Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; In climate science, when your model predictions are wrong, you wait for the world to correct itself.
New climate models predict a warming surge
By Paul VoosenApr. 16, 2019 , 3:55 PMFor nearly 40 years, the massive computer models used to simulate global climate have delivered a fairly consistent picture of how fast human carbon emissions might warm the world. But a host of global climate models developed for the United Nations’s next major assessment of global warming, due in 2021, are now showing a puzzling but undeniable trend. They are running hotter than they have in the past. Soon the world could be, too.
In earlier models, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over preindustrial levels led models to predict somewhere between 2°C and 4.5°C of warming once the planet came into balance. But in at least eight of the next-generation models, produced by leading centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” has come in at 5°C or warmer. Modelers are struggling to identify which of their refinements explain this heightened sensitivity before the next assessment from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the trend “is definitely real. There’s no question,” says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “Is that realistic or not? At this point, we don’t know.”
…
Many scientists are skeptical, pointing out that past climate changes recorded in ice cores and elsewhere don’t support the high climate sensitivity —nor does the pace of modern warming. The results so far are “not sufficient to convince me,” says Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. In the effort to account for atmospheric components that are too small to directly simulate, like clouds, the new models could easily have strayed from reality, she says. “That’s always going to be a bumpy road.”
…In assessing how fast climate may change, the next IPCC report probably won’t lean as heavily on models as past reports did, says Thorsten Mauritsen, a climate scientist at Stockholm University and an IPCC author. It will look to other evidence as well, in particular a large study in preparation that will use ancient climates and observations of recent climate change to constrain sensitivity. IPCC is also not likely to give projections from all the models equal weight, Fyfe adds, instead weighing results by each model’s credibility.
…
Read more: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge
It’s nice to learn that the IPCC is considering using observations to constrain model projections.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
why are these people still in business?…
…even as screwed up as medical is…if 99% of your patients are dying, stop doing it
They’re saying that now that they don’t understand how their own models work? That’s priceless.
The biggest elephant in the room…is their stupid adjustments
They adjusted past temperatures down…to show a faster rate of warming – agenda
..when they plug that fake data into the models…the models show the same fake rate of warming
…the models will never be right
Latituder:
The models will never be right until the precise causes of climate change are known, and they still may not be right if the causes are random, and not predictable, rather than cyclical.
Concerning the “adjustments” — they are important, but the infilling is more important — over half the grid cells in any given month have no temperature data, or are missing data — government bureaucrats get to wild guess the numbers.
These are the same bureaucrats hired because they believe in a coming global warming crisis, and they get lifetime job security if they keep predicting a coming global warming crisis.
There’s a conflict of interest — they own the climate models, make the warming predictions, and also own the historical temperature actuals … which they repeatedly change whenever they want.
They have a strong financial incentive to keep climate change fear alive — would you trust them to do honest, unbiased “infilling” ?
Bigger than the biggest elephant in the room, is the dinosaur in the house, that I’ll define later.
The average computer game climate “model”, excluding the Russian model that obviously colludes with Trump!, predicts future global warming at a rate QUADRUPLE the actual global warming rate since 1940, when the “era of man made CO2 began”, through 2018 — which was a total of about +0.6 degrees C. of intermittent global warming over 78 years, or +0.077 degrees C. per decade.
That would be +0.77 degrees C. per century.
That’s reality.
It actually happened.
But never mind reality.
Climate alarmists are not interested in the PAST, which was measured, maybe not that accurately, and can be studied — they only care about the FUTURE, which they claim to know with great precision, in spite of over 60 years of wrong predictions
of the future climate !
The average computer game predicts about +3 degrees per century … which only happens in the climate alarmist fairy tale world — not in real life !
If you compare the average climate model with the UAH weather satellite data since 1979, the models predict TRIPLE the actual warming … but there’s no logical reason to start the comparison with 1979, ignoring CO2 emissions from 1940 through 1979.
The “dinosaur in the house” is keeping the above facts away from the general public, continuing to use the same, obviously wrong CO2 / warming formula for predictions since the 1970s, and NOT CARING that EVERY prediction about global warming since the late 1950s has been WRONG … because if the general public doesn’t know that, then to them it never happened !
