How Many Times do Useless Climate Models have to be Killed before they Die?

“A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans”
was posted by

Pat

September 25, 2019 at 9:02 am

clip_image002

Guest post by Mike Jonas,

Quadrant Online has just published a remarkable article – A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans – in which a highly-qualified climate scientist and modeller makes it abundantly clear that the climate models, as coded and used currently, can never predict future climate.

The article is at https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/ and the link appeared in comments by Pat in earlier WUWT posts. [Thanks, Pat .. I thought the information was worthy of an article here in its own right, so this is it.]

Dr. Mototaka Nakamura is a top-level oceanographer and meteorologist who worked from 1990 to 2014 on cloud dynamics, and on atmospheric and ocean flows. He has published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics, and he has now quite simply had enough of the shenanigans that pass for climate science and climate modelling.

In June, he put out a small book in Japanese on the sorry state of climate science, titled “Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis“. But behind that mild title is a hard-hitting exposure of the uselessness of climate models for forecasting. In a sane world, it would kill the current set of climate models absolutely stone dead. But of course, at present the world is anything but sane.

Dr Nakamura goes into detail about many of the failures of climate models. Some of those failures are well-known at WUWT, and I suspect that they are just as well-known by some of the modellers. eg.

These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction.

I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process.

and

Ad hoc representation of clouds may be the greatest source of uncertainty in climate prediction. A profound fact is that only a very small change, so small that it cannot be measured accurately…in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric CO2.

and

Anyone studying real cloud formation and then the treatment in climate models would be flabbergasted by the perfunctory treatment of clouds in the models.

… but it is well worth reading the full Quadrant Online article – and sending the link on to all your friends and of course to all your enemies.

Thanks, Pat.

Advertisements

172 thoughts on “How Many Times do Useless Climate Models have to be Killed before they Die?

  1. Kill the RGHE model and they all die.

    Elsewhere asked for Indisputable Facts about man caused climate change. How ‘bout these?

    Indisputable Fact 1:
    ISR has an average power flux of 1,368 W/m^2.
    The Earth’s cross-sectional area is 1.275 E14 m^2.
    A watt equals 3.6 kJ/h.
    ISR arriving at the lit hemisphere ToA of the terrestrial system equals 6.28 E17 kJ/h.

    Indisputable Fact 2:
    The albedo reflects away 30% of the ISR.
    ASR is then 70% which equals 4.40 E17 kJ/h.
    The albedo is the combined effect of clouds, ice, snow, vegetation, oceans, etc.
    The 30% albedo exists only because of the atmosphere.
    Remove the atmosphere and the 30% albedo goes with it.

    ASR would increase by (6.28 E17 / 4.40 E17) and without would absorb 43% more kJ/h than with.
    UCLA Diviner lunar mission suggests that without an atmosphere the earth would be much like the moon with its 11% albedo and ASR equal to 5.59 E17 kJ/h.

    A lunarific earth would absorb (5.59 E17 / 4.4 E17 kJ/h) and without would absorb 27% more kJ/h than with.

    Indisputable Fact 3.
    Without the atmosphere and the 30% albedo it creates and maintains, the earth absorbs more energy and thereby gets warmer.

    The greenhouse effect postulates that the earth is warmer with an atmosphere and cooler without, the exact opposite of the Indisputable Facts explained above.

    The Indisputable Fact is that the RGHE does not exist.
    Zero RGHE, Zero GHG warming, Zero CAGW.
    (Don’t know the acronyms – do the homework!)

    • Unfortunately, with all that fine math (and I am a math guy)… you made one grave error to start with. Let me quote:

      The 30% albedo exists only because of the atmosphere.
      Remove the atmosphere and the 30% albedo goes with it.

      Nope. An albedo exists whether we have an atmosphere or not. Reflectivity of rock itself (think Mars, all rock, no ocean) is a non-zero number. Even without an atmosphere (think Luna), there also can be electrically levitated dust clouds which dynamically change the albedo of the orb.

      So, as the saying goes, no matter how carefully and creatively one invests in making the perfect bowl of punch, be there a tûrd floating on top, and all is for naught. Upon this one weak card, the hypothesis crumbles.

