Curry: Computer Predictions Of Climate Alarm Are Flawed

New paper explains inherent flaws of computer models predicting future climate change

London, 21 February: Claims that the planet is threatened by man-made global warming are based on science that is based on inadequate computer modelling. That is the conclusion of a new briefing paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

curry-2017-front

The report’s author, eminent American climatologist Professor Judith Curry, explains that climate alarm depends on highly complex computer simulations of the Earth’s climate.

But although scientists have expended decades of effort developing them, these simulations still have to be “tuned” to get them to match the real climate. This makes them essentially useless for trying to find out what is causing changes in the climate and unreliable for making predictions about what will happen in the future.

Professor Curry said: “It’s not just the fact that climate simulations are tuned that is problematic. It may well be that it is impossible to make long-term predictions about the climate – it’s a chaotic system after all. If that’s the case, then we are probably trying to redesign the global economy for nothing”.

Prof Curry recently announced that she was abandoning academic life due to the attacks on her research and the “craziness” of the climate debate.
Full paper (pdf)

###

Advertisements

269 thoughts on “Curry: Computer Predictions Of Climate Alarm Are Flawed

  1. then we are probably trying to redesign the global economy for nothing

    Given that none of the solutions, radical to comical, actually are touted to have a significant impact on the climate, that conclusion is a given.

    • The whole question is what is called ‘ill-conditioned’: there are too many unknown or poorly constrained variables which means that there is an infinity of possible solutions which will fit the data.

      Climate models are not validated as would be required in any other field of science or engineering, yet we are making the most drastic and far reaching changes based model fitting.

      Also with models being tuned to a very short calibration period extrapolation beyond about ten years is utterly unjustified and would not be accepted in any serious branch of science.

      That, of course, is fine since climatology is NOT a serious branch of science.

      • Ian : I think you are onto something. They should hire Gordon Ramsay to cook the data. We can expect a TV Series “Gordon Ramsay’s Climate Nightmares”

      • Climate modeling should simply be considered the opinions of the modelers and not mistaken with reality. Parameter values are sampled until they get the results they “like”. There is no way to test their long range skill in a timely fashion.

      • I don’t see what is being called “climate science”, as ‘climatology’ (which is a serious and useful science, I believe), but more like climate-changeology, which seems to be a sort of Frankenstein’s monster of cobbled together select pieces of various sciences/technologies . . which I highly suspect was created for justifying a “globalist” agenda. As in, a problem that would require global governance to solve.

      • The ‘Farmers Almanac’ is a much more useful and accurate predictor of future climate and has been fairly useful for many, various enterprises… Much, much more so than the billions of dollar wasting, climate modeling, computer programs that these ‘fake ass “CliSci” models put out… “Snake oil salesmen” is what they are.

      • Calibrated?!?! They are rarely even inspected. In fact I have yet to see one. All we ever get are pronouncements about what the black box has prophesied.

      • Even if the climatological aspect of the models were perfect, they still would be guessing at the socio-economic aspects of the models; and thus killing any chance of being predictive. For example, they never could have predicted the natural gas boom we are having, essentially killing coal off.

      • Yup, Enjoy your life, look after your family and appreciate the world as it is. And if you see a beach front property going cheap, think seriously about making an investment.

        Cheers

        Roger

      • I was about to compose a pithy retort that would have got be banned from WUWT, until I realised that you were of course joking and didn’t deserve the level of obscenity I was contemplating :-)

      • And not just something, we need to do something that hurts. Some else, preferrably.

        There is a lot to do at the adaptation sector, things that don’t even hurt but release the pain, but those solutions are apparently morally wrong ones.

      • Maybe ‘relieve’ the pain that hurts. But why was that in moderation? (I’m not sure how badly releasing pain can end up)

      • Back in the 1960s when Harold Wilson was the British prime minister his deputy, George Brown, had a reputation for putting his foot in his mouth. The fact that he also had a reputation for being rather fond of booze did not help. I remember seeing a cartoon in some newspaper that showed George Brown standing on one leg with the foot of his other leg in his mouth and a stern looking Harold Wilson saying to him:

        Don’t just do something. Stand there!

    • @philjourdan: I see no examples of the global economy being redesigned, other than in the minds of UN officials and climate campaigners. Plus some symbolical efforts, mainly fiscal. I would not worry about that, but rather about the many billions wasted every year on the climate issue, when this money could have been put to so much better use.

      • …this money could have been put to so much better use.

        Just leave my share in my pocket, please. I will find my own better use.

      • Henning

        When some jurisdictions/countries impose carbon taxes on their economies – as most of the OECD countries or parts thereof now do because of self-imposed CAGW/CACC political correctness- and players like China, India and the like emphatically do not, you are very definitely redesigning the global economy. That’s because access to the lowest monetary cost energy per unit of economic output is one of the most important drivers of economic and social development. The folks in charge in Delhi, Peking, Ankara and Jakarta get that big time. That’s why those countries, while playing the Paris COP21 PR game continue to put on line new coal fired power plants at a rate of one every 20 days or thereabouts.

        Now that the political mask has fallen in DC, US coal producers will be joining their Australian and other competitors to satisfy this demand for energy.

      • “I see no examples of the global economy being redesigned”

        I do in South Australia. It used to be that you could flick the switch and the lights would go on. Not anymore. Even if you could afford the power bills, there is no guarantee that there will be power in the system.

        SA used to have manufacturing. Not anymore.

      • Look harder. The world economy is a market based economy. However in order to “save the planet”, they want to do away with that, and go to a government run economy so they can take the excess wealth and devote it to the way they want.

        If you are not looking for it, you will never see it. If you do not want to see it, you will not.

    • “trying to redesign the global economy for nothing”.” Well if the real object is a radical change of society, then it’s no longer for nothing?

    • Indeed. Not only is the alleged “catastrophe” a complete fabrication, but their supposed “solutions” wouldn’t do a thing about it that was actually measurable or noticeable – but then there’s the rub – the rent-seeking Eco-Fascists get to keep insisting that “more needs to be done,” all at taxpayer expense, of course.

    • The climate change casino people are simply guessing, in the hope that something will finally stick to the wall. Random chance dictates that they will occasionally be right…they just will not have the data, unless it is cooked, to back up the theory.

    • http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf
      Indeed, read the whole thing! In her summary Judith points many things that do affect Earth’s surface temperature. She fails to point out is that there is no physical evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels above 180ppmv affects surface temperature at all. We can all observe the greening that more atmospheric CO2 brings, but this greening is unlikely to result in measurable surface temperature change.
      The CAGW scam is perpetuated on two deliberate falsehoods:
      1) A statistical spatial\temporal aggregate of surface temperature has some physical meaning!
      2) The post normal physics teaching that mass emits EMR flux, proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, but independent of the temperature of surrounding mass.
      Both of these falsehoods are easily dispatched through careful, but not expensive measurement.
      Inquiries welcome!

      • It is some years since I studied physics but as I recall Boltzman’s law does not include any terms relating to the surrounding mass. If there are two radiating masses above absolute zero each may absorb some of the radiated energy from the other. Hence, changes in their temperatures are interdependent, but the radiation emitted by each is independent of the other – leaving aside conduction etc.

      • Peter Gardner February 21, 2017 at 3:25 pm

        “It is some years since I studied physics but as I recall Boltzman’s law does not include any terms relating to the surrounding mass. If there are two radiating masses above absolute zero each may absorb some of the radiated energy from the other. Hence, changes in their temperatures are interdependent, but the radiation emitted by each is independent of the other – leaving aside conduction etc.”

        This is exactly the intentional scam!! There is no Boltzman’s law! The S-B equation with some difference within (parenthesis) carefully predicts the maximum possible one way thermal EMR flux between two mass ‘surfaces’ due to ‘temperature’. With no temperature ‘difference’; there is no thermal EMR flux in either direction.

      • Will Janoschka

        “The S-B equation with some difference within (parenthesis) carefully predicts the maximum possible one way thermal EMR flux between two mass ‘surfaces’ due to ‘temperature’. With no temperature ‘difference’ there is no thermal EMR flux in either direction.”

        Will, radiated energy is one-way by definition and determined by the temperature and material properties of the radiating mass. What you are taking about is a net effect from several mechanisms. If you have such an equation showing that radiation from a body depends on the temperature of another, in the absence of other energy transfers, I would be very pleased to see it.

      • @Peter Gardner

        If there are two radiating masses above absolute zero each may absorb some of the radiated energy from the other.

        Except if the radiation is infrared and one of the masses is actually liquid water with an unconstrained atmosphere. In which case the radiation will ‘excite’ the first molecules on the surface and lead to increased evaporation, removing the latent heat of evaporation from the surface of the mass of water and cooling it. Probably 70% of the Earth’s surface is water or wet. So the effect of the ‘downwelling’ infrared is in the main to cool the surface of the Earth. While the convection due to the lower weight of water vapor molecules and/or higher kinetic energy of the gases in the atmosphere (i.e. higher temperature) will result in the heat being carried up until it is released as latent heat of condensation higher in the atmosphere where most will radiate to space.
        Even a dry surface if it rises in temperature will increase its heat radiation by the fourth power, a significant negative feedback.
        It seems that only short wave radiation penetrating into water will actually result in a rise in temperature of the water volume.

      • You made two statements, first:
        “The post normal physics teaching that mass emits EMR flux, proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, but independent of the temperature of surrounding mass.”

        and, second

        “Except if the radiation is infrared and one of the masses is actually liquid water with an unconstrained atmosphere. In which case the radiation will ‘excite’ the first molecules on the surface and lead to increased evaporation, removing the latent heat of evaporation from the surface of the mass of water and cooling it.”

        There is only one energy transfer by radiated energy in your example: absorption of IR. The other mechanisms are not radiative. In the rest of your argument you explain what happens later as a result of that energy being absorbed by the liquid. The initial flux from the IR source at the source is not changed by any of this but by the effects of its absorption blocking the path of that radiation.

        If your description of the post-normal teaching is accurate I would say that teaching is correct.

        Let’s remove all those secondary effects and have just one hot solid body an isolated vacuum. It radiates and cools at a certain rate. If you introduce a second solid body, Body 2, that is non-reflective and doesn’t absorb the radiated energy from Body 1, it would not affect the rate of cooling of Body 1 unless it radiates itself AND Body 1 absorbs that radiation, thereby warming it. If Body 1 does not absorb the radiated energy from Body 2 it will not warm but continue cooling at exactly the same rate as it did before Body 2 was introduced.

        It is not the mere presence of radiation from a second body the causes the radiation from the first body to change, but the secondary effects and these depend on properties of the bodies and of the space between them.

      • Ian W February 21, 2017 at 4:34 pm
        “Even a dry surface if it rises in temperature will increase its heat radiation by the fourth power, a significant negative feedback. It seems that only short wave radiation penetrating into water will actually result in a rise in temperature of the water volume.”

        The whole T^4 thingy is part of the deliberate scam. Only in a narrow waveband, near the peak of the Plank specific intensity curve , now called, ‘spectral radiance’ can be thermal radiance\flux be anywhere close to proportional to T^4. All thermal flux\exitance remains strictly limited by any opposing ‘radiance’ at each and every frequency! For liquid water (ocean) almost no insolation is absorbed at (latitude)\(angle from normal) greater than 55 degrees.

      • Climate exists! It always will. It is a sublime tribute to man’s ego that any action man takes can have any significant effect on Climate. We simply are not able to harness and control enough energy.

      • T^4 is a scam???

        Don’t tell the engineers who have been making all sorts of functional equipment using S-B

      • ….so I looked up what percentage of Earth’s land surface is considered “urban”, and it comes to 3%.

        But since Earth’s landmass is about one-seventh of the total, urban areas cover just 0.4% of the earth’s surface.

        It’s probably a fortuitous relationship, but CO2 comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere.

        Maybe that’s why the UHI has more impact on the climate than CO2–by a factor of 10?

        /sarc

      • Ian W,
        It does not work like that.
        Adding heat to water does not per se make it colder.
        Hot water can give off moisture and cool down. But it has to get hot enough first. So IR to cool water will heat the water up first to a level when there are enough hot water molecules to be able to evaporate when heated.

      • Ecept there is no “surrounding mass” in space around the Earth. Any surrounding mass emits radiation back to the other mass, that’s all. The temperature of the “surrounding mass”, if you like, of the Earth is about 2,5-4K

      • Peter Gardner February 21, 2017 at 7:51 pm

        (Will Janoschka “The S-B equation with some difference within (parenthesis) carefully predicts the maximum possible one way thermal EMR flux between two mass ‘surfaces’ due to ‘temperature’. With no temperature ‘difference’ there is no thermal EMR flux in either direction.”)