My climate science blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
“the models predict TRIPLE the actual warming …”
…adjustments to past temps triple the rate of warming too
..and even more sinister
What they are claiming as actual measured temps…..is in reality that adjusted mess
…which means the models are even more wrong
and so is what they are claiming as the rate of warming
The average model includes projections of temperature which use CO2 far below current levels… and these false models show less warming, but for the wrong reason. They are equally as bad as the models that show more warming.
But it’s so easy to make assumptions, or reach conclusions based on data which is “hard” that turns out to be anything but.
The Rolls Royce Trent engine that went wonky on the Quantas airplane a couple of years ago is an example of that. Despite quality assurance being in place the oil delivery system to that engine failed because quality assurance failed. A precisely positioned hole – but having a tolerance and at the full extent of that tolerance – was then used as the position point of another hole, which also was at the full extent of its tolerance. Result was a pipe failure.
Climate data needs quality assurance and there needs to be an international standard for it.
Latituder said: “The models will never be right until the precise causes of climate change are known, and they still may not be right if the causes are random, and not predictable, rather than cyclical.”
It even worse than that even if we what all variables are, to model them in a small enough resolution to be accurate, by the time we have the end of the computer run the event would have past million of years in the past. That is true today and will be true tomorrow even though if we were to create computer capable of doing calculations a billion time faster than today.
Climate is far to complex to model period. Climate models are only useful in what if simulation, yet even then one cannot count on the answer. The reality they are very expensive computer games with about the same use as someone playing Final Fantasy. Climate simulation are just that fantasy, to the most part a giant waste of time and money.
Latitude, thats exactly what the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has just been caught out on.
Back in 2012 the BOM produced the ACORN-Sat 1 national temperature series which, you guessed it, cooled past temperature measurements and steepened the graph and increased the “rate of warming” (while conveniently leaving out older temperatures which were warmer than today).
Trouble was, average temperatures since 2012 didnt play ball, and refused to follow the previously increased warming slope, tracking lower.
So in February 2019 they had to adjust the national temperatures again – and produce the ACORN-Sat 2 series – and you guessed it again, lowered historical temperatures a second time to hide the kink at 2012 in the 100 year temperature graph.
This time it was done in secret and the public didnt even know it was being revised. but I guess that it what you do when it all goes AU (=wrong).
Unfortunately for the BOM, the magnitude of the adjustments, even for the original ACORN-Sat 1 series, are larger than the AGW signal they supposedly “clearly show”.
Ideology driving science. And there will have to be a third adjustment in about….2026.
But “the trend is definitely real”, says the nutburger.
Now the models are reality I guess. You can’t make this shtuff up.
oddly enough…..when you eyeball the unadjusted temp data…and then eyeball where the models would be using that
…of course the models are more accurate
That says their “adjustments” are fake
I think he’s saying there is a “trend” in models using a higher equilibrium sensitivity than they used to. He even says he’s not sure if it is realistic.
From the quoted article: “… the trend “is definitely real. There’s no question,” … “Is that realistic or not? At this point, we don’t know.”
Let me help – something can’t be “definitely real” and not realistic at the same time. Amazingly, some of the climate scientists are finally realizing this and, ever so gently, questioning what might be wrong in their models.
They may suffer excommunication, or this may be the beginning of a serious change in the CAGW / CCC narrative. Let’s hope for both?
Excellent summation, David Guy-Johnson!
Kate Marvel is Gavin’s understudy. I sat next to them during the recent AGU fall meeting and then listened to her speak. She’s a very attractive ‘face’ for CO2 psuedoscience. Too bad for her she’s as wrong as Gavin.
The models run hot because they’re based on science fiction. Don’t worry about those observations though, ’cause given enough time, good old Gavin will adjust the temperature history so the models correspond.
“Climate computer models cited by the IPCC and other climate activists employ much higher assumed sensitivity values that create false alarm. The ability to predict is perhaps the most objective measure of scientific competence. All the scary predictions by climate activists of dangerous global warming and wilder weather have proven false-to-date – a perfectly negative predictive track record.”
Source:
HYPOTHESIS: RADICAL GREENS ARE THE GREAT KILLERS OF OUR AGE
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/
[excerpt]
3. There is NO credible scientific evidence that climate is highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2, and ample evidence to the contrary. Catastrophic humanmade global warming is a false crisis.
