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.
Ya think ?
Knutti, the Switzerland Rahmstorf, no respect for facts or reality
My observation is that if the observations don’t match the computer models it appears that they think it’s easier to change the observations. A whole generation has been indoctrinated to believe that the weather they observed is not as they remembered . They also think that observations made my dead people over hundred years ago can be changed because they don’t match the models. The warmists are so brazen that they make changes to historical data with the most spurious of explanations when anyone with half a brain knows that it’s done just to meet the narrative. It’s interesting how trusting everyone is when you tell them that there is this major fraud going on and their retort is , so the governments and the universities and the weather bureaus and many major companies and institutions , and the media are in cahoots to deceive the general population !
Well, Yes.
How or why it has happened is arguable , but that it has happened there is no doubt. Most observers feel that it is driven by a desire to control and the power that control bestows, and others say it’s purely motivated by greed, but I think that it is mainly driven by the natural human emotion to not want to be wrong. Most people have invested too much emotional capital into understanding that what they’ve believed all there life is actually wrong.
“It’s interesting how trusting everyone is when you tell them that there is this major fraud going on and their retort is , so the governments and the universities and the weather bureaus and many major companies and institutions , and the media are in cahoots to deceive the general population!”
The truth is it is not everyone who is in on the conspiracy. There are just a few in on it, the Climategate Data Manipulators and CAGW political activists. The rest of the world has to depend on what the Climategate Data Manipulators say because the majority of the population is not in a position to question these Climategate liars, so they accept the CAGW claims of the conspirators as fact.
So you have a few who are in on the conspiracy and the rest of the world have been duped into believing a lie. Even very smart people have been duped. Lack of information, or being fed false information, doesn’t mean you are stupid, but it can lead one astray, as in the CAGW case.
I’ve seen a lot more attractive and interesting Hot Models than the ones that the IPCC sponsors.
Yeah, you ought to search for “Russian models”. Warning though, you may get distracted from climate models.
The only solutio to all of this climate nonsense is for Presidency Trump
to inform the head of the United Nations that unless the IPCC does also
include a study into the natural factors in the study of the worlds weather
come the 30 year climate cycle, that he will cease to pay the USA
contributions to the UN.
This must include the use of observations, both historical and present
day rather than just the crystal ball computers presently used. And that
all data be made available including just how the so called “Summaries”
are actually compiled.
MJE VK5ELL
Better still boot them out of New York. See how long the UN lasts when it’s based in Paris.
Global UN-xit.
“Modelers are struggling to identify which of their refinements explain this heightened sensitivity” – I doubt they are struggling to do anything but contain their unmitigated feelings of joy at such a catastrophic future. “Why didn’t we think of running the models hot before!!!”
Paul Voosen: “Many scientists are skeptical, pointing out that past climate changes recorded in ice cores and elsewhere don’t support the high climate sensitivity”
How does Mr. Voosen explain the existence of glacial and interglacials. Low climate sensitivity means that it is difficult to change the temperature of our planet with a forcing. It means that our planet emits or reflects 2 or 3 W/m2 per degK of warming, instead of the 1 W/m2/K predicted by climate models. (If a doubling of CO2 reduces radiative cooling to space by 3.6 W/m2, then 3.6 K of warming with a response of 1 W/m2/K will restore balance at the TOA. If our planet emits and reflects 2 or 3 W/m2/K in response to warming, then balance will be restored by 1.8 or 1.2 K of warming. When you look back at the LGM – which was 6 K colder, the opposite is true, our cooler planet was emitting or reflecting 6, 12 or 18 W/m2 less radiation at the LGM! Total planetary irradiation isn’t changed by orbital mechanics, only the location and seasonality of that irradiation. It’s tough to believe in low climate sensitivity and understand how our planet could be 6 K colder during interglacial – unless our planet is near a “tipping point” or has high climate sensitivity in the cold direction in the cold direction, but not the hot direction.
This chart needs an update- it is now 5 years- time for a review to see how far out the models are from reality. It is also time to review the confidence level. I am betting the verdict will have to be “almost certain.” Of course, the confidence levels are the exact opposite of normality- 100% wrong. Confidence can not get more certain as the divergence between modelled predictions and measured reality becomes greater. it is quite the reverse.
Semantic manipulation and sneaking in brazen lies is the MO of the alarmists. The brazen errors of the certainty reporting are no accident. If it is an accident, it is terminally gross incompetence. If it is not an incompetent accident, then it is a deliberate fraud. I suspect the latter.
The flagrant certainty error should be a penny-drop moment for anyone with a brain.
Your figures are ten years old. Leave your air-conditioned office, and go outside, where you will see olive trees which do not belong there…
It would have been much faster and cost a lot less to publish to say, “We are putting lipstick on a pig.”
“IPCC is also not likely to give projections from all the models equal weight”
So, in other words only the most “it’s worse than we thought” models will be used. It’s far easier to adjust the data to match a half dozen models than it is for 73. Especially so when the older “other evidence” needs to be adjusted to fit.