      Sorry fellow WUWT’er.
      Just saying,
      GoatGuy ✓

      • A hypothetical solid black rock that absorbs all and reflects none has a zero albedo.

        An actual solid, dusty, gray lunar rock that absorbs lots and reflects some has a 0.11 albedo.

        No earthly atmosphere results in a lunarific albedo and warmer not colder.

        • The Sainted Greta has proclaimed that these “Maths” you speak of are Witchcraft. WITCHCRAFT!!!!! The Holy Greta Has Spoken and Must be Obeyed! All else is HERESY!!!

        • Nick Schroeder
          But, without an atmosphere and water, the range in daily temperatures would be increased significantly. While the diurnal average might be higher, the range in temperature extremes would probably preclude the possibility of life.

          • “Swing would increase.”
            No fooling.
            The moon swings from 390 K lit side to 90 K dark.
            Per UCLA the second largest swing of a body in our system.
            And that is what the earth would do sans atmosphere.
            The UCLA Diviner lunar mission site is worth a visit.

          • Mercury swings from about 100 to 700 K average on dark v. lit side. Its “day” however is complicated.

            A solar day is the time it takes for the Sun to return to the same position in the sky, eg noon to noon. On Mercury such a day elapses in 176 Earth days, which is two Mercurian years. A solar day on Earth is 24 hours.

            A sidereal day is the time it takes to complete a rotation with respect to the “fixed” stars. Each such day on Mercury lasts 58.646 Earth days or 1407.5 hours, while a sidereal day on Earth is 23.934 hours long (about four minutes shorter than our solar day).

      • If Earth had no atmosphere, but ice on its surface, its albedo would be high. Icy moon Enceladus’ geometric albedo is 1.38 and its Bond albedo 0.81, but an airless Earth might still have some exposed rock.

        But an almost airless planet with a dark surface, like heavily metallic Mercury, has a low albedo. Its GA is 0.142 and BA 0.088.

        • It is pointless to talk about an airless moon and GHG effect in at atmosphere.

          At least get the basics of the argument right. We want to know what happens between a no-GHG atmosphere and one with water vapour+CO2 and then water vapour + twice as much CO2. That comparison has meaning and thus value.

          • My comment was meant to clarify the concept of albedo in general, about which there appeared to be differing opinions.

            IMO proper understanding of a scientific term relevant to climate has meaning and value in discussion of the GHE.

            As there is no planetary atmosphere in the solar system without GHGs (although low for Jupiter and Saturn), your preferred comparison is also hypothetical.

            The GHE of water and CO2 is observable and measurable. Indeed, in the case of water, it’s palpable. At issue is how much warming to expect in the real, complex climate system from adding two more molecules of CO2 to the four we already enjoy per 10,000 dry air molecules.

            IPCC says that going from “pre-industrial” approximately three to six such molecules should warm the planet 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C, and that adding just one hase already warmed us up by a degree. Lab-measured climate sensitivity is about 1.1 degree per CO2 doubling, so IPCC supports net positive feedback effects.

            Yet on a water world, net feedbacks could well be negative, so an ECS range better supported by observations might be 0.0 to 2.2 degrees C, with a central figure of 1.1 rather than 3.0 degrees C.

      • “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
        Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

    • Indisputable Fact 2:
      The albedo reflects away 30% of the ISR.

      Reflectivity is wavelength dependent, highly dependent on cloud cover. You nice round 30% is not an indisputable fact, it is gross approximation of the average of a multi-variable dependent quantity.

      I stop reading and taking any notice of your indisputable arguments at that point.

      • Greg
        And the reflectivity of water is dependent on the time of day (reaching a minimum at local noon and a maximum at sunrise and sunset) and the sea state. If there are a lot of white caps, the reflectivity goes up.

        The reflectivity of surficial materials varies with the composition and the particle size. For minerals like quartz and feldspars, with negligible extinction coefficients (the ‘imaginary’ part of the complex refractive index) the reflectivity increases with decreasing particle size.

        The whole issue of reflectivity is far more convoluted than most climatologists appreciate and that is why a simple estimate of 30%, with an implied uncertainty of at least +/-5% (1 sigma), is commonly quoted.