        “Will, radiated energy is one-way by definition and determined by the temperature and material properties of the radiating mass.”

        The thermal field strength (radiance), not some energy, is a function of frequency, temperature, and surface qualities of any material surface. Such field strength is not power, flux, nor energy, it is but a potential for power transfer. Look it up!~ What does that 1/sr stand for?, Actual thermal radiated power flux, not energy, is always limited by opposing radiance at each frequency and in each direction. Gustav Kirchhoff! Such is clearly demonstrated every day throughout the world.

        ” What you are taking about is a net effect from several mechanisms. If you have such an equation showing that radiation from a body depends on the temperature of another, in the absence of other energy transfers, I would be very pleased to see it.”

        The S-B as written and explained by Ludwig himself contains the difference between two temperature functions enclosed by the required parenthesis. As with any mathematics the content of the parenthesis must be evaluated before any other operations. That evaluation provides both the maximum one way magnitude and direction for the singular flux. Goody et all -1964- wrote the book of how to confuse EMR with thermodynamic heat! such is complete nonsense. If you have only thermal EMR flux in a vacuum your so called ‘net’ results in the same value of flux. Your claim of opposing EMR flux at any frequency has never been observed. EMR flux through a semitransparent material (atmosphere) with all manner of temperatures but nothing black, can never ever be computed, such can only be approximated through measurement. All of the GCMs suffer from this fatal flaw; thus are useless for anything except scam.

      • Will

        “The thermal field strength (radiance), not some energy, is a function of frequency, temperature, and surface qualities of any material surface. Such field strength is not power, flux, nor energy, it is but a potential for power transfer.”

        If that were true a hot body in space would never cool. Or are you saying it cools only because its radiated energy is absorbed by all the other objects of finite mass in space?

        Stefan-Boltzmann Law as

        q = σ T4 A (1)

        where

        q = heat transfer per unit time (W)

        σ = 5.6703 10-8 (W/m2K4) – The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant

        T = absolute temperature in Kelvin (K)

        A = area of the emitting body (m2)

        Applied to surroundings not at abs zero:

        If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as

        q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac (3)

        where

        Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)

        Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)

        Ac = area of the object (m2)

        Where is this wrong? Surely this is what you describe as , “Actual thermal radiated power flux, not energy, is always limited by opposing radiance at each frequency and in each direction. Gustav Kirchhoff!”

        The energy lost or gained by the surroundings and the body is the net effect of the emission and absorption at each. Heat radiation is only electo-magnetic and electromagnetic radiation is an energy flux with a density inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. It is not a potential. For the radiation in each direction to cancel each other, they would have to be in anti-phase across the spectrum at all points on the surface of the body, which is clearly impossible and is not what I suggested. The energy transfer is the net effect of emission and absorption of electromagnetic radiation – when there is no other transfer mechanism. Obviously, if the surrounding is a solid in contact with the black body or a gas or a liquid, other mechanisms are present and in practice there is no such thing as a perfect black body. These factors raise issues about applying the theory in practice but do not alter the theory.
        Perhaps it is just how we each describe this, but even though it was a while ago I remember my professors at Cambridge were very clear about this. And it was long before the AGW nonsense, so they were not in any way biassed..

      • Will,

        Sorry, I got distraced. I meant to add after S_b net equation this statement of Kirchoff:

        ‘For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power.’

        This is consistent. He is saying that because absorptivity = emissivity we can mathematically express the net calculation of energy change using S-B in terms of temperature difference. That does not contradict what I said.

      • David Jay February 21, 2017 at 8:24 pm

        (“T^4 is a scam???”)

        “Don’t tell the engineers who have been making all sorts of functional equipment using S-B”

        I make all sorts of functional IR equipment! (S-B) never works as there exist no blackbodies and no locations with but two temperatures.

      • Peter Gardner February 23, 2017 at 2:59 am
        (Will “The thermal field strength (radiance), not some energy, is a function of frequency, temperature, and surface qualities of any material surface. Such field strength is not power, flux, nor energy, it is but a potential for power transfer.”)

        Peter,
        You seem to be an anti-coal troll with no science education\experience! Can you point out any error in my description of normalized EM field strength?

        “If that were true a hot body in space would never cool. Or are you saying it cools only because its radiated energy is absorbed by all the other objects of finite mass in space?”

        It is obvious that you have never even bothered to look at Maxwell’s equations (22 of them), let alone even try to understand such. My above only separates the concept of electromagnetic field strength from the concept of electromagnetic flux. The two may seem the same, but are distinct, one never precludes the other, and both are required for the delivery of electromagnetic power to a remote location independent of any mass or sensible heat.

        “Stefan-Boltzmann Law as q = σ T4 A (1)”

        You used to call that Boltzmann’s Law!! Why the change? There is no such Law! Ask either Dr. Stefan or Dr. Boltzmann. Again:

        (Will “The S-B equation with some difference within (parenthesis) carefully predicts the maximum possible one way thermal EMR flux between two mass ‘surfaces’ due to ‘temperature’. With no temperature ‘difference’ there is no thermal EMR flux in either direction.”)

        “σ = 5.6703 10-8 (W/m2K4) – The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant”

        5.6703 10-8 (W/m2K4) – Is Stefan’s Constant! Boltzmann constant = 8.6173303(50)×10−5 eV/K!
        Why not go some where, anywhere, and buy a clue?

        “If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac (3)”

        Phi (uppercase Φ, Thermal EM flux = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) is the mathematical expression for the S-B equation described above. Such can be the maximum one way EM radiative heat loss rate, from the higher temperature object; but only if such EMR flux is entirely powered by the sensible heat of that hot object! This is Maxwell’s concession to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Insolation is only partially powered by sensible heat. As long as the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion to alpha particles; no one can determine the actual value of insolation! What you can never demonstrate, even once, is any thermal EM flux ever being emitted in the opposing direction. Without such demonstration the entire ‘GHE fantasy’ scientifically falls on its face!

        “These factors raise issues about applying the theory in practice but do not alter the theory.”

        What you call theory I call fantasy! All you need is one demonstration of thermal EMR flux being generated in the direction of higher electromagnetic ‘radiance’ at any frequency!

        “Perhaps it is just how we each describe this, but even though it was a while ago I remember my professors at Cambridge were very clear about this. And it was long before the AGW nonsense, so they were not in any way biased.”

        Your lecturers were spouting the nonsense of Goody & Young as was copied and presented from the errors of Dr. Bose!

  2. On a related topic, I have still not been shown any evidence of increasing tropical Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR), or its associated increase in tropical tropospheric temperatures. These are, after all, the very signature if CO2 induced global warming. If there is no tropical tropospheric hotspot and resulting increased DLR, then there is no significant change to the greenhouse effect, and CO2 is not causing any warming.

    In the absence of a tropical tropospheric hotspot, perhaps the believers in AGW would care to explain how the surface warms, if the upper atmosphere has not warmed first.

    Ralph

      • The AGW theory is falsified and Judith Curry is taking a lukewarmer approach, so that when she gets the casual employment with the Trump Administration the dismantling will be more evolutionary than revolutionary.

    • The whole downwelling thing is exaggerated by misuse of the Schwazchild equation. The first term of this equation is called the “sink function”. This pretty much means absorption. The second term is called the “source function”. This pretty much means emission. The standard procedure is to plug in the CO2 absorption coefficient as the source function. This would be valid per Kirchoffs Law if CO2 were a decent blackbody with an emissivity approaching 1; but CO2 is a lousy blackbody nobody serious believes has an emissivity above .2.

      So what the models do is make their “slabs” extending outward getting taller and taller like the picture to maintain the same optical depth. In each and every slab they say the absorption is the emission from the slab below, with an equal amount of downwelling radiation from the same emission. The effect of this error is to perpetuate upward and downward radiation that does not exist.

      I am not aware of any full earth spectrum absorption coefficient for CO2, but very clearly that coefficient is .98 in the fundamental bend, which represents 89% of the Boltzmann population of transitions in the CO2 molecule. Whatever the full bandwidth coefficient may be, geneously .7, the difference between .7 and .2 is a grievous error that must be corrected.

      • I think this paper gives a very interesting explanation of some of the things being mentioned here : it is a letter to ‘Physics in Progress’ vol 10(2014) issue 3.Title, ‘Black body Radiation in Optically Thick Gases ,Pierre Marie Robitaille, ,Dept of Radiology ,Ohio State University. first published online on the 7th may 2014.the main conclusion is ,so it appears, is that ‘no gas can ever behave as a black body ,even when optically thick”

      • Thanks for the link. I think the main point is about reflection (or scattering). This applies more to shorter wavelengths. In the longer wavelengths of earth spectra, little scattering takes place.

        It may be that gasses cannot radiate as blackbodies in the higher energy parts of the spectrum, but it seems that the atmosphere as a whole radiates as a blackbody below a kilometer. You can see in Modtran that the spectrum follows the Planck curve very closely.

        My complaint is about the specific treatment of CO2. It absorbs like a champ and emits like a wimp.

    • “perhaps the believers in AGW would care to explain how the surface warms, if the upper atmosphere has not warmed first.”

      Perhaps it’s the same mechanism that causes the ocean depths to accumulate heat from the surface, without any accompanying rise in sea surface temperatures? Magic!

      • I thought the upper atmosphere warmed 2nd, after the surface warmed.

        And iffen the ocean surface water absorbs 20 calories of thermal energy from the near-surface atmospheric gasses ……. while at the same time said surface water conducts 20 calories of thermal energy to the ocean depth water, ……. then no magic explanation needed.

      • “then no magic explanation needed.”

        Except for the bit where the surface water remains at the same temperature. Kinda like putting a steel poker in hot coals until it becomes too hot to hold … then finding the bit in the middle is still at room temperature, while pumping through 20 calories at a time. Magic!

      • … then finding the bit in the middle is still at room temperature,

        Huuumm, …… does that mean that the “handled” end of the poker is a naturally “sucking” heat pump?

      • “does that mean that the “handled” end of the poker is a naturally “sucking” heat pump?”

        It means that the second law of thermodynamics has been violated. Still … that’s climate “science” for ya.

  3. Confusing cause and effect. The prospect of an economic redesign is a feature, not a bug. Or, in other words, Climate Change models are caused by the desire for increased tax revenue.

    • Ryan S.
      Not just increased tax revenues; increased power.
      And if the Citrulluses (watermelons, for non-botanists) get their way, also a dramatic drop in human population. I have seen estimates of just 500 million.

      I guess that 450 million will be slaves for the illuminati of, at most, 50 million.
      The other 7 billion – you and me, and most folk alive – ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
      Lovely. [Mods – /SARC, extreme!!!].
      Not an outcome I am keen on, frankly.

      Auto, still preferring warmth and plant-growing levels of CO2 [and they need not be connected!] to cold and starvation.

    • “Many scientists agree that the weather sometimes changes, so obviously we need a world government with a centralized taxing authority.”

  4. Good paper. Downloaded for permanent reference.
    Interesting back story. Judith was asked to give a talk on this subject to a group of lawyers. She was sufficiently concerned about striking the right balance (laymen=lawyers) that she posted a first draft on Climate Etc asking the denizens for input. She received several hundred comments, and reworked the talk accordingly. This new document is a further rework after feedback from the actual talk. So quite a bit of thought and effort and feedback has gone into it.

  5. I just finished an article on this.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/climate-science-on-trial-the-criminal-case-against-the-alarmists/

    The Computer can be used to determine guilty or not guilty. Every multivariable program has a procedure called “Stepwise.” All you need to do is plug in all the variables and let the computer decide which ones are significant, and which ones aren’t. I assure you, no computer will ever find CO2 significant when solar and H2O are included as factors.

    • If climate “science” is truly a valid science, an amateur climatologist shouldn’t be able to make better forecasts than the experts.

      For a chaotic system a dart-throwing monkey is as accurate as the experts. It is safe to assume that you have the same accuracy.

      Pioneer climate modeller Lorenz first postulated that the climate is chaotic. As far as I can tell, nobody has refuted that. Worse still, some people think there aren’t even attractors.