Competent scientists have known this fact for decades. In a written debate in 2002 sponsored by APEGA and co-authored on our side by Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson and me, we concluded:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Many scientific observations demonstrate that both these statements are correct-to-date.
The current usage of the term “climate change” is vague and the definition is routinely changed in the literature, such that it has become a non-falsifiable hypothesis. It is therefore non-scientific nonsense.
“A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper
Climate has always changed. Current climate is not unusual and is beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth is in a ~10,000 year warm period during a ~100,000 year cycle of global ice ages.
The term “catastrophic human-made global warming” is a falsifiable hypothesis, and it was falsified decades ago – when fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 increased sharply after ~1940, while global temperature cooled from ~1945 to ~1977. Also, there is no credible evidence that weather is becoming more chaotic – both hurricanes and tornadoes are at multi-decade low levels of activity.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/11/Khandekar-Extreme-Weather.pdf
Even if all the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is not enough to produce dangerous global warming.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
Climate computer models cited by the IPCC and other climate activists employ much higher assumed sensitivity values that create false alarm. The ability to predict is perhaps the most objective measure of scientific competence. All the scary predictions by climate activists of dangerous global warming and wilder weather have proven false-to-date – a perfectly negative predictive track record.
Based on current knowledge, the only significant impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is greatly increased plant and crop yields, and possibly some minor beneficial warming of climate.
__________________________________
They run hot because they have grossly overestimated climate sensitivity. Set sensitivity at zero and the model churn out results almost exactly in line with observations.
In fact, we are past the point for excuses. Use the current warming results to calibrate the model to correctly predict outcomes. I mean, it is no longer theoretical what the response of the climate will be to 400 ppm carbon dioxide. We know the answer, and it doesn’t match the model.
Serious On-Topic Question. Has anyone actually set “the ECS parameter” (assuming there is one) to nominal and then ran models to hind cast? If one sets ECS to a feedback of somewhere between null and 1C… could the models actually recreate past trends?
Or do the models output ECS instead of use it as a parameter?
Just a thought but given we live on a life forming planet which has behaved in a relatively stable way for thousands of years with ice ages the big events, that occupies a ‘sweet spot’ in a solar system, spins on its own axis, orbits the system star, has its own moon orbiting and is affected by all the other solar-orbital influences that manifest from time to time, surely the default position would be that sensitivity to CO2 was pretty minimal and zero would be a good starting assumption. This is especially so given that CO2 drives the biosphere’s evaporo transpiration mechanism which is pretty enregy intense and works in the opposite direction to the alleged CO2 ‘greenhouse’ effect as does all other surface evaporation.
The fact that the model meshes are too coarse to model cloud system mechanics means that they must simply ignore the evaporative effect except via a ‘fudge factor’.
Sorry but that is NOT a model. Mathematical automatons they may be but to call them ‘models’ is fraudulent.
This is the thin edge of a very fat wedge: examining the models and comparing their predictions with reality – otherwise know as validation.
We already know where that goes at the moment Nowhere. The models do not predict future climate states and never have, so there is an incentive in some quarters not to check their skill.
The basic problem is having a desire to create a high sensitivity to CO2 while still forcing the output to replicate past measurements. This requires assigning large cooling capacity to things like SO2 and volcanic or industrially sourced dust. It doesn’t work well for even the near future, even when there is produced a passable representation of the past.
What should be happening is the measurements and proxies of contributing influences should be entered into a database. The history as measured should then be processed to yield not a temperature curve (because that is an input) but a sensitivity to CO2 using a “goal seek” function.
If everything else is known, and CO2 sensitivity ECS is the unknown variable, that should be the output. We already know it will be somewhere in the range 0.3-1.3 degrees C. Let the optimization algorithm for for a few days and see what pops out, then run an out of sample prediction and see how it does. Validate the thing before spending trillions and deleting democracy, basically out of laziness.
But how can everything else be known?
The climate is the textbook case of a chaotic system. A butterfly wing can start a hurricane. It can leap from one supposedly stable state to another with no discernible forcing.
It cannot be modelled without a means of excluding certain parameters for simplicity. And which parameters those are cannot be known.
Perhaps everything WILL be known when we understand fluid turbulence.
Well maybe that will be a start, but for now it’s the big unknown.
Feynman thought it was the number one problem.