    • Aww Nick, I repeat my previous admonishment…
      Yes, there is a radiative greenhouse effect and, Yes, there is CO2 warming (but more H2O warming),
      The amount of heat being radiated from one surface to another is
      q/a= [k/(1/ehot+1/ecold-1] x (Thot^4-Tcold^4).
      The ground is at Thot due to being warmed by sunshine,
      If the atmosphere was only N2 and O2, it would be completelely transparent to Infrared. In that case, Thot would be ground temperature and Tcold would be outer space at -270 C. But CO2 and H2O readily absorb and reradiate IR. Because the H2O and CO2 are the same temperature in the atmosphere as the N2 and O2, the ground radiates to “the sky” instead of outer space, and the “sky” is much warmer than outer space. You can take an IR thermometer and typically read the temperature of clouds at about freezing and blue sky down to -80, but $40 IR guns do not have proper emissivity settings to be accurate for this job. Anyway my point is that the ground temp will warm more in the sunshine in order to radiate the same amount of heat it receives from the sun, when there are radiating gases between the ground and outer space. That extra temperature is caused by the Sun, but is a result of the greenhouse gases mixed with the Nitrogen and Oxygen in the atmosphere. That is the Radiative Green House effect, RGHE. And you should not forget that by the top of the troposphere, H2O concentration is only half that of CO2. Your denying RGHE is an embarrassment. You can easily calculate it yourself at your stated technical education level.
      Yes, it is foolish that some assume a constant Albedo of .3 to come up with the often stated 33 C number for the “no greenhouse gases” case, when Albedo is so dependent on clouds and clouds are made of water, but people who make this generalization are only trying to show how the radiative gas effect works. They are wrong, but not as wrong as your disbelief in RGHE.

      • The surface radiates according to its temperature, and on top of that it transfers heat according to ∆T. So, with an atmosphere you have a total:

        σ(287⁴+(287⁴-255⁴))=528W/m²

        Where the cooling/transfer is

        σ(287⁴-255⁴)=145W/m²

        To maintain energy balance you have to supply heat for both surface emission and the transfer that heats the atmosphere (which also cools the surface) simultaneously. So, obviously, a cold atmosphere doesn’t warm anything, it cools.

        The surface emits 383W/m² and the transfer cools it by 145W/m². It takes more heat to warm a surface cooled by a cold atmosphere, than it takes to heat the surface alone. Without an atmosphere the surface would keep all the heat for itself without transfer to the cold air. That would make it:

        σ(287⁴+(287⁴-255⁴))=σ311⁴
        =528W/m²=311K=38°C

        If we look at the difference between total outgoing energy compared to incoming, TSI and 4πr²*256⁴, we see that:

        TSI-4σ256⁴=1360.8W/m²-4σ256⁴
        =σ287⁴

        Spot on! So the energy balance is easily solved when the sum of the parts are included simultaneously. All parts must be simultaneously supplied with heat at a given point in time for a steady state. Which means that there is cooling feom transfer to the atmosphere that “steals” energy on top of surface emission. This is how you’d have to do it if you designed a system heated by a heat source exposed to cooling by cold air. To keep a steady state: emission + transfer. Your explanation is only transfer.

        • Lifeisthermal,

          Qnet = σ * A * (T^4hot – T^4cold)

          I have seen this chopped up version of the S-B equation even in textbooks. It seems to be the one you are applying in your comments. There is only one area yet two temperatures. How is that possible? It should have at least two surfaces for two systems/surfaces, i.e. one hot and one cold. One might say it represents one area at two different conditions, i.e. hot & cold.
          Qnet is alleged to be the “net” energy “trapped” by the greenhouse effect that warms the earth.
          Something like this: Qghe = σ * A * (T^4atmos – T^4GHGs).