      Climate models are good for amusement only. They prove nothing. On the other hand, the fact that your predictions are as good as the experts shouldn’t give you a swollen head. :-)

      • Looking at the paleoclimate temperatures, it appears that there must be some sort of attractor or other means of stabilizing the climate. The earth’s climate has stayed within an estimated 20degC range for a very long time. Perhaps the attractor jumps from long glacial periods through an abrupt warming and then an erratic, gradual cooling. See a graph of the Epica Dome ice cores.

      • Ben Wouters,

        (from linked discussion)

        “The role of the atmosphere is the same as that of an isolation blanket: reducing energy loss.
        Since we arrived at the current “balanced” situation coming from much higher temperatures, the atmosphere (isolation blanket) is NOT increasing the surface temperatures.

        So no GHE.”

        As I (nobody special, who is capable of idiocy ; ) understand it, the sun does the (vast majority of the) warming, and the “GHE” alters the rate of cooling, which results in warmer temps than otherwise would occur . . which is to say; Yes, “the atmosphere … is not increasing surface temperature”, but rather, less (slower) cooling of surface temperature happens, because the “blanket” is warmed by outgoing IR that gets intercepted by “GHGs”,

        Am I committing idiocy, in your opinion ; )

      • @JohnKnight February 22, 2017 at 12:19 pm
        “the sun does the (vast majority of the) warming”
        Fully correct, but on our moon the sun does (almost) all the warming, and the average surface temperature there is a mere ~197K. Unless one believes that the atmosphere is responsible for the ~90K higher temperatures on Earth, we need a better explanation.
        Simply put, Earth is covered with oceans that are pre-heated by geothermal energy to ~275K. All the sun has to do is increase the temperature of a shallow surface layer ~15K to arrive at our observed temperatures.
        With average surface temperature ~290K (no atmosphere) the Earth would radiate ~400 W/m^2 directly to space. The atmosphere just reduces this to ~240 W/m^2, what the sun is providing on average.
        Nicely balanced energy budget ;-)
        The GHE theory claims that the atmosphere radiates about twice as much energy to the surface as the sun does. (where are the backradiation panels to power our society ? ;-)
        In my setup the surface temperatures are fully explained, and the energy flow is simply from solar heated surface via the atmosphere to space. No backradiation or other nonsense required.

      • Ben,

        “The GHE theory claims that the atmosphere radiates about twice as much energy to the surface as the sun does.”

        Not mine ; ) I’m not talking/thinking about any specific/quantified “GHE theory”, just the basic idea that if some energy is radiated back onto the sun warmed surface, that energy then must contribute to the total heat energy there . . an effect. Not more than is leaving, of course, just some, which logically speaking seems to me must reduce the rate of energy loss, over what would happen if that “back radiation” was not occurring.

      • @JohnKnight February 24, 2017 at 1:21 pm
        “Not more than is leaving, of course, just some, which logically speaking seems to me must reduce the rate of energy loss, over what would happen if that “back radiation” was not occurring.”

        Think of a well isolated container filled with water and an electric heater inside.
        Heater on, full power, temperature stabilizes at eg 80C. Heater energy input is now equal to the loss through the container walls. Reduce the power, temperature stabilizes at eg 50C.
        Would you say the temperature is (partly) caused by the container walls slowing the energy loss or by the heater inside the container?

        To me it is obvious that in the case of reaching a balanced situation from a higher temperature, the temperature of the water is fully caused by the heater.

        Confusing thing is that the container walls did not cause the temperature, but that without the isolating effect of the walls the temperature would be lower.

      • Ben,

        “Would you say the temperature is (partly) caused by the container walls slowing the energy loss or by the heater inside the container?”

        If the heater were only on periodically, say daily for ten hours, then the average temperature (over the course of a day) could be effected by changes in the “blanket”, it seems clear to me . . (and potentially, the average temp. over longer timescales could be effected, if some of the heat remained by the start of the next heated period.)

        Because the Earth never returns to “ambient” temperature (~3K) and the heater is always on (but “moves around” periodically), that lag in cooling could result, it seems to me, in a rise in overall average temps, if the rate of cooling is slowed. Perhaps very little, in the real-world case (which is what I think most likely), but still a rise, and hence a “GHE”.

        A catastrophic “positive feedback” magnified hyper-GHE as the climate alarmists claim? I don’t see that as logically supportable . . Just a (beneficial) nudge up.

      • @JohnKnight February 25, 2017 at 1:21 pm

        I don’t see how a low density, low(er) temperature gas can have a warming effect on a high density, high(er) temperature liquid. Try heating a swimming pool by blowing colder air over its surface ;-)
        Remember that the deep oceans on average have been cooling down the last 84 million years, so during that period every joule of solar energy that warmed the mixed surface layer, every joule of geothermal energy that warmed the deep oceans plus some more due to the cooling MUST have been transferred either through the atmosphere or directly (atmospheric window) to space.
        Earths temperatures have “stabilized” at the high end of what the isolating effect of the atmosphere can maintain, because we came from (much) higher temperatures.

      • Ben,

        “I don’t see how a low density, low(er) temperature gas can have a warming effect on a high density, high(er) temperature liquid.”

        You are not alone on this site in using terminology incorrectly. It makes it very hard to understand what you are trying to communicate. Why is a low density gas necessarily at a lower temperature?

        ” the isolating effect of the atmosphere ”

        The atmosphere is not isolating. It is connecting because thermal energy passes through it between the bodies inside and outside.. Isolating means there is no mechanism for thermal energy to be passed between the objects either side of it. Do you mean insulating, meaning it slows the rate of heat transfer by whatever mechanism from one body to another compared with the rate of transfer if it were not there? If the atmosphere were isolating, it would mean no thermal energy passes either from the sun into the earth and oceans or out of them into space.

      • @Peter Gardner February 26, 2017 at 4:50 am

        Being Dutch does have some disadvantages ;-)
        The stuff you put between the walls of a house is called an “isolatie deken” in Dutch.
        Thoughtless translation gives “isolation blanket”
        Will try to remember to use insulation (and also not insolation) next time, thanks.

        Regarding the temperature of the atmosphere. The bulk of the atmosphere (~troposphere) has a (much) lower temperature than the surface. Only exceptions I’m aware of are the nocturnal inversion (where the surface cools so fast that only the first few hundred meters of the atmosphere can keep up) and the winter inversion over the poles. They don’t seem to do much good for the surface temperatures there.
        The thermosphere is irrelevant imo, the temperature of the few molecules over there won’t do much to the surface.

      • Ben,

        “Being Dutch does have some disadvantages ;-)”

        Thank you for your reply. Humour too, always welcome. Sorry I was pedantic and a bit arrogant to assume everyone has or should have perfect English. Unfortunately, many who have English as their first language are unhelpfully and frustratingly imprecise in their use of words. In an electrical context insulate does mean isolate in the sense that conductivity approaches infinity for all practical purposes (including within a limited voltage range). Apparently the word insulate in English was derived in c16th century from the Latin insula, meaning ‘island’. ‘Isolate’ derives in English as late as the 18th cent from French isolé and Italian isolato, derived from insulatus, meaning ‘made into an island’, which is derived in turn from Latin insula.

        So it is quite reasonable to become isolated on an island by a common language. (Which is indeed the basis of a joke about England and America).

        No wonder we have vagueness!

        No doubt the EU will at some stage introduce an official EU language. But I wold expect it to be so characterless and devoid of humanity nobody would use it.

        “Wooziness tells truths that logic is deaf to”. attributed to English poet WH Auden.

    • Thanks for the article read most of it , bookmarked and will be shared ( especially with family that has called me a cook for being a skeptic until I point out what a Crook Cook really is). I loved tying it in with a criminal investigation and I hope somebody actually does this. I know now of course why Steyn’s case will never show up in court.

  6. Climate models are not tuned or correlated to match real measured data because the purpose of climate models is not to get people to buy them, as a product, the purpose of the models is to create alarmism and generate urgency for money to be spent on global warming studies and generally increase the importance and stature of climate science and the IPCC. If they were trying to sell these models to the public and make money that way then you know they would darn well correlate them to match past data. By adjusting feedback assumptions and other unknowns until the predictions match the data. The models don’t match real data because they don’t want them to, certainly not because they don’t know how to do it.

    • Steve

      Given the ever-increasing data integrity issues, it’s pretty obvious nobody even attempts to model REAL data.

    • Tuning the models to fit the observations is like continually resetting your watch so that is always on time. In the end, your watch is still not working.

      • A wonderfully simple and accurate analogy! The only bit missing is that the “time” is the homogenized, politically correct time.

    • I think this is a significant point. What corporations are shelling out big money for the results coming out of the climate models??? If no one is paying for the projections, it says something about their perceived accuracy.

  7. Curry describes well the absurdity of relying on a number of computer generated ‘factor analysis’ based models. The only way these models pass any sort of statistical significance is by losing the identities of the variables supposedly under investigation. They are then ‘forced’ to fit a few ‘actual’ readings ( which themselves have been manipulated) by manual interventions with no basis of integrity.
    This is not science. Its not even good maths. Its the very essence of GIGO.
    Furthermore CO2 has not been showed, by repeatable, verified scientific experimentation to have any ability to influence temperatures.
    This is politics and nothing to do with science. Its politics of the worst sort, not debated but driven by pseudo-religious zealots.

  8. Confusing cause and effect.

    Hmmm….I’d say it’s more like an observed effect has been exaggerated and hyped and the possible causes have been restricted to Man’s CO2. The “control” of which can then be used as an excuse for gain. The gain being power, authority and/or cash.
    The Climate Models have been a tool. “Hey, computers don’t lie.”

  9. They started out as process models (experiments), and so were never designed to “predict” or “project” future climate trends. So it’s no wonder that despite being pressed into that duty, they aren’t very good at it.

  10. If the GCM were tuned, they would agree with the previous ten years’ measured global temperatures. Climate scientists have enough parameters to fit a hairy elephant, and make his trunk paint Rubens, but they can’t fit the last ten years.

    • “… but they can’t fit the last ten years.”

      Oh, they COULD, they just don’t want to.

      If they put the volcanic forcing scaling back to what they originally calculated it to be from observations and basic physics then wiggled their other poorly constrained parameters, they would find climate a lot less sensitive to both volcanic cooling and CO2 ‘forcing’.

      Someone, somewhere, has doubtless already done such runs but they have been dismissed as ‘unrealistic’ and remain unreported.

      • I determined and estimation of the magnitude of the volcanic forcing from ERBE data following Mt Pinatubo eruption. I got a value very close to the original value of the GISS group published in 1992. They later reduced their observational based calculated value in favour of an arbitrarily ‘tweaked’ one based on the need to tune model output to fit the recent climate record.


        https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/

        The original work was based on data from the earlier El Chichon eruption and gave a value very similar to the one I got from Mt P.

      • Clarification: the effect of reducing the magnitude of the volcanic forcing is to make the climate appear more sensitive to radiative forcing. Making it more sensitive to a cooling effect requires a similar increased sensitivity to a warming effect.

        Joins the dots to work out where that leads to.

      • The climate model papers on the volcanoes are completely faked up. According to the theory and the original climate model simulations, Pinatubo should have had more than double the impact it actually had. You are just getting taken in by how this science rewrites history over and over again. “Oh look, our model worked perfectly if throw in this fudge factor a,b,c,…,x,y,z.” There are an untold number of them.

      • Just for effect, this is the DROP in solar energy from the last two major volcanoes.

        4% drop in solar flux is something like 4.0 W/m2 total impact (but then your chart shows 8 W/m2, so where did that come from ??).

        So, a -4% drop in solar energy or -4.0 W/m2 only produced something like -0.45C of temperature decline.

        Yet,+3.7 W/m2 of doubled CO2 forcing produces +3.0C of temperature.

        Like the math is just so different between the the two.

        Volcanoes only produce 0.11 C/W/m2

        But CO2 produces 0.81 C/W/m2

        A factor of seven difference. Sorry, it is all just faked-up.

      • Greg Good,an 2:49 PM. Looking. at your graph of Pinatubo eruption I cannot find a trace of the five El Nino peaks that are there. How did you manage to get rid of them? The La Ninas that separate these El Ninos are just as deep as the Pinatubo valley you show is. In view of this there is no justification for showing an artificially created valley and claiming it represents Pinatubo cooling.

  11. From my (somewhat limited) experience trying to model complex systems, you can add one more item to her “broad concerns about their reliability..”

    * You cannot accurately model a system you do not thoroughly understand

    For an example, if Willis’ tropical thunderstorm temperature governor theory is correct there is close to a zero chance that any of the current GCMs are anything more than toys for “Climate Scientists” to play with. Until they thoroughly understand the water cycle and its effects on climate they’re merely urinating to windward.