Can’t model that, then you ain’t got squat.
If we knew the ECS then you could run long term models on Excel with three lines – delta CO2, ECS, resulting increase in temperature.
Then put the change in temperature into your big global weather forecast models to find out what that causes in terms of drought, rain, hurricanes etc.
But instead they are trying to find the one thing we actually want to know – ECS – by throwing everything in together and stirring it around. Then if the result looks like reality they try and extract what they have done on ECS. Its bonkers.
” … instead weighing results by each model’s credibility. …”
—
No cred at all, and not likely to gain any either, any time this century, or next.
Well you have to find the best fit curve don’t you? Otherwise there’ll be lots of bad fitting ones muddying the waters and impacting the correct policy prescriptions.
Quickly! Develop 1e20 models with low sensitivity. 🙂
Weighting the “most credible” is exactly what Mann did with the tree rings. And they’ll get exactly the same result.
A question to be asked from an experiment is: “Is there any possibility of a surprising result?”
I think the IPCC is banking on the Gambler’s Fallacy: “We’ve been wrong so long, we know we’ll get it right someday!”
Maybe those “modelers” ought to read this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/19/native-american-wisdom-and-kappiananngittuq/
Climate sensitivity is the Achilles Heel of climate science.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/01/22/empirical-sensitivity/
I watched a YouTube Climate debate the other day and in that debate Lindzen pointed out the lack of predictive skill of the Models and at the same time he also pointed out the unpredicted Pause. The scoffing response (from Richard Sumerville, I believe) to Lindzen’s reply was to the effect that…”the oceans are a giant heat sink (well, no kidding) so there will naturally be a time lagged response and that temperatures will rise even faster than the model slopes indicate when temperatures do finally catch up.”
Lindzen did not get a chance to respond to that response. But of course the obvious answer could have been…”then why did none of the $100 Million Climate Models predict and track such an obvious lag?” And yes, why didn’t they? Because all of the Models have proven to have lousy predictive skill…at the level of Model falsification to my mind.
It is not unlikely that we’ll see a cooling trend before we see their •NEW• “slingshot” temperature rise. I wonder how the Alarmists will explain that away if it happens.
They will most likely blame the cooling on CO2 induced Climate Instability….and please God let the cooling trend occur soon.
The general public would be lost to the Alarmists for good then. Polling shows that the majority of the general public already doesn’t believe the Models work.
If the oceans are a giant heat sink, storing the heat at depth, then they will act to constrain climate sensitivity.
DocSiders
“…and please God let the cooling trend occur soon.”
No thanks, I’d rather it didn’t. The irony being that we sceptics, perceptibly, must hope for the very event we hope won’t happen, to happen, that the world cools simply to prove our point.
The fact is, there’s an easier and more productive solution. When, and if, the planet ever does reach 1.5C warmer and nothing catastrophic happens (in 12 years time of course) where the hell do the alarmists have left to go? The scam will have been stripped bare.
The lying propaganda press already has people believing that severe weather events are increasing at a terrible rate and at far greater severity. The facts say just the opposite. The propaganda is successful so far (though it still hasn’t reached the political tipping point where people feel any urgent need to act). Meanwhile we’ll continue to waste around $200 Billion annually….and growing. And unelected government bureaucrats will use regulatory back door strategies to keep squeezing some more of the life out of the economy.
So no matter how benign the climate is as the 1.5 degree mark is crossed, the media bent perception will be that the climate did unprecedented damage.
However, it will be politically impossible to explain away a 0.3 degree GAT decline when your predictions were for a 100% CERTAIN 0.7 degree GAT increase predicted by tbe Super Accurate Newest CLIMATE MODELS. Even the most clueless casual observer will be hard to convince that ANY cooling fits in with the “settled science” that predicted lots of RAPID warming (the next IPCC report is expected to predict about twice the rate of warming…after a few more years of little to no change…to catch up to earlier predictions).
I sure don’t want any actual cooling….but I fear impoverished slavery and lasting damage to Constitutional freedoms a whole lot more.
instead weighing results by each model’s credibility.
And since you already know the answer ===> Wouldn’t one model be enough then?
What did I say that got me sent to the bit bucket?
Dear MS,
Chill. Once you click on ‘Post Comment’ things happen that no one understands or controls.