          What this equation actually represents is the work required of a refrigeration loop to create and maintain the energy imbalance between the two systems.
          I leave for a two-week vacation & while away the house loses power.
          Energy from the warm system (garage man cave) flows absolutely & only in one direction hot-to-cold through the insulated walls of the cold system (kegerator) until equilibrium, i.e. same temperature. With the power outage the man cave gets a little cooler, inside the kegerator gets a lot warmer.
          The energy required of the kegerator refrigeration loop w/ complete S-B equations:
          Qwork = (Qman cave – Qkegerator) = σ *( (εman cave * Aman cave * T^4man cave) – (εkegerator * Akegerator * T^4kegerator))

          This notion that Qghe = σ * A * (T^4atmos – T^4GHGs) represents the “trapped” energy of the greenhouse atmospheric warming effect is flawed for two reasons:
          1) it was apparently conjured up, incorrectly interpreted and applied, by climate science amateurs with no formal study or application experience who get their science and engineering from Wiki. If this were a real thang there would be refrigerators without power cords. I haven’t seen any. You?
          2) the atmosphere doesn’t warm the earth, it cools it.

          It’s like entropy that was hijacked & erroneously defined as order/disorder to justify creation science.

      • Dmac,

        The Thot/Tcold exists because of Q = U aka 1/R A (Thot – Tcold) same as the insulated walls of a house.
        No RGHE hocus-pocus needed.
        HVAC engineers calculate and observe that every day.

    • Lets throw on top of that, the oceans contain 5.6 x 10e24 joules, According to your calculations, the surface receives 4.4 x 10e21 j of energy. Thus the ocean is receiving 1/1000th of the energy it already retains.

      The atmosphere is mostly warmed by the surface. Thus, the change in atmospheric temps are dependent not on the balanced radiation equation that everyone always uses, but a balanced equation of surface temp radiation to OLR. As noted above, the energy arriving is 1/1000th of the energy mass of the ocean, thus small changes and differences at the TOA are really just not going to make that big of a difference on relatively short scales (less than 1000 years). Even the rise out of the LIA … a whopping 1 degree or so is a meaningless change.

      I think it’s safe to say that the internal variation within the system is so large, and chaotic and unpredictable, that a model of the earths climate for any thing other than to illustrate the basic gist is beyond our abilities at the moment. As for predicting, and especially from the point of proving GHGs play any significant role ….. models are worse than meaningless ….. they are evil, and used to spread false propaganda for alternative political agendas.

    • Nick S

      Fatal mistake, the same as made by the IPCC;

      “ASR would increase by (6.28 E17 / 4.40 E17) and without would absorb 43% more kJ/h than with. UCLA Diviner lunar mission suggests that without an atmosphere the earth would be much like the moon with its 11% albedo and ASR equal to 5.59 E17 kJ/h.”

      It is pointless to compare the earth with its present atmosphere with somewhat that has no atmosphere. We lean nothing about GHG net effects from that Apple’s and oranges comparison. Compare the current situation with having no GHGs – two apples. The clouds disappear as you have said it in your preceding paragraph; it doesn’t mean removing the atmosphere!

      And you will find the albedo value can be ascertained and the heating effect from the surface receiving 1360 W/m^2 at the equator, and the result shows:

      The difference between the air temperature near the surface with and without GHG’s is not much. So the difference between that and the present atmosphere is “not much” so doubling the amount of CO2 will make a difference of “not much”.

      Measurements support this conservative position.

      There is no evidence supporting the idea of “a lot”. None. So, let’s get our ducks in a row and compare like with like modifying one variable only.

    • After some ingenious numerical calculations which I won’t dispute, Nick Schroeder concluded (September 29, 2019 at 2:11 am):

      “The Indisputable Fact is that the RGHE does not exist.”

      No alleged facts are indisputable in science, Nick. To my mind the greenhouse effect cannot be disproven by any numerical argument, because it is a theoretical concept, not a quantity.

      To me the greenhouse effect is a logical consequence of the existence of greenhouse substances (e.g. GHGs) in the atmosphere. Greenhouse substances are substances which possess the special physical property of being relatively transparent to incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun whilst being relatively opaque to outgoing longwave radiation from the planet’s surface. If you want to disprove the greenhouse effect, I think you must either prove that there are not really any greenhouse substances in the atmosphere that could produce a greenhouse effect, or else prove that the perceived greenhouse substances in the atmosphere do not really possess the special greenhouse property that has been attributed to them. But as I read it, your numerical argument from thermodynamics does not attempt to do either of those things.