    • WE’ Tstorms are convection cells. These cannot be modeled, period (let alone the complications of Navier Stokes) on anything more than about a 4km grid~~ the ‘size’ of a typical Tstorm. Judiths point. Computationally intractable by 6-7 orders of magnitude. So Tstorms are one of the things that has to be parameterized, the parameters tuned to best hindcast, the mandatory period for CMIP5 being ye2005 back to 1975. This drags in the attribution problem, because that period is indistinguishable from ~1920-1950, which warming is not attributable to AGW per AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2. And so the whole house of cards falls.

    • ” … Willis’ tropical thunderstorm temperature governor theory … ”
      Great stacks of Willis’ emergent phenomena boiling up over the western Coral Sea at 19°S lunchtime today.
      One of these days I’ll get some images … best place to pull over for me (Mount Low) is not the safest. Maybe I’ll get a drone and try with that.

  12. The entire leftist scam was based on the models.

    Back in the early ’90s and beyond it was always “the models show” that we’re headed toward worldwide catastrophe. And the models were thought to be so incredible, so untouchable, created by brilliant experts in white coats that combined their amazing knowledge with all-powerful computers. Always it was “the models say” …. blah blah blah. “the models .. the models .. the models.” Well, 25 years have passed since most of the models were created … and it turns out those “amazing experts” were just run of the mill leftists running substandard code to create propaganda. The results speak for themselves, “climate change” is a bust:

    • The entire leftist scam was based on the models.

      Funny you should say that. AS you may know a hobby of mine is metaphysics and similar conjectures…and I am reading a book, and writing a short essay on exactly that: the use of models by the [human mind]? to make sense of the world, and how the Left is dominated by a set of models that are based on assumptions that are, in the final analysis, out and out BS of the most vintage sort.

      If you start with Marxist assumptions you end with Marxist conclusions.

      The trick is not to start with them

      Socialism is based on a model of humanity and society. And every time its assumptions are applied through government, disasters happen.

    • We have all seen this plot many times over. The model shape has similarity to the observed data but amplified greatly. To me this, says ” sensitivity greatly over estimated”. So, the question is , with the above premise, what would sensitivity have to be reduced to to matched the observed record. Answering this question would seem to be a quick way to end the debate.

      Any takers ? (beyond my pay grade to they to solve)

      • I don’t read it that way at all. The bits you see (today) as being similar in shape to the past observations have been “refitted” once the benefit of hindsight eventuated. Older versions of this diverge toward fire & brimstone at earlier dates. This is the reason for the perpetual “breakthrough headline” that “now we’ve got the models right” (redone the parameters to fit the data after the event) and … guess what? “It’s happening and it’s far worse than we previously thought!”

      • Jeff L

        Good question. Despite CAGW bleating to the contrary, science on this is so incomplete that no one knows. According to IPCC reports, the greater the variance between models & reality, the higher the claimed confidence level (yea, I know: Alice-in-Wondeland stuff).

        “Computer scientists” are really just “computer dudes” – these guys are not academically trained as scientists, don’t work as scientists, and shouldn’t be accorded the credibility of scientists. Most know little about science or statistics.

        Getting the most-current-but-soon-to-be-obsolete version of electronic gadgets to spit out calculations makes you a technician, not a scientist (the guys who actually designed the electronic gadget was probably a pretty good scientist or scientist/engineer).

    • The R-Squared of that model is likely under 20. In any real science, that kind of result ends in accepting the null. I’ve seen some of Dr. Willie Soon’s data for the sun, and it would have an R-Squared of over 80. IMHO the best way to expose this fraud is to force the climate alarmists to speak the language of science, and that means publishing the R-Squared of the models. Here is how to expose the Fr@ud.

      Climate “Science” on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists
      https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/climate-science-on-trial-the-criminal-case-against-the-alarmists/

  13. “It may well be that it is impossible to make long-term predictions about the climate – it’s a chaotic system after all.”

    Chaotic systems by definition do have predictable aspects. They are bounded, for example. And you can make predictions about statistical long averages, variances, etc. In particular, I do believe that one can indeed make the sort of predictions that climate models tend to make.

    But if you look at it like a control problem, there’s this proposal to abruptly halt most human emissions of CO2 and somehow soft land in the climate of 1850. Yea… right.

    • Bounded by what? Just saying bounded does not advance the argument.

      And why would we chose the climate of 1850, assuming we were able to control the climate in order to make that choice?

      • GG, as MIT’s Lorenz first showed, theynare generally bounded by their strange attractors in N-1 Poincare space. But for climate, other than glacials/interglacials, we don’t know what those are. For sure there are more, as the glacial DO events prove.

      • Greg

        Dr Curry may have titled her paper “Climate models for the layman”, but the section dealing with “chaotic vs random” & “deterministic vs indeterminate” got pretty hairy for me. These are highly important mathematical distinctions, with material consequences for modeling (e.g.: certain types of systems cannot be modeled accurately).

        The net-out seemed to be that science on exactly which kind of system climate qualifies as is, shall we say, unsettled.

    • Greg, bounded by what?

      Karl Hallowell on February 21, 2017 at 2:49 pm

      “It may well be that it is impossible to make long-term predictions about the climate – it’s a chaotic system after all.”

      Chaotic systems by definition do have predictable aspects. They are bounded, for example.”
      __________________________________________

      bounded by e.g. ‘never heard before. You’re telling me’.

      What’s your question Greg?

    • Yes, they MAY be bounded…so long as they stay orbiting a given attractor…then they may one day simply veer off to a new attractor.

      We have very few mathematical tools that are appropriate to analyse chaotic systems. In engineering we try and avoid them at all costs. Because they are essentially unpredictable.

      If you crash a car, the wreckage field may be bounded, but that’s not a lot of help when you want to know where to stand to avoid being hit by a wheel..

      • Leo Smith, you wrote:

        “We have very few mathematical tools that are appropriate to analyse chaotic systems.”

        The integral over time would be one of them. Things like global mean temperature over a period of time (like say a year or five) are exactly the sort of thing that most climate models try to predict. And if climate should veer into one or more different chaotic behaviors, that can still be modeled perhaps as a series of scenarios, for example.

        “If you crash a car, the wreckage field may be bounded, but that’s not a lot of help when you want to know where to stand to avoid being hit by a wheel..”

        Like aiming for a particular climate using control over current level of greenhouse gases emissions as your only steering wheel?

  14. Nit picking here….Prof. Curry included many references in her article , including work by Russians. Yet none from the Chinese- where I have read Plenty worthy papers. A pity ’tis all.

    • The essay could be shorter….here is the best short summary covering Ghg I have read……..The greenhouse effect is the difference between the average temperature (or heat) of the molecule or surface that last emits IR before it leaves the earth and heads to space and the average surface temperature.

      That temperature difference (for each molecule and surface) is given by the lapse rate x height.

      And so the 32C greenhouse effect tells us that the average height is 32/6.5 = ~5km

      If you add greenhouse gases, all this does is add more IR emitters and slightly raises the average height at which IR emitted by CO2 molecules leaves the atmosphere. For a doubling of CO2 (1C change) that height change is ~150m.

      In other words, you can experience the full horror of a doubling of CO2 by climbing a hill, and then descending 150m…….

      Hmmmmm.

  15. The first hard lesson I nearned when I started using CFD codes (using the Navier Stokes equations) was that the mesh size was important to get right due to the possibility of convergence to false solutions. The other factor was that if you want to model phenomena like turbulence ( or storm cells at say a global scale) you need a very, very fine mesh size which blows solution time into the outer solar system at least.

    In other words there are practical pressures to reduce the overall mesh density by using a coarse grid which then leaves the model open to false solutions. The model vs satellite/balloon record seems to confirm or at the very least suggest such an outcome.

    A crude model producing false solutions however does generate content for the ‘science communicators’ to work with and for at least one ‘least publishable unit’ (LPU) to be produced with attendant conference attendance and publication score dividend.

    Follow the money….

  16. “New paper explains inherent flaws of computer models predicting future climate change”
    correction:
    New _non_peer_reviewed_ paper explains inherent flaws of computer models predicting future climate change

    • ReallySkeptical February 21, 2017 at 3:12 pm

      “correction:
      New _non_peer_reviewed_ paper explains inherent flaws of computer models predicting future climate change”

      Correction: In the practice of Real Science, Peer Review by a few selected “Peers” is never warranted to produce the “given truth”. Basically what this means is that you can do it yourself!

    • Of course that means you’re excused from actually reading it, displaying any kind of intellectual curiosity, or having your assumptions threatened.

    • You don’t need to ‘peer review’ a paper by a professor of climate science simply pointing out the potential flaws in mathematical modelling of physical phenomena. Professor Curry is hardly breaking new ground, she is simply takling part in a broad brush discussion about such modelling.

      ReallySkeptical… are you really?

      Besides, your alternative title still contains the essential element
      “explains inherent flaws of computer models predicting future climate change”.

      What more do you want RS? Have you read the paper itself?

    • It seems you are unable to distinguish between a paper summarising peer reviewed reports of science from the science itself. If you think Judith Curry is wrong you are free to explain why. Let’s have your considered review as a peer.

    • “ReallySkeptical February 21, 2017 at 3:12 pm
      “New paper explains inherent flaws of computer models predicting future climate change”
      correction:
      New _non_peer_reviewed_ paper explains inherent flaws of computer models predicting future climate change”

      Truly and quite sadly pedantic.
      No matter how many egregious errors are found and displayed; alarmists harp on about ridiculous nonsense.
      Ignore the science, cry the alarmists, believe only “peer review”! Forcing scientists to run a gauntlet of pal controlled peer review nonsense, where the insiders control the narrow channels of required ‘approval’ to get published.

      reallyskeptical proves they are not skeptic, because they follow the really dodgy shrill alarmist cry of “peer review”.

  17. As much as I appreciate Prof. Curry’s efforts to provide a logical alternative to the mindless acceptance of Global Warming/Climate Change, I think we ought to question the entire effort on more fundamental grounds. Our knowledge of human societies goes back about 4,000 years. Using that as a time scale, ice cores show that the current interglacial began just twice as far back. The onset of the next ice age will not be triggered by the earth’s average temperature. It will start when glaciers in the NH are able to grow from one year to the next, which will be determined by sustained high temperatures during the summer in the high latitudes. There are four glaciers in the NH that have been growing in this fashion for 2,500 to 4,000 years. And snow has been accumulating on the inland portion of Greenland, although I believe the coastal areas continue to experience an increase in summer warmth. So this concern is not hypothetical. The prediction of the onset of past Ice Ages can be made by considering the orbital variations identified by Milankovitch. A comparison of the computed insolation for the Eemian interglacial with our current situation suggests that we are approaching midway in the present interglacial. This is consistent with the ice core data.

    So our current scientific folly, with it’s focus on average temperature, is likely diverting attention from the real processes that will prove to be pivotal. At the very least, our paleoclimatologists may find it necessary to bow down to the alter of CO2 “climate change” in order to get their papers published, which might be causing them to temper their conclusions.

    Worse, modern climate practioners find it necessary to compute “average temperatures” for the two hemispheres in order to have a “calibration” period for their models. The number of surface locations that have reliable, long term records are ridiculously small, both on land and on sea. And as a result, the estimation of the sensitivity parameter for CO2, which is nothing more than a fitting coefficient with no linkage to specific physical processes, is based on very short periods, using satellite data that has been contorted to agree with the terrible surface temperature estimates. Moreover, the modelers get to pick and choose the period to be used. Worse yet, we know when they fail to predict the future with their models, this is explained by magical thinking, secret strata in the oceans that have absorbed the missing heat, for example.

  18. I don’t blame Judith Curry for deciding to retire, but we will miss her objectivity and common sense. Now if we can just get Michael Mann to retire to balance the scales or alarmists vs. rationalists among climate scientists.

    • She has promised to blog on with help from guest posters. Blog becomes more journal like. And she is obviously writing on. She is still very much with us skeptics. Just free of GIT hassles.
      And she is attracting really good guest posts, IMO. Javier has one a few days ago that is a literature review of DO events; theme strong rapid natural variation. Andy West has one (yesterday) chewing into Lewandowski and ‘denial’. I put up a techy one last November on to new (speculative commercially, but sound technologically) energy developments, one relevant to Chevy Volt and one relevant to Chevy Bolt.

      • ristvan ,i agree the direction judith curry’s blog is taking is more journal like.i think it is good idea. i even got myself a wordpress account so i could make the (very) occasional comment there .