Sometimes one needs to turn the computer or phone off and take a hike. Not the figurative “take a hike” but actually go out and walk a bit, take a camera, take some photos.
This will be good for you, and it will give the ‘whatever’ in the system time to digest and post your enlightened comment.
Great advice, John F.!
It makes you wonder if many comments are being diverted and delayed by snoopware that’s not been found yet on wordpress.
Problem for them is the higher the ECS the longer the time it takes to get there.
No worry, the Adjustocene no doubt will take care of that “little” problem. Like the BoM’s Darwin adjustment; that lays the basis now for NOAA to make another of their own adjustment to GHCN for that station’s adjustments, just in time for AR6.
Trump should sign an executive order renaming NOAA as the Bureau of ADjustments (BAD). And an order to rename NASA/GISS as the Center for Adjusted Climate Anomalies (CACA).
If he can’t directly force them to change their deceptive ways (or fire them since they are GS civil service), he can at least shame them.
But they have no shame Joel. They are doing Gaia’s work. The ends justify the means.
So I don’t think it’s a problem for them at all. That’s a feature, not a bug. If it is going to take three lifetimes to reach the climate catastrophe, with serious harm already baked in, but just not visible to us yet, how can we be so callous as to suggest we wait and see? What about the grandchildren?
If it’s going to take 200 years to reach the equilibrium, it isn’t going to be possible to falsify the theory before socialism is firmly in place everywhere.
If they can sell the idea that we are slowly charging up the vast capacitors of the oceans and that they will eventually discharge vast amounts of heat that we are just not seeing yet, then they can continue this farce for generations before it is definitively disproven. By then we’ll all be regimented in our socialist workers’ paradise and not permitted to notice. The glorious five-year plan has once again succeeded in keeping the global temperature in check.
Mr O’Bryan,
In certain parts of Britain Kaka is a coloquilism for feces.
It is usually used by very polite mammas so as not to teach their offspring naughty words.
So excellent idea – never mind the spelling, the word sound is spot on!
“equilibrium climate sensitivity” has come in at 5°C or warmer. Modelers are struggling to identify which of their refinements explain this heightened sensitivity They don’t check their programs’ results as they program? I guess another way to express it is, they don’t know what they are doing.
Possibly they know exactly what they are doing, this higher (too high) sensitivity makes for great sound bites on the MSM to scare the public without carrying on the explain the ‘uncertainties’. While the scientists/modelers exonerate themselves on page 97 of a report with a one paragraph disclaimer. Otherwise, why broadcast it if the results even make climate scientists squeamish?
They are also desparately trying to prop up the higher end estimates of climate sensitivity. The Big Embarrassment is that after 40 years, the Climate community are still unable to narrow the range down to something with any meaningful use. Stuck now at ECS = 1.5 K to 4.5 K .
And the recent pressure from observation (Lewis and Curry, and others) to lower the range from 1 K to 3 K means the high end alarmist numbers are crap. SO along comes the “new” model to prop up the high end for their True Believers.
The trouble is that they are trying to get their models to “produce” ECS when ECS is an assumption they (indirectly) put in. They want ECS to be an emergent property so the models can “prove” ECS but it is not, it is simply a product of their assumptions. Now ECS is going crazy because they have been tweaking assumptions all over the place to back-cast accurately but all that shows us that their models are wrong. But of course they cannot admit that. It is a total mess, the consequence of using models for proof rather than as models of possible futures if assumptions are correct.
From the article: “In assessing how fast climate may change, the next IPCC report probably won’t lean as heavily on models as past reports did, says Thorsten Mauritsen, a climate scientist at Stockholm University and an IPCC author. It will look to other evidence as well,”
Computer models are not evidence.
They are evidence of climate scientists’ understanding of climate. Since they don’t perform well, that is the evidence that they don’t understand climate well.
yeah but satellites can now see climate-change™
It used to be called weather but all things are made new again … and stuff.
“Computer models are not evidence.”
. . . +10,000
I’d be interested to see updates made to the famed Trenberth diagram of global energy balance, using the models to show the diagrams for 1880, 1997 (the original Trenberth diagram), today (based on actuals and the models) and that predicted when CO2 has doubled to twice 1880 values.
I think such a collection of diagrams would expose many inconsistencies between actual and theory.