      • Because you then assume that the reradiated LW radiation warms the atmosphere. There are an awful lot of steps to go through to prove that happens.

        • Phoenix44, September 30, 2019 at 9:27 am.

          You cannot expect me to understand a comment that begins with “Because…”. I have no idea what that dissociated clause is referring to.

      • Greenhouse substances are substances which possess the special physical property (magical handwavium_) of being relatively transparent to incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun whilst being relatively opaque to outgoing longwave radiation from the planet’s surface.

        Even if GHGs could do that, 0.04% of them are way too insufficient to make any significant impact.

        • Nick Schroeder, September 30, 2019 at 12:16 pm:

          “Even if GHGs could do that,…”

          GHGs are defined as doing that. It is the physical property that makes them “greenhouse gases” as distinct from “non-greenhouse gases” like oxygen and nitrogen.

          “….0.04% of them are way too insufficient to make any significant impact.”

          That figure only applies to terrestrial CO2, but I’m inclined to agree with you about the insignificance of that particular GHG. However, as far as I can see, that has no bearing on the question of whether or not the greenhouse effect exists. So long as there are GHGs in a planet’s atmosphere the standard laws of physics imply that there should be some finite greenhouse effect from them, however small and insignificant it might be.

  2. The more bean-spilling the better, although it’ll take a long time for the MSM to even dare consider making it newsworthy. Gather those beans, people, and plant them far and wide so their stalks reach every cloud.

    Fe.. fi.. fo.. fum.. 😉

    • The MSM is owned by and works for the Globalist Socialist Elites, they don’t do things like report news.

      It’s propaganda all the way down.

      • Sad to say… it IS because of a very persistent — and very laudable at heart — Environmental Activism ‘generation’ thing.

        There was a remarkable awareness-of-the-environment and a highly motivated ‘lets fix this thing up before it kills us!’ activism in the early 1960s (10 years before it really got wind) that decried the absurd pollution being dumped by industry into our waterways, rivers, onto our lands, into our air and so on. Civilization had been moving from the relatively modest pollutive means of the Colonial period to some gargantuan, egregious outflows of ‘shît’ after WW2.

        Photographic journalism and the invention of inexpensive color printing, large, high quality roll-stock paper and a degree of prosperity allowing people of modest affluence to be subscribers to a half dozen “coffee table magazines” such as Life, Sunset, Time, National Geographic, Smithsonian, Vanity Fair, Scientific American, and so on put high-profile critical-of-what-made-America-wealthy (industry) on the chopping block of public opinion for their frankly admittedly egregious pollutive ways.

        By the late 60s and obviously the 1970s, environmentalism had taken wing. A large flock, too. At the same time that the youth of The West were generally losing their trust in religion as an answer to all things, and embracing choosing secularism as a complimentary philosophy defining right living and so forth, with the tireless exposè reporting of orange gunk spewing into rivers with their banks covered in dead fish, or the expanses of northern hardwood turned sickly yellow-brown by acid rain precipitated from the fly-gas and fly-ash of the endless growing armada of coal-fired power stations, journalism itself figured out that it had the power to lead a generation of ‘right thinkers’ forward on this Save Mother Earth path.

        It is therefore no wonder at all why “the Media” continues in its almost exclusively one-sided representation of the polluted Earth narrative, our Human duty to fix it, and the near-religion of proffering solutions even for problems that are naïvely or ignorantly overplayed.

        The MSM definitely also was coöpted by “the Reds” worldwide, at every level; Socialism needs victims en masse in order to have a Movement, in order to commandeer government at all levels, in order to exert the power-of-the-majority-over-the-minority-which-must-accede-to-their-demands power grab.

        Thus it is.
        As you say.
        Propaganda for the most part.

        But with a well-meaning heart that has coöpted The Young, Newly Aware, and Vigorous.

        Just as it tried to do, when I was but 20-something, in Berkeley California, … so long ago that the streets still had dinosaurs walking around, LOL!

        Just saying,
        GoatGuy ✓

        • Agreed but the moment they listed CO2 as a pollutant they lost a lot of people. Even folks who are not science oriented know plants love it and require lots of it. How much they probably don’t know but that was an overreach that burned them as it was so divorced from reality that even normal folks said “wait a minute”.