    • Gandhi

      I get the gist of what you’re saying, but there may be an unintended silver lining to academia’s climate science inquisition:

      1) Dr Curry has not lost any of her considerable credibility; in fact, she may now feel freer to speak critical on the subject

      2) Dr Mann, on the other hand, will remain a “controversial” figure of ridicule (even my warmest friends don’t believe tree rings); leave him in place as an easily identified symbol of what has gone so very wrong

  19. Upholding a single contrarian in the face of the global view is hardly balanced , Curry’s misinformation has been repeatedly called out. But what else can you expect from a proudly biased site that tramples on the scientific method ?.

    • WTF,
      Your appeal to consensus is hardly scientific. I doubt you even read Curry’s paper. It isn’t long, take a look. Then come back and quote to use what you find to be “misinformation”, but be prepared to support your arguments with facts. Hand waving won’t pass muster here. And if you aren’t willing to engage in informed debate, then just go away; there are enough trolls here already.

    • WTF, she is right and you do not know what you are talking about. Repeating the CAGW mantra just proves you are a watermellon zombie.
      She is not a single contrarian. See the Clutz link to RGB at Duke posted above. For further model nonsense insights, see my illustrated guest post here on GCM models maybe 18 months ago. You can find it in the WUWT search function. Read essay Models all the way Down in ebook Blowing Smoke for a much longer and more damning indictment of GCMs, using actual GCM examples.

    • But what else can you expect from a proudly biased site that tramples on the scientific method ?.

      HUH!?
      Calling for the application of the scientific method by “climate scientist” and critiquing their “tree rings” via actually using it is “trampling” on the scientific method?
      (Appeal to authority much? Label people much? Appeal to consensus much? Read much much? She’s hardly the only “a single contrarian”. You just wish she was.)

      • “WTF February 21, 2017 at 7:56 pm
        Now simmer down .
        Go look it up yourself, you’ll find it’s not the ‘alternative’ method used here.”

        More avoidance and straw man distraction with a classic “red herring”.
        Not forgetting the lazy response “go look it up”, instead of posting actual references.

        WUWT’s commenters have hashed out the scientific method many times; with many favoring Richard Feynman’s classic statement.

        Others may expand that statement when discussing “research” or “experiments”; asking where is the research design that truly follows the scientific method?
        After almost thirty years of wrong results, bad research, Complete lack of verification, false and failed replication(s), zero discussion, 100% erroneous terrible predictions, egocentric smugness, it is time to initiate proper science and scientific method in climate and weather.

        One thing we’ve all have agreed about scientific methods; that research built and conducted to prove a person’s opinion(s), is confirmation bias in action.
        Details, such as are discussed in Dr. Curry’s excellent article; establish the proof(s) regarding lack of science in “climate science”

      • OK, it’s clear that WTF is just a bomb throwing troll. He can safely be ignored from here on out. No need to waste anymore effort on him.

    • If every one sings out of the same song book and it is written off key, everyone will be off key until someone points out the problem in need of corrective action. WTF, your off key!

      • The R-Squareds of those models is the smoking gun evidence that this is a Fr@ud. Dr. Soon have solar data that would do a much much much better job explaining the temperature variation. Someone just needs to call the Climate Alarmist’s bluff, and force them to speak the language of science.

    • WTF, are you surprised that people like me are sceptical of the alleged consensus when this is the best you have to offer? There is a staggering deference in the CAGW proponent camp to a mythically impenetrable set of knowledge and assumptions lumped loosely together from different disciplines and united in the misuse of the scientific method that has come to be known as ‘climate science’ – probably due mostly to the fact that the majority do not even understand their own stated position clearly and need to fall back on appeal to authority as a defence. The few who do tend to hand-wave, cherry pick, throw up endless smoke screens as a diversion and invariably fall back on the weak precautionary principle rather than address criticism head on. I have always been willing to change my mind if shown genuinely compelling observational evidence, free from inconsistency, pathological averaging or selection bias, but this factor more than anything else fuels my scepticism (and growing cynicism). Come back when you have something to say and I’ll possibly take it on board.

    • Single? Global? Look up groupthink. Science requires skepticism. Religion requires consensus. The dogma of CAGW is trampling science.

      • WTF, I’m guessing that was a reply to my comment as I was the only one to use the word ‘evidence’. You were apparently unable or unwilling to read what I said before replying, and your comments indicate you are unwilling to read the main article – instead relying (rightly or wrongly) on boilerplate opinion from the CAGW community as a defence. I did not offer any evidence myself, I just stated that I would be willing to change my mind about CAGW if presented with compelling observational evidence. I ask this out of genuine curiosity rather than any kind of criticism: did you fully read my comment and genuinely misunderstand what I wrote regarding ‘evidence’ (perhaps due to my lack of clarity – I do tend to use overlong sentences and get a bit verbose), or did you skim read it, spot the word ‘evidence’, make an assumption about what I was saying and reply on that basis? If the latter, why? Did it feel uncomfortable to read my comment in detail? Is it uncomfortable for you to click on the link to read Judith Curry’s article? If so, why? I’m tempted to accuse people of ‘groupthink’ sometimes, but I know this can be a lazy accusation used as a defence – I’d like to try and understand what’s really going on. If you choose to reply, thanks in advance..

      • Verbose,
        I posted a simple question that never gets answered without resort to conspiracy theory, don’t be so self centred. ‘Evidence’ represents the general denier community’s ineffectual response. If you reject AGW then the burden of proof is with you.
        If you choose to reply, please be succinct so my eyes don’t glaze over.

      • WTF, Are you sure your eyes glazed over with boredom, or might it have been your mind’s way of avoiding having to actually read what I said, challenge your assumptions on Judith Curry or her article, and perhaps have some of your assumptions challenged? I expect that might be uncomfortable for you, but as you didn’t answer my question, I wouldn’t know for sure.

        I didn’t offer any proof because the scope of my comment was restricted to attitudes to analysis of the scientific process amongst the non-scientific community of CAGW advocates (maybe I should say ‘alarmist’ but you might see that as being pejorative). That to be less verbose – ‘climate science’ is seen by believers as a hermetic knowledge kept sealed by the high-priests of the movement, not to be examined, understood or questioned by lesser beings – themselves or those they brand as ‘deniers’. I’m wondering if there is any truth in this view? My interest is in how it relates to cult mentality, how this mentality can exist outside what is seen conventionally as a cult environment, and how it can be reasonably identified and distinguished from a strongly held belief or religion. One marker I’d like to test is the idea that a person overcome by a cult mentality will be completely unable to question the tenants and proclamations of the cult unless the questions have been sanitised through the cult’s intellectual leadership. I think the best way to find out what people think is how to ask them how they think – hence my question to you which you are apparently unable to answer, slightly strengthening my view of the ‘consensus’ as being cult-like.

        I wonder why you see my comments as being self centred? As a guess, if your eyes haven’t glazed over (or maybe gone ‘glassy’) by this point, I’d speculate that considering evidence, parsing an argument, scrutinising claims and coming to an informed judgement is a process that happens within the ‘self’, whereas a prerequisite of a cult mentality is that this self-centred process must be abandoned for the sake of the survival of the group’s belief system, lest it be subject to challenge. Therefore it’s unsurprising to me that you’d see any questioning of your belief system as self-centred – you accept your views wholesale from above. For example Judith Curry is ‘discredited’ – regardless of what she actually says, because the leadership says she is, not because you’ve come to any view informed by your own reasoning. While I’d see internal, self centred processing as a good thing, you’d see it as necessarily bad. Do I have a point?

        Okay, so I’m not accused of failing to answer your last question (even though it was a diversion of the kind I pointed out in my original comment), proof of what? You say I reject AGW, but I said I have yet to see compelling observational evidence that the world is undergoing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, “free from inconsistency, pathological averaging or selection bias”. I don’t see that as rejection of AGW. If you’d like me to help you out and reframe your question as a hypothesis (potentially one of many) that you can challenge as you like, then I’d say:

        ‘Computer modelled climate simulations are an an important cornerstone of the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 have had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on global temperatures. This is through an enhanced warming effect beyond that described by known radiative physics. In some forms, the hypothesis claims that past CO2 emissions are already having a catastrophic environmental impact in terms of elevated temperatures and associated weather events. In others it claims that future impacts (when the climate system reaches an equilibrium following the current and past addition of anthropogenic CO2) will be catastrophic for the environment and mankind. These climate simulations are unable to offer any useful insight into the medium to long term workings of the global climate, or any reliable predictions of future temperatures, for reasons set out in this article by Judith Curry (http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf). Therefore this important cornerstone of the alleged evidence offered in support of the CAGW hypothesis is unreliable and cannot be reasonably taken into consideration when coming to an informed judgement regarding the costs and benefits of continued anthropogenic CO2 emissions.’

        All of Curry’s points seem valid to me, so no reason to annoy everyone here by reproducing them when you can just click a link. So read the article and fire away – I’m willing to have my mind changed if this statement can be falsified. If you find it interesting then Dr Brown has some great down-to-earth observations on climate modelling here: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/climate-models-explained/

        Any clarity in those eyes yet? :-)

    • WTF I guess Einstein was a contrarian, Bohr, and many others. heck tectonics was “contrarian” too.

      I guess when the ignorant don’t learn from history (and the climate establishment try erase\revise it) you are doomed to be as idiotic as people in the past.

      Well done WT well done indeed. It is people like you that I dread my kids turn out like. Cognitively limited.

      “World view” is a term used by a political regime and political regimes like communism used “world view” within the confines of communism to steamroll over millions of people, often literally

      • Mark,
        The big difference is that those guys engaged with the scientific community and went through the peer review process. Your champions’ papers are poorly received and end up in pseudoscience places like this.

      • Verbose,
        No, my eyes glazed over due to boredom.
        You still haven’t addressed why the deniers’ counter evidence has failed utterly in the real world of science ( my main point ) instead you go into a yawning Gish gallop.

    • WTF – We welcome opinions but what you have expressed is NOT opinion. Vomiting onto fine paper is poor impulse control. Look inward for more understanding. GK

    • But what else can you expect from a proudly biased site that tramples on the scientific method ?.

      I doubt anyone here cares about SS, but you are welcome to ask them about their trampling.

  20. Mr. Layman here.
    I’ve always looked at weather and climate models in terms of target shooting.
    The shorter the distance, the less things like wind velocity and direction matter.
    The greater the distance, the more they do. (Any military snipers will attest to that. (No, I was not one.))
    The gun also makes a big difference. Despite what they portray in the movies, a handgun isn’t going to be on target at anything less than short range. Even if the sites are lined up, the shorter the barrel, the more likely the bullet will drift of the bullseye.
    A rifle will give you greater range and accuracy but then the things like wind (even humidity?), the consistency of the quality of round being fired etc need to be taken into account.
    Of course, there’s always the “lucky shot”.
    Weather and climate models.
    Hurricanes are probably one of the best modeled weather events out there. Yet, still, the further out you go in time, the less sure they are of just where the eye will make landfall.
    Climate Change models are like trying to hit a target half a mile away with snub-nose ’38.
    “But we told where our model pointed! Catastrophic! We must shut down civilization to make sure we miss!”

  21. Figure 4 in Judith Curry’s paper seems to be consistent with temperature rise preceding increases in atmospheric CO2 but inconsistent with CO2 leading temperature rise. Together with evidence from ice cores, isn’t this enough to show CO2 is not the main driver of temperature, even on relatively small timescales and in recent times?

    • On millennial time scales, yes. Henry’s Law at work. On centennial or decadal time scales, no. Two reasons. First, time resolution: Ice core/ Henry’s law has a resolution of ~800 years, roughly the thermohaline circulation round trip. They cannot ‘see’ decades. Reason is than firn to ice transition averages ~60 years. Second, the CO2 add since ~1950 exceeds that ice core resolution. Leads to other easy refutations concerning only the 20th century, posted upthread under the general ruberic of attribution.

      • Ristvan,

        The resolution of the CO2 levels in ice cores depends of the local snow accumulation, which is very high for coastal cores (Law Dome: 1.2 m ice equivalent/year, resolution less than a decade, but only spanning 150 years back in time) down to a few mm/year for far inland cores (Dome C, 560 years, 800,000 years back in time).
        Law Dome has a 20 years overlap (1960-1980) with direct measurements at the South Pole, which are within the stdv of the ice core measurements. Other cores with lower resolution are overlapping each other but span gradually longer periods back in time.

