.}
_______________________________________________________________
The growth in the number of pornographic web sites is positively correlated with increased exhalation of warmer CO2.
@ur momisugly Dave S, Gail Combs, Ian W
Hardly thought the sarc tag was necessary. I opened my comment with Trenberth’s faux peace prize. Anybody who is paying attention to the climate blogosphere is certainly aware that Mann, Trenberth and the lot are not true Laureates.
This despite Dr. Trenberth’s lovely Christmas carol. And a one…
And we’re sharing the honor with Mister Al Gore.
Nobel, Nobel, a story to tell,
We hope our coworkers’ egos don’t swell.
The First Working Group said to sound the alarm,
Rising CO2 levels are causing great harm.
Temperatures and greenhouse gas are racing up neck and neck,
Soon the whole Earth will be hotter than heck.
Nobel, Nobel, the planet’s unwell,
This is the future the models foretell.
The Second Working Group said that change is assured,
From the melting of glaciers to migration of birds.
From loss of land and crops to habitats,
How can they make it much clearer than that?
Nobel, Nobel, the oceans swell,
Polar bears search for new places to dwell.
We must work to mitigate, tells us Working Group Three,
Change from fossil consumption to clean energy.
If we all do our share in reversing the trend,
Our children might have a clean Earth in the end.
Nobel, Nobel, sound the warning bell,
Let’s make a future where all can live well.
Nobel, Nobel, we are stars for a day,
Can an Oscar be far away?
Matthew R Marler:
It seems you failed to understand the part of my post at November 9, 2012 at 10:50 am which you quoted in your post at November 9, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Your post said
NO!
We are interested in the real world and each model emulates a different system.
They are wrong.
Whatever they each represents it is NOT the Earth’s climate system.
Clearly, I need to explain the matter yet again.
None of the models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect (such as the determination by Penner et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes )
would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.
This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
1.
the assumed degree of forcings resulting from human activity that produce warming
and
2.
the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.
More than a decade ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which was greater than was observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS ‘An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre’, Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT, ‘Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity’. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.
He says in his paper:
”One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.
The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Kerr [2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate change–too rosy a picture?, available at http://www.nature.com/reports/climatechange, 2007) recently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the current paper provides the ‘‘widely circulated analysis’’ referred to by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model sensitivity.”
And, importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:
”These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity.”
And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.
Thanks to Bill Illis, Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
”Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.”
It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
Richard
An BTW the link I provided earlier was Trenberth’s short version C.V. The long version runs 50 pages! http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/vita-1.pdf
He’s surely a very proud fellow. But does he really think anybody – even somebody who might like him – would care to read that much?
“So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.”
Exactly, changes used in models are way too large for adjusted SAOT values later in the period. The changes needed to continue warming need to have a SAOT change larger than any of the major volcanic eruptions detected during the 1980’s and 1990’s. With all models having this incorrect adjustment none of them can represent observed global temperatures correctly.
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4660/had3vsaotadj1900.png
Shown here adjusting for SAOT is way too small for the changes after it, to prevent the no warming period from becoming a warming period supposedly caused by China’s SO2 increase.
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/5816/had3vsaotadj1979.png
The ongoing aerosol nonsense is still based on assumed desperation, yet observations show it has completely failed. Aerosols can’t have any global influence on a local scale when below the stratosphere because they get rained out and/or last only a few days in cloud formation.