  3. Clouds are tricky things. They can reduce the temperature by shading the sun out in the day or by trapping warm air in at night whereby they maintain temperature. Thunderstorms are even more devious. They produce rapid upward movement of warm, moist air. As it moves upward, it cools, condenses, and forms a cloud reaching up over 20 kilometres When the rising air reaches its dew point, water vapour condenses as water droplets or ice. This reduces pressure within the thunderstorm cell and the precipitation falls to Earth. The droplets fall and aggregate. The falling drops create a downdraft pulling cold air with it, spreading it out on the Earth, causing strong winds.
    These effects are impossible to model and unpredictable in detail. They render climate models into mere mathematical exercises or propaganda tools.

    • “These effects are impossible to model and unpredictable in detail.”

      Unpredictable in detail yes, impossible to model no. The processes are relatively well understood and there are actually rather good models of convective activity and precipitation, but they can only be applied to quite small areas because of the huge computational requirements.
      Climate models typically use 100 km cells, convective activity requires 100 m cells or smaller. To reach this definition in GCM would require something like 10^12 times more powerful computers. Ain’t gonna happen soon.

      • And anyone involved in model design knew about the several orders of magnitude additional computing power required for the job FROM THE VERY START.

        We could actually run the models at the correct sub-kilometer resolutions with current computing power and each run would only take a few million years to accomplish and cost only a few quadrillion times the entire global GDP for a century.

        Good thing the science is settled…we don’t have that much money. That’s almost the cost of the GND after normal government overruns.

        • DocSiders
          You said, “And anyone involved in model design knew about the several orders of magnitude additional computing power required for the job FROM THE VERY START.”

          And, that is why they took the route of parameterizing clouds and their behavior. The problem is that the approach does not work well as evidenced by the models running warm, and getting contradictory precipitation forecasts at regional levels. They are either missing some processes, or using inappropriate parameters, or both. Now, after more than 30 years of building models, they have invested a career in what should probably be considered a ‘fools errand,’ and they are reluctant to admit it and go find another job. Unless some outside force intervenes, they will probably continue to program their fantasies until they retire, by which time other younger programmers will have taken up the cause and become emotionally and financially invested.

          • It makes no sense to simplify one part of a non-linear complex system and then try and make the other parts increasingly complex in a model. It would be far better to have simplified models that are 60% right. Anc as I am bored if saying, it is impossible to model anything accurately unless you know the starting conditions accurately, and we never achieve that in the models either. Run a model with little or no skill using incorrect starting conditions and you find up with forecasts that are right only by random chance. Presumably why lots of models are run lots of times?

      • tty,

        You are nit picking.
        If something cannot be done by using existing technology then it is “impossible” to do it at present.

        The fact that it may be possible to model clouds in principle does NOT mean it is now possible to model clouds. Indeed, you admit it is certainly impossible using existing computer technology.

        Richard

        • I must agree with Richard.

          The computer models can’t handle clouds, the most important element of the Earth’s climate. And it doesn’t look like the computer models will be able to handle clouds anytime in the near future. Certainly not before foolish politicians decide to spend TRILLIONS of dollars to control the Earth’s climate based on computer models that cannot handle clouds.

          • Tom

            According to the IPCC some 50% of GHG is water vapour (at up to 60,000ppm) and some 20% due to clouds, with 25% due to co2

            So water in its various forms is an extremely important factor overall, although individually the molecules are not as ‘powerful’ as co2.

            If the models can not handle clouds can they handle ‘water’ generally?

            Our knowledge of the climate is still rudimentary and it would be helpful if scientists sometimes admitted ‘they just didn’t know’

            tonyb

          • It may be a mistake to rely on modelling.

            What Dr Spencer is doing is putting bounds on what is possible in the real climate, as opposed to in a model, by acquiring real world measurements of outgoing radiation in response to temperature changes. This may be sufficient to “disprove” the positive feedback-based GCM’s that have been used to gin up Greta’s Terror.

            If it can be demonstrated that the net feedbacks are negative and sufficient to neutralise much of the heating secondary to CO2 rising, then we can chill about warming, and start pointing out the world the wonderful greening that CO2 is causing.