        Anyway, the current increase of 110 ppmv CO2 above the air-ocean surface equilibrium by Henry’s law indeed would be visible in every ice core, be it with a lower peak, even with the worst resolution…

        Here for the Holocene (up to 1950):

  22. Dr. Curry writes: “The atmospheric module simulates the evolution of the winds, temperature, humidity and atmospheric pressure using complex mathematical equations that can only be solved using computers.” Among the equations are the Navier-Stokes equations, which currently has no general closed-form solution. It is therefore widely thought that the NS equations can “only” be solved using computers.

    However, it’s an open question whether they can be solved even with computers, i.e. using discrete approximations for the derivatives. I have become increasingly skeptical that computational fluid dynamics can produce a good approximation a priori under ideal conditions, and it turns out I’m not alone.

    A researcher named Lun-Shin Yao of Arizona State University has been on this path for quite some time. The latest paper I have found, “Computed Chaos or Numerical Errors,” concludes that computer solutions of the Lorenz equations are too contaminated with numerical errors due to discretization and the use of finite arithmetic to be considered even approximate solutions of those equations. Yao draws the same conclusion for the Navier-Stokes equations, with additional observation that turbulent solutions require the addition of viscosity that isn’t present in the original equations. I agree with him on the latter – the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations are not the Navier-Stokes equations. So “solving” them is of little use in any event. I am starting to believe that the discretization problems also mean that we are not, in fact, “solving” them in the first place.

    Read more.

    Yao L.S. and Hughes D. 2008a. Comment on “Time Step Sensitivity of Nonlinear
    Atmospheric Models: Numerical Convergence, Truncation Error Growth, and
    Ensemble Design” Teixeira et al. (2007), J. Atmos. Sci, 65, No. 2, 681-682, February.

    Yao L.S. and Hughes D. 2008b. A comment on “Computational periodicity as observed
    in a simple system,” by Edward N. Lorenz (2006a), Tellus 60A, 4, 803-805.

    Yao L.S. and Ghosh Moulic S 1994. “Uncertainty of convection,” Int. J. Heat & Mass
    Transfer, 37, 1713-1721.

    Yao L. S. and Ghosh Moulic S. 1995a. Taylor-Couette instability with a continuous
    spectrum, J. of Applied Mechanics, 62, 915-923.

    Yao L. S. and Ghosh Moulic S. 1995b. Nonlinear instability of traveling waves with a
    continuous spectrum, Int. J. Heat & Mass Transfer, 38, 1751-1772.

  23. Well, to this old Ga Tech physicist (me, not Dr Curry), reading Dr Curry’s paper boils down to climate science is a BOGSAT (Bunch Of Guys Sitting Around Talking) – they have a hard time measuring reality, and can’t make models match reality because they don’t want to (it forces them to confront low CO2 climate sensitivity).

    I’m also a retired CFO and I know it hardly ever end well for those who refuse to accept reality.

    • This Newly retired CEO would never question my former CFO (or earlier GM in career, finance director). Always ended badly. Regards. Audit trails, reality, hard stuff.

    • Simply run a regression on that data. CO2 doesn’t explain much if any variability in temperature, none, nada, zip, and that difference will only grow over time.

  24. The system is incompletely characterized and unwieldy, and nonlinear, thus chaotic. So, the effort to predict its behavior results in creation of models (or hypotheses) that are at best lightly correlated, and at worst independent, of the actual system. Science is a philosophy that implicitly acknowledges that accuracy is inversely proportional to time and space offsets from an observer’s frame of reference (i.e. scientific domain).

  25. “Climate models are good for amusement only. They prove nothing.”

    Wrong: they have proven that they do not work. This finding is important in science :-)

    Regards

    Michael

  26. Reality bites you hard eventually. I learned that in life and business the hard way. Have worked with a couple of CEO’s who spun B.S. while our companies were clearly circling the bowl. Then one day the investors lose confidence. Usually after their money is lost. The fired CEO gets escorted out muttering the same old line. Let’s hope we are approaching that for AGW.

  27. Excellent study by Dr. Curry.

    The UN IPCC has been issuing climate alarmism proclamations for over two decades starting with the IPCC First Assessment Report issued in 1990.

    The latest UN climate alarmism report was the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report issued in 2013 which was presented in 4 volumes comprising over 6,000 pages of material and more than 5 million words.

    The primary driver of the UN IPCC AR5 reports assessments and findings is derived through the use of the latest developed version of global climate model simulations which have been significantly updated from climate model simulations used in prior UN IPCC reports through the decades.

    The overwhelming challenges presented in trying to develop viable computer global climate model simulations was addressed in the UN IPCC Third Assessment issued in 2001.

    Specifically in Section 14.2.2.2 (Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles) of the AR3 report the bottom line concerning the unresolvable shortcomings of global climate model simulations was articulated and clearly presented as:

    “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by generation of ensembles of modal solutions.”

    Despite the latest global climate model updates reflected in the UN IPCC AR5 report the limitations clearly articulated in the UN IPCC AR3 report that “the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible” applies to the AR5 report assessments and findings.

    This significant limitation in global climate model outputs is highlighted in UN IPCC AR5 Technical Summary in Box TS.6 where the climate model scenarios are specifically qualified as follows:

    “The scenarios should be considered plausible and illustrative, and do not have probabilities attached to them. (12.3.1; Box 1.1)”

    These 16 words out of more than 5 million words in the entire report present an absolutely critical story about the huge and unresolvable uncertainties that underlie the AR5 report assessments and findings which are hidden from the public and unaddressed by climate alarmists, biased media and politicians.

    The UN Paris 2015 agreement which attempts to create global regulatory mandates and commitments for nations to reduce future CO2 emissions is largely built upon the assessments and findings of the UN IPCC AR5 report. The commitments made thus far from that agreement will costs trillions of dollars to implement and produce little in actual global temperature reductions (http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises).

    It is absurd for global nations to commit trillions of dollars on government regulated climate actions based on uncertain climate model projections which represent nothing but conjecture and speculation.

    The fact that those demanding such massive expenditures are so dishonest in hiding the extraordinary shortcomings of global climate model simulations demonstrates that a massive global con game is being perpetrated by climate alarmists upon the public.

    These climate models may serve useful purposes in academic and scientific studies but they are completely unsuited for purposes of regulatory driven commitments that require the expenditures of trillions of dollars of global capital which can be utilized for much greater benefit in dealing with known massive global problems including poverty, education, and health care.

    The use of incredibly bogus climate models to try and justify massive costly actions by nations around the world to reduce CO2 emissions in fact represents the biggest global government con job in history.

    • Larry
      Agreed.
      Second in line is the CFC debacle related to ozone depletion. There is a severe lack of science supporting this theory. Reporting on the annual outcome is as wooly and vague as anything I have seen. CO2 and AGW took the focus away from the topic.

      The CFC / chlorine destruction theory of ozone above the Antarctic has a random non predictable outcome.
      If you cant predict it, you dont understand it.

      Anyone that takes the time to explore it in detail with an open mind and a fresh set of eyes will see that the ozone dilution (hole) is very “mechanical” and routine in nature. It is not random at all. Other events are tied into the cycle. The same events things occur in a similar sequence every year. The “weak” years of 1979 to early 1980’s are particularly revealling, as is 2002.

      Mother nature has the most beautiful curves (on a chart).

      • Good call there as the Montreal Protocol was used as a model for carbon dioxide control.
        No increase in surface UVa was ever mentioned under said ozone hole because chlorine monoxide does not inhibit ozone formation. It only catalyzes ozone dissociation, something ozone does on its own when exposed to UV.

      • This lack of possibilities is the canard these quacks (see how I squeezed in that pun?) use to formally avoid model results being “falsifiable” as per the scientific method. The IPCC may have crap scientists, but they do have funny lawyers.

    • Agreed. And given that the underlying physics of the elements included in the models make it virtually impossible to predict into the future, it can’t be emphasized enough that the neglect of the many poorly understood physical processes that drive the modeled processes is even more outrageous. The oft discussed CO2 Sensitivity factor is nothing more than a fudge factor. The Piltdown Man was a trifling affair that didn’t prepare our culture for the reality of the corruption that is inherent in the collaboration of politicians and government sponsored “science”.

  28. Dr. Curry wrote;

    “It may well be that it is impossible to make long-term predictions about the climate – it’s a chaotic system after all. If that’s the case, then we are probably trying to redesign the global economy for nothing”.

    Quite true indeed.

    One can “model” anything with a computer, making the model and reality match….now that’s a entirely different story….

    Many of the experienced engineers here (from several different fields) have stated all along; “You Can’t Model the Climate (accurately)”. Was quite correct when stated and it is still correct.

    And it is mostly unrelated to computer speed/grid size, etc. It has more to do with an “open ended projection” versus a “converging model”. Most successful modeling in the engineering fields adjust/compute values until the data at multiple points (grid locations) all behave according to a well established physical law (stress/strain, current/voltage, etc). Success is mostly having enough grid points (“nodes”) to accurately reflect a systems performance and then waiting until the computer model says “All points match the physical equations within 0.1% or 0.01%, or what ever accuracy your are willing to wait for.

    Climate models starting from an initial condition and predicting the next step just keep adding errors until the data diverges from reality. “Tuning” the model just changes how fast it will diverge from reality.

    Climate modelling is an “entirely different kind” of modelling that the successful computer modelling other technical fields have accomplished;

    Cheers, KevinK

  29. Let me try to make a few relavant points here. Essentially they start with a weather simulation and modify it to simulate weather over a long period of time and call it a climate simulation.

    1, To be able to run the simulations in finite time they have to reduce the spatial and temporal resolution. This type of simulation implying the use of predictor corrector techniques are best only marginally stable for high resolution short time runs and less stable as the sampling intervals are increased and the time span of the simulation is increased. The results that they achieve may be more of a function of the numerical instability inharent in the simulation technique then of the physical manifistations that they are trying to simulate.

    2. To simulate climate they have had to include equations describing the effects of changes in CO2. Including such equations really begs the question as to how CO2 affects climate rendering the simulations as totally useless. They hard code in that more CO2 causes warming so that is exactly what the simulation results show. It is all make believe and not science. The fact that the simulations have failed to predict what has really been happening with the Earth’s climate would lead one to the conclusion the perhaps there is something very wrong with the AGW conjecture.

    3. They have created a plethora of different models indicating that a lot of guess work is involved. If they really knew what they were doing they sould have created only a single model. They do not know which model is the correct one so they may all be wrong. If they had learned anything over the years they would have decreased the number of models currently under consideration but such has not happened. Then I see plots of the average of all the models which makes no sense what so ever. Then they use the term that a result is likely which really means that they really do not know and the likely result is what they wish were correct. They never show their mathematical derivation of the likelyhood that they profess. Their likelyhood numbers are nothing but wishfull thinking on their part.

    4. To date there is no real evidence that a radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption properties of some trace gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of LWIR absrobing gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect. So to on Earth. As derived from first principals, the surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C. warmer because of the atmosphere because of the heat capacity of the atmoshere, the pressure gradient caused by gravity and the depth of the troposphere. 33 degrees C is also what has been obsrved. There is no additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect. Because the AGW conjecture is based on a ficitious radiant greenhouse effect, the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction as are simulations of the effect. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increse in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

    5. Kyoji Kimoto in an article entitled “Basic Global Warming Hypothesis Is Wrong” pointed out that the original calculations of the Planck Effect climate sensivity of CO2 were too great by more than a factor of 20 because what was ignored was the fact that doubling the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s armosphere will cause a slight but very siginificant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. The IPCC ignores this for political reasons because that would mean that CO2 warming is virtually nonexistant. In their first report, the IPCC published a very wide range for their guesses as to the climate sensivity of CO2. In their last report they published the exact same values meaning that after more than two decades of effort running simulations and observing the Earth’s climate they have learned nothing that would allow them to narrow their range of guesses one iota, What has happened is what one would expect if the climate sensivity of CO2 were really some very small number close to zero.

    I believe that the GCM approach to climate modeling is fundamentally flawed and considering all the wrong results that have been derived, the approach should be abandoned.

  30. The carbon used to print the text on these online pages worries me. We should be doing our part. That’s why I’m sto

  31. Arguably the most fundamental challenge with GCMs lies in the coupling of two chaotic fluids: the ocean and the atmosphere. Weather has been characterised as being in state of deterministic chaos, 17 owing to the sensitivity of weather forecast models to small perturbations in initial conditions of the atmosphere. The source of the chaos is nonlinearities in the Navier–Stokes equations. A consequence of sensitivity to initial conditions is that beyond a certain time the system will no longer be predictable; for weather this predictability timescale is a matter of weeks.