We are so far from having anything close to accurate models it isn’t funny. To anyone who doubts that please read Dr Brown’s post
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5790561&cid=48073849
It was included in one of his posts here as well.
I could read his work all day long. I would love to have any representative from the establishment to tell us what he has wrong.
I’m sure Mosher will get right on that.
Steven is is a bit contradictory in his explanations. In a conversation on my blog, he stated he wasn’t producing anomalies, he was calculating probabilities, trying to predict what temperatures would be in areas where no stations were. Then I visited the BEST page, and the headline said 2018 was the 4th warmest year on record. Hm.
I’ve been crunching the NOAA GHCN-M reports for a couple of months now, creating very basic anomalies, and they show 1 to 1.25 degrees of warming over the last 120 years. The contiguous US shows only about 0.5 to 0.75 degrees of warming.
Even though my calculations are nowhere near as sophisticated as the pro’s, the have to mean something, because they’re using only real, observed, data.
Maybe someone can comment on these links. I don’t know if these make sense.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-results-from-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-matter
They’re doubling down on their alarmism. The way it was said gives too much latitude for interpretation. Did they mean there would be an average 2°C change or was that a peak change? ‘The next few decades’ could mean 2, 3, or 4 decades – which is it? It’s too vague.
As the CMIP model projection(s) are based on projected higher human CO2 emission scenarios, and since the modelers truly believe CO2 is causal, it’s no surprise they ‘believe’ temps will increase faster from faster emissions output ‘over the next few decades’. Climate science is rigged on faulty ideas.
I have a different view of what causes weather and climate to change; ie, TSI changes via solar activity.
My view of the next decade is solely dependent on projected solar activity for solar cycle 25, which indicates a ‘warming surge’ from the top of the solar cycle like we had in SC24 with the large El Nino.
Personally I don’t put any credence into any ‘next gen climate models’ that are based on CO2 warming.
I conclude there is no possible way that a temperature increase of the size they promote can even happen, even under a 100% solar forcing regime. Therefore, I know these highly educated and well-paid and pampered people continue to be self-deluded.
It’s disgusting that people who are so wrong are getting all the press coverage and grant monies, and treated as though they are infallible.
They are doubling down so they can get the proverbial “5 Year Plan” under way before the climate begins cooling again.
Please excuse my naivete. Could someone explain this to me? I thought the climate sensitivity was an input to the models. The article talks as if they are calculating it. This begs the question “What are the actual inputs to the models?”
Raises the question, not begs.
Of course they won’t give them equal weighting. They’ll weight the ones that give 4+ degrees all the weights.
Adam
It seems that there is a similar bias in reporting political events. The Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column.
“Of course they won’t give them equal weighting. They’ll weight the ones that give 4+ degrees all the weights.”
Just ask M. Mann. He had to weight bristlecone pines 391 times higher than all the other proxies in order to achieve the hockey stick he was looking for.
Also interesting from the Science article is this note saying the next IPCC report is running late, in part due to these modeling problems:
““It’s maddening, because it feels like writing a sci-fi story as the first-order draft.”” It’s sci-fi all the way down.
“instead weighing results by each model’s credibility.”
What credibility?
Jeez, the only halfway credible model was done by the Russians, IIRC.
Higher published ECS numbers cause more climate extremism amongst those with a college level education in non-STEM subjects claiming “climate science” capabilities. It’s a big group they are mining for adherents.
“The results so far are “not sufficient to convince me,” says Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.”
This is akin to holding up the cross to a vampire…how does she keep her job?
The chart by Dr. Roy Spencer provides a convincing illustration of today’s folly.
There hasn’t been such a “End of the World” mania since Millerism in the 1840s. When the first day that the world would end did not work out, Miller recalculated the numbers and with even more conviction and support crafted another day when the world would end.
The mania spread widely across the Eastern States and even to England.
When the worst disaster imaginable did not happen it became known as the “Great Disappointment”.
Fascinating conclusion.
Dr. Roy’s chart is dated 2013.
Is there a more current one?
But, but… I thought the science was settled?
From the post: “IPCC is also not likely to give projections from all the models equal weight, Fyfe adds, instead weighing results by each model’s credibility.”
Great news! Because the credibility of any and all of these models approaches zero, then the proper weighting gives the most credible composite result to the nearest integer: ECS=0 deg C.