      • Good for small areas and SHORT time frames. In his context it not only needs to be modeled but with accuracy. You can’t model conditions in 2100 if your “good model” is only accurate for a few weeks at best.

        • Extrapolation is a dangerous game and must be use with extreme caution in very limited situations. Extrapolation of a linearised approximation of chaotic , non-linear system is a fools game that would not be allowed in any serious branch of engineering or science. It reveals the truly unscientific nature of climatology that they would even attempt to do so and worse, expect us to redesign the entire global economy and world governance based such pseudo-scientific claims.

          It is an attempted global coup, not a science.

  4. Isn’t it amazing how “skeptics” here are happy to sign up unsceptically to the view of any old scientist who sides with their (unprofessional) view while ignoring the countless others on the other side?

    Climate models are not perfect – if they were, we’d know something was really wrong. And they do far better than those here would have you believe.

    I really want to believe you guys are right – in the same way I wanted to believe my church minister was too. Sadly though, scientific evidence is against him, as it is against you.

    • You did not address the logic or science of the article; you just deflected. In fact, you just employed the ad populum logical fallacy. It does not matter if 7 billion people say something is true, that does not make it true. Albert Einstein once said (paraphrasing) that you only needed 1 to prove him wrong.

      Put up or shut up: prove the original author wrong, or shut up.

    • Johnhutton,

      If it was only failed models, you would have a point. However, there are dozens of other failures in the climate science domain you appear to want to ignore. Why is that?

      Do you treat every field of science like a religion?

    • “Isn’t it amazing how “skeptics” here are happy to sign up unsceptically to the view of any old scientist who sides with their (unprofessional) view …”

      You missed the point. It’s the “professionals” — those researchers [can’t call ’em scientists since they are not producing experimentally falsifiable theories] owned by the governments funding the AGW terror campaign — who are guilty of glossing over the countless well-founded criticisms of their work. Their certainty is profoundly unscientific. Skepticism is at the core of science. Where’s yours? The history of science is a history of failed certainties, while there’s plenty of evidence “climate science” is being engineered to produce public acceptance of carbon taxes.

    • Well John….when you adjust past temps down….to show a faster rate of warming…to fit an agenda
      ….and then plug that into the models
      Of course they model a faster rate of warming….and no amount of adjusting current temps will ever make them right

      It’s all adjustments

    • I really want to believe you guys are right – in the same way I wanted to believe my church minister was too. Sadly though, scientific evidence is against him, as it is against you. Sadly though, scientific evidence is against him, as it is against you.

      I don’t believe you. I think you’re lying. You don’t want to believe either one of them is right. Science can’t speak to the existence or non-existence of the Divine. And here’s what the scientists at the IPCC say about climate research and modeling:

      “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise 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 the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

      TAR-14, section 14.2.2.2, p. 774.

      http://www.thestupidithurts.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/TAR-14.pdf

      So what say you? Are you convinced that science cannot model the climate if your own scientists say so?

    • johnhutton,
      We skeptics don’t ignore the alarmists: we argue against them around the clock. There are thousands of scientists on the non-alarmist side, publishing every day; I’d bet you ignore them.

      His title makes the salient point: “the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis“. It never has been proven, or even thoroughly tested. It’s been presumed from the start. The uncontested gas physics says there should be 1-1.5C warming from each doubling of CO2. Everything else is models, and they are failing the reality test.

    • Why did you charcterize Dr Nakamura as “old”?
      Would it matter if I told you he is 17 years old, just as Greta Thunberg?

      Why are you characterizing dr Nakamura as “old”?
      Would it matter if I told you that he is 17 years old, just as Greta Thunberg.
      Just asking.

      • Most people who have spent a whole professional studying something tend to be “old”.

        Maybe you would prefer to listen to 16yo school girls who skip skool, don’t know squat about climate or life itself.

        Most of us here have relevant professional knowledge and a life time of experience and more brains than your average polarbear waving school truant. Take your pick.

    • Appeal to authority.
      You don’t deal with any of the issues, you just declare that he’s wrong because there are people who disagree with him