    GCM simulations are also sensitive to initial conditions (even in an average sense). Coupling a nonlinear, chaotic atmospheric model to a nonlinear, chaotic ocean model gives rise to something much more complex than the deterministic chaos of a weather model, particularly under conditions of externally forced changes (such as is the case for increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide). Coupled atmosphere/ocean modes of internal variability arise on timescales of weeks, years, decades, centuries and millennia. These coupled modes give rise to instability and chaos. How to characterise them is virtually impossible using current theories of nonlinear dynamical systems, particularly in situations involving transient changes of parameter values. Stainforth et al. 18 refer to this situation as ‘pandemonium’.

    Dear Judith

    I love you :-)

  32. The model tuning has been the “hidden in plain-view” climate corruption the whole time. No one spoke of it outside expert circles for years. Tuning allows the modellers to output any CO2 sensitivity numbers they “think reasonable.”

    That should be the big red flag alarm to any non-climate scientist or engineer looking at the utter shameful mess of climate science.

    Again, with model tuning the modellers can get any number on climate co2 sensivity they want. And their paper peer reviewers have accepted for decades these “reasonable” results based on nothing more than theory expectation.

    Climate models and their creators claiming a CO2 sensivity value or range are the very definition of junk science. (Or as Dr Richard Feynman would have called it, it’s cargo cult science)

  33. The Greatest Game … Scheme …

    What a boat load of schemers.

    Of course … Climate Science …. just a form of … Astrology … with the WONDERS … that Bill Gates (little shit … Harvard Drop Out … Fornicator) provided …. Brings a tear to the eye.

    Harumph harumph. Hail the Queen! Hail the Queen!

    http://giphy.com/gifs/batman-laugh-the-dark-knight-A363LZlQaX0ZO

    [Oh. I will get … marooned (banned from ‘Whattsupwhtithat’ … for this one! Ha ha]

  34. “It may well be that it is impossible to make long-term predictions about the climate – it’s a chaotic system after all.”

    This is an extremely important consideration, which has not been emphasized enough IMHO.
    Take a look at “Believing in Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast …” from about 00:58 min.

    Essex rightly makes the point that we may not have any idea of what we should be looking at/for in order to predict long-term climate change from our available short-term observations. His examples are most thought-provoking.

  35. A year or two ago on WUWT there was a model that only used the sun spots at solar maximum and volcano activity. It was scary accurate. It was being peer reviewed. What happened to it?

  36. “Consensus is utterly irrelevant to science. The philosophy of science is devoid of consensus. What concerns science is not weight of numbers on the side of an argument, but what the facts are. What the evidence is.”
    Albert Einstein

    • Your quote from the Great Man, and the below quote from Feynman sums up precisely what is wrong with this pseudo science/this cargo science called Climate Science.

      In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it. Then we – now don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what, if this is right, if this law that we guessed is right, to see what it would imply. And then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it. my emphasis

      Let’s get back to the scientific method. Models are useless,let’s accept that fact, and let’s start conducting quality controlled observation and experimentation. Stop playing playstation and start conducting real science. Climate Science will not advance until that time.

      • You’ll be more successful in your search for a source if you look for “Richard Feynman” of Caltech. There’s even a youtube. :)

  37. The purpose of the climate models is not to accurately predict the temperature in the future. The true purpose of the climate models is to influence human behavior in the present. When the performance of these models is evaluated with their true purpose in mind they have been spectacularly successful.

  38. Once upon a time, BC, Before Computers, when natural systems – like stream flow, coastal procecess, air flow, had to be modeled physically, there were three golden rules for the modeler
    (i) First fully understand the prototype before you start building your model
    (ii) “Prove” (validate) your model – demonstrate that it accurately reproduces the behavior of the prototype
    (ii) Only use it to investigate changes within the range of the physical parameters for which it was it has been validated. Models are not a tool for extrapolation.

    Hence there are no climate models. There are only really complicated and subjective compound interest (temperature) calculators, which like all advice derived therefrom should carry similar product disclosure statements and diclaimers

    • I’m old but I remember a time before digital computers when we used analog computers to solve real problems. They required you to develop accurate equations describing a system. I have often wondered if “climate programmers” wouldn’t be better off trying to an old timers method for solving a system.

  39. AR4 and AR5 various Ensemble projections

    The solid coloured lines with no noise, are added from a simple model doing a linear extrapolation GHG forcing of GHG values of each model.

    https://postimg.org/image/jji75a0gr/

    https://postimg.org/image/d731vfxej/

    All the complexity of the model just adds the noise but the simple extrapolation is pretty good at predicting model output, so are models really doing a noisy linear extrapolation of GHG forcing values when modeling a highly NON linear system?

    • Is that the guy that done the linear extrapolation of the GHG forcings I posted above?, the name sounds familiar

    • The passive warming model will also produce hilarious results if run for 5000 years.

      The models are not bad they are junk

    • Indeed. His paper is a dazzling and damning revelation of the scam we have been fed. Small wonder he’s had so much resistance to getting it published in terrified “peer reviewed” journals. Look at 36:45 to 39:00 to see the garbage-grade “peers” he’s up against:

      • The model in that video is a simple linear model between CO2 and temperature. It is a complete joke, and explains why the models will always be wrong, and always overestimate temperature. There is no way for the IPCC models to do anything but forecast higher temperatures…at least until 800 years into the next ice age.

        This post covers that model and video.
        https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/climate-science-on-trial-the-criminal-case-against-the-alarmists/

      • @co2islife February 22, 2017 at 3:45 pm
        “The model in that video is a simple linear model between CO2 and temperature. It is a complete joke”

        No, Pat Frank shows that the OUTPUTS of the climate models, for all their expense and complexity, can themselves be modelled by a simple linear model – a model of the models, as he puts it. That is the complete joke – that you could have used a handheld calculator to do what billions of $$ of supercomputing does.

  40. “It may well be that it is impossible to make long-term predictions about the climate”

    The IPCC admitted as much. The only climate we can predict with any degree of certainty is spring, summer, fall, winter. Or whatever usually happens in a given zone. Until something happens to change it.

    • We need to know every variable and how everything interacts to a very fine resolution, particle size resolution to predict chaotic long term changes.

      If we had such ability to model, we could model exactly how a human will grow.

      We don’t even come close to thinking about dreaming about that kind of accuracy,

  41. The GWPF is a mysteriously funded organisation with a political agenda.

    Leaving science/academia to get your work published by the GWPF effectively means your work is of no scientific value.

    A skeptic would suggest that the work would not stand up to scientific scrutiny, is based on the author’s political viewpoint and that it is not the academic atmosphere which lead the author to change her place of publication.

    • @Griff
      February 22, 2017 at 12:11 am

      CAPS ARE MINE.

      The GWPF is a mysteriously funded organisation with a political agenda.
      WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH THE MERIT OF ANY SCIENTIFIC PAPERS THEY PRODUCE?

      Leaving science/academia to get your work published by the GWPF effectively means your work is of no scientific value.
      ARE YOU SAYING JUDITH COULD NOT GET THIS PUBLISHED UNTIL SHE LEFT AND JOINED GWPF? SOURCE? ANY SUPPORT FOR THIS CLAIM AT ALL?

      A skeptic would suggest that the work would not stand up to scientific scrutiny, is based on the author’s political viewpoint and that it is not the academic atmosphere which lead the author to change her place of publication.
      YOU OBVIOUSLY DON’T KNOW WHAT SKEPTICAL MEANS BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T EVEN ASSESS JUDITH’S WORK YOU JUST MADE BASELESS CLAIMS. YOU ARE DISPLAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF SKEPTICISM

      I know thinking can be hard, and remaining objective requires constantly reminding one’s self to be so, but we must.

      Judith has ample evidence that the models are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. There is plenty of evidence of that.
      You don’t like the results, and attack character.

      I think it is you Lewandowski talks about in his denial papers. :)

    • What do you mean with “mysteriously funded”?
      If facts are printed in “The Sun” for example, they automatically become worthless because it matters where they are published and not what the message is?

      Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Go and get a life.

      • My wife watched merchants of doubt one evening, and then tried to justify character over evidence argument. She lost badly. :D

    • Like Greenpeace you mean?
      Like the IPCC you mean?

      A skeptic would suggest that the work would not stand up to scientific scrutiny, is based on the author’s political viewpoint and that it is not the academic atmosphere which lead the author to change her place of publication.

      No, a green troll would suggest that.

      A skeptic would look at what she had to say and make up their own minds.

      It is a well established scientific fact that 97% of all warmist shills are either in it for the money, or are so lacking in self esteem they will look anywhere for someone who tells them what to believe.

      For such people, being right is not the issue, being like everybody else is.

    • Griffy

      I’ve been waiting for you to try to kneecap Dr Curry. Your ad hominem didn’t have a single example of poor scholarship on her part.

      Why should we take your ad hominem opinions as anything other than, well, pure crap?

      Got any evidence?

      • On a chart with non-deceptive scales, spanning a genuinely significant time scale, it seems like Griff would not even raise to the heights of Dr Curry’s ankles; let alone be within reach of kneecaps. Very much like looking at the current “warm” period against the big picture.

    • “Griff February 22, 2017 at 12:11 am

      The GWPF is a mysteriously funded organisation with a political agenda.”

      The IPCC isn’t? Too funny Griff.

    • Griff makes two completely unfounded assertions, then uses these two “facts” he made up, to support an assertion that Dr. Curry left her academic position in order to cash in on money from “mysterious” sources.

      The only intelligent thought in evidence here is Griff’s decision to publish this under an alias.

    • Leaving science/academia to get your work published by the GWPF effectively means your work is of no scientific value.

      Consensus would say that. But then consensus has nothing to do with science.

      You might want to stop tarring the Bell Labs Scientists that way. But that is probably above your level of communication.

  42. Theoretical astrophysics is suffering the same delusion as climate science. Mathematics are a tool that do not produce real physical things, maths helps us understand real physical things.

    What has been happening in theoretical science is things are produced with mathematics only and then these things are presented as real physical objects, or a future state of objects. This is fine in exploring possibility but one does not, should not, present these things as physical.

    The singularity is a perfect example, but so is cosmic background radiation, the former a an artefact given real physical properties and the second is a result of data processing not anything to do with observation or reality.

  43. ‘They’ simply don’t understand computers. Existing computers are not up to the task they’re being used for and unless some epic advance in parallel computing comes about, never will be.
    The scientists are, like most everybody else, quite in awe and wonderment of these new, shiny, expensive, over-hyped (by their makers) machines. Machines that never get anything wrong.

    People who’ve been awake for the last 30 years or so will know that proper parallel computing is like fusion reactors – always 20 or 30 years away.

    Look at The Problem – energy movement through the atmosphere.
    At the equator lets say 12 hours of sunshine, going in a linear ramp from zero at sunrise, 1,800W/sqm at noon and back to zero at sunset. (I know its not properly like that but this keeps the sums easy for those of us without a super PC)
    So, the power coming down from El Sol changes at 1,800W per 6 hours = 300W per hour = 1W every 12 seconds.
    To be able to see the supposed 3W coming from GHGs, our (digital) calculator will need that 12 second resolution – the data won’t be sampled often enough otherwise.
    We need a computer that can calculate and re-calculate The Climate every 12 seconds or faster.

    Its Not Going To Happen.
    Period

    OK. Certainly play and experiment with the things to find out what they can do, but don’t be going making Life or Death decisions based on their output.

    Some folks say they are being used as tax generators. Absolutely.
    Why?
    Is it not the sign of failing economies/societies/civilisations that tax has to rise?
    If the ‘economy’ was successful, existing taxes would generate greater and greater revenue and tax rates and the things its levied on would decrease, not increase.

    See the UK right now. Hospitals are being closed, health services cut and we can’t even look after the old-folk properly, *despite* 70% of our gross salaries going in tax and mandatory takes.
    And our chancellor is putting ever more punitive taxes in place on businesses this time.

    We now have the bright new Information Tech society that was sold us 20+ years ago – it don’t work – just like the computers that drive it.

  44. Climastrology reminds me very much of the psychics, fortune-tellers and sundry mediums knees-up at my local race course every year. Every year they put up advertising posters everywhere and I wonder why they bother.

  45. We welcome our new machine overlords and the reptiles who swarm over and tend them. But please, deliver the utopia before you kidnap the children. Otherwise, no deal.
    ===============

  46. With the poor quality model predictions on global warming may go up by 2 to 6 oC with the doubling of carbon dioxide. Using these hypothetical raise, thousands of papers were published in both national and international journals, the hypothetical impacts on various aspects. In 1994 I questioned the authors of a paper published in an international journal [senior author was a member of the editorial committee of the journal] and my comments were published in the journal in 1995. Here the worst scenario is, the authors of such papers are using poor quality model estimates for the hypothetical raise in temperature. All these are good for nothing papers. They wasted public money towards their salaries and poor quality research. By this way in fact they generated the very same carbon dioxide — huge quantity –; for running the computers, travel, etc. Unfortunately, they are the main advisers to governments and media.

    Here let me bring to your kind notice a fact on pollution — The fuel technology and vehicle technology brought down the air pollution levels. few days back a report presented a linear increase in air pollution and ground level ozone irrespective these technological reductions. The SO2 has come down drastically; NOx also has come down and ozone must come down. To senasationalize their studies, they attributed millions of people died and health disorders rampant with these pollution levels. In fact we rarely encounter deaths due to Air pollution but keeps the patient under drug lifelong.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
    .

  47. Since Climate models are developed as boundary value problems vs initial value problems they are doomed to failure. Weather models are posed as initial value problems, I think.

  48. Models probably seem convincing to many young people and a good proportion of the middle aged too. They are less convincing to those of us old enough to remember the Club of Rome and its Limits to Growth report in 1972. I, like many other young people at the time, was worried by the report because it was based on a model using a technique known as systems dynamics, developed by Professor Jay Forrester at MIT and the model was run on a computer so the calculations were obviously correct, weren’t they?

    My father, being older and wiser, thought the predictions were a load of rubbish or, too put it much more politely, that the conclusions depended on the assumptions, may of which were dubious. Now I am older and, I hope, wiser too. There will come a time, difficult as they may find it to imagine now, when today’s young people will also be older …

    • Roy,

      “Models probably seem convincing to many young people and a good proportion of the middle aged too.”

      Ha! I learned about models while researching in cybernetics at Brunel University in 1970s. My question was why do organisations staffed by intelligent, experienced and well intentioned people still make an unexpectedly large number of wrong decisions? It was inspired by my continuing frustration at what I perceived to be the stupidity of the people I worked for. Part of the background looked at the history of Operational Research, artificial intelligence, general systems theory, genetics, fuzzy logic.

      I worked most recently with the Human Variome project, which, building on the human genome project’s work, aims to facilitate understanding and treatment of genetically caused or influenced disease.

      It is all utterly fascinating, models played a part but fundamentally I still don’t know the answer. Perhaps we cannot improve on Einstein’s masterful insight:
      “Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity”

      • Peter Gardner February 22, 2017 at 4:48 am

        “It is all utterly fascinating, models played a part but fundamentally I still don’t know the answer. Perhaps we cannot improve on Einstein’s masterful insight:
        “Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity””

        Peter, you have so improved such! Now we have the infinity of Peter Gardner’s trash, should he survive!!

  49. Now that they have almost 3 decades of models to real temperatures, why don’t they work to find out what is wrong with their models? Or are they so proud they can’t admit their models are wrong. It’s reality that is wrong. I think the reality is they want to tax the air and carbon is measurable. Tax is just another form of slavery and tool of control.

  50. Comments, based on a quick scan of Judith Curry’s 2017 report for GWPF:

    A good state-of-the-art paper on models – it speaks to the mainstream debate between climate alarmists and skeptics, which is mostly about ECS.

    The ECS estimates (really only guesses) are still too high, imo – my guess is 0.3C or less, if ECS exists at all in terms of significance. Since CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, we do not even know what primarily drives what, cart before horse, etc. – climate scientists have (mostly) “ignored” this conundrum since at least 2008, when I published my paper in icecap.us.

    I would like to have read more about aerosols, and the fabrication of aerosol data to force models to hindcast the global cooling from ~1940-1975. See my 2006 conversations with Douglas Hoyt on climateaudit.org.

    I think there is a tendency to overstate the complexity of the modeling problem. Here is why:

    Bill Illis’s one-line model with only four (really only three) input parameters does a great job of bounding global temperature – to get a functioning climate model, we only need to better-predict its primary input, which is Nino3.4 temperatures. The next most important input parameter in Bill’s equation is “Aerosol Optical Depth volcano Index”, which only matters when truly huge volcanoes erupt, and then there is the AMO, which matters a little, and atmospheric CO2, which has insignificant impact.

    Best, Allan

  51. IMPORTANT NOTE:
    In regards to this GWPF publication, Dr. Judith Curry commented on her own blog [ Climate Etc. ] :

    *****
    “curryja | February 21, 2017 at 5:28 pm |
    Actually this was “climate models for lawyers’ written for a different purpose. GWPF wanted to publish it. Josh did the editing/formatting

    curryja | February 21, 2017 at 9:23 pm |
    Actually i mistweeted. Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) did the editing/formatting. Great team effort!”
    *****

    Dr. Curry did not write this pamphlet for GWPF originally rather the original appears as Climate Models for Lawyers is here and is related to this Climate Etc. post in which she clarifies:

    “I have been asked to write an Expert Report on climate models. No, I can’t tell you the context for this request (at this time, anyways). But the audience is lawyers.”

  52. The GCM’s applied in in climate change predictions are based on equations derived from applying Newton’s second law to a parcel of air which is assumed not to mix with its surroundings. These equations are then assumed to apply to general atmospheric motions.
    Such foolishness should have been flagged and rejected many years ago.

    • Douglas

      If the so-called “academy” had integrity, it would have done so. It doesn’t, so it didn’t.

  53. A couple of things. We get reports of astonishing things that have a bearing on the nature of climate change discovered by NASA and these are quietly swept under the rug and hardly mentioned again, even by sceptics. Secondly, we get thumb on the scales tampering with data and hiding of data, destruction of data, losing of data, and the like, all serving the CAGW theory. First though, a bit of climate psychology. If the science is driven by a nonscientific agenda and a lot of money changing hands if the sought after result is achieved, you can rest peacefully in your scientific beds by chopping the reported projections and trends in half. We may not know what these should be, but we can be sure that every artifice was employed by the Team to push the trend substantially to the high side. We know that there is nothing underestimated by IPCC elves in their workshops and we know observations have been running about half the projections. Remember, too, that the Hudson R. highway is still well above water and it was supposed to be gone in 2000 and also children in UK were not supposed to know what snow is…Wacky Wadhams ice disappearance…

    Now that something is likely to be done about the egregious agenda driven attribution of human CO2 as the main reason for warming, I think we need a person or persons in science who have the stature to be able to advise the new administration of things to be looked at. Here’s a few:

    a) What ever happened to the finding by NASA that the ice caps on Mars also shrunk during the 1990s in concert with Earth warming. What is happeniing now on Mars (and Earth).
    b) NASA’s clear finding that the earth is greening significantly enough for it to be readily seen in imagery of the Sahel , Australia, Southwestern USA and other desert regions of the world as well as tree growth elsewhere. We better archive this before it has an accident.
    c) Crop yields have grown dramatically in recent decades, partly from agtech factors and partly from increased CO2. Surely we can take old seeds and experiment with them to see what percentage of the new yields are from CO2.
    4) Except for a couple of images from the CO2 mapping satellite, we are not hearing much or seeing any papers come out probably because they don’t like where the bulk of the major CO2 sources seem to be and they don’t like that it isn’t as well mixed as they would like.
    5) Much of the sea ice data has deteriorated – satellites? Something should be done to get this stuff back on track. CAGW proponents don’t seem to be anxious to do this -it has been a disappointing metric for them.
    6) Lamar Smith is getting back at the T. Karl affair, but I would like to see a thorough revisit to the use of algorithms for cooling old temps to steepen warming. Oh and where does the Shuklax Klan affair at Mason University stand these days – He got 6 million from the NSF and only published one paper on it and paid his wife and daughter for managing his enterprise. I haven’t heard of anything he’s done since the debacle where he was setting up a Nuremburg trial for several skeptical scientists.

    • “Secondly, we get thumb on the scales tampering with data and hiding of data, destruction of data, losing of data, and the like, all serving the CAGW theory.”

      A bit of wisdom that has survived the test of time

      “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin phrase meaning “false in one thing, false in everything.” At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter”.

  54. To be 33C or not to be 33C

    There is a popular fantasy that the earth is 33C warmer with an atmosphere than without due to the radiative greenhouse effect, RGHE.

    Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start – so I hear.

    The 33C difference is between an alleged average surface temperature of 288K/15C and 255K/-18C, the alleged surface temperature without an atmosphere. Let’s take a closer look.

    Per IPCC AR5 glossary the average land surface temperature is measured 1.5 meters above the ground, but 80% of the land doesn’t even have reliable weather instrumentation or data. The average sea surface temperature is a combination of buckets and thermometers, engine cooling intakes, buoys, satellites, etc. This “global” surface average temperature, one number to rule them all, must represent: both lit side and dark sides, both poles, oceans, desert, jungles and a wide range of both land and sea surfaces. The uncertainty band must be YUGE!

    The 255K is a theoretical calculation using the S-B ideal BB temperature associated with the 240 W/m^2 radiative balance at the top of the – wait for it – atmosphere, i.e. 100 km.

    So, the 33C difference is between a) an average surface temperature composed of hundreds of WAGs that must be +/- entire degrees and b) a theoretical temperature calculation 100 km away that cannot even be measured and c) all with an intact and fully functioning atmosphere.

    The surface of the earth is warm because the atmosphere provides an insulating blanket, a thermal resistance, no different from the insulation in the ceiling and walls of a house with the temperature differential determined per the equation Q = U * A * dT, simple to verify and demonstrate.

    A voltage difference is needed for current to flow through an electrical resistance.

    A pressure difference is needed for fluid to flow through a physical resistance.

    A temperature difference is needed for energy to flow, i.e. heat, through a thermal resistance.

    RGHE upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation is a fictional anti-thermodynamic non-explanation for the “33C without an atmosphere” phenomenon that doesn’t exist.

  55. “Professor Curry said: “It’s not just the fact that climate simulations are tuned that is problematic. It may well be that it is impossible to make long-term predictions about the climate – it’s a chaotic system after all. If that’s the case, then we are probably trying to redesign the global economy for nothing”.”

    I think this is a profound statement except I believe it IS impossible to make long term predictions about climate. Although I am not a computer modeler, I have spent a lot of time looking at much smaller models and except for FEA of mechanical systems where the physics is understood and not CHAOIC the CFD models have to be tuned to reality since the Physics and Chemistry cannot be accurately defined with equations for a chaotic system. Besides there are too many variables affecting climate besides “CO2.

    The company I worked for watched the competition implement a new process technology adaptable to existing plants while our computer Modelers could not show the economic benefits of the technology and management insisted on using computer modeling. Finally a bunch of us engineers implemented the technology which included process reactions with catalyst and now at least 20 plus of the company plants have been modified successfully capturing the economic benefits. That technology is now the standard for the industry.
    Why do we taxpayers pay for 100+ failed models? Would 4 not have been enough to prove their failure? What a waste of $$ and talent in addition to misleading politicians who have another agenda including hating fossil fuels and controlling our use of energy to the point of mandating “renewable” fuels which cannot cut the mustard and are very expensive and require expensive storage systems to compensate for their inadequacy.

    • “The company I worked for watched the competition implement a new process technology adaptable to existing plants while our computer Modelers could not show the economic benefits of the technology and management insisted on using computer modeling. Finally a bunch of us engineers implemented the technology which included process reactions with catalyst and now at least 20 plus of the company plants have been modified successfully capturing the economic benefits. That technology is now the standard for the industry.”

      Key differences: you could build something real and introduce it quickly, thereby proving it works well enough for its purpose. Even if it performed slightly differently from forecast, it still worked well enough. You cannot do that with global climate, only with small parts of it. The IPCC has already stated the impossibility of predicting global climate or average climate accurately. In engineering you can make approximations in place of insoluble partial differential equations with a large number of independent variables and stipulate boundary conditions such that the approximation is good enough for the intended use of your device, which is acceptable in a business world where your device is expected to have a short life until replaced by something better. Engineering is very empirical.
      It seems to me the AGW lunatics imagine that humans can engineer not just the world’s climate but the world’s entire economic activity in order to limit behaviour of the whole so as to maintain climate within narrow margins of some ideal they cannot even define.

Comments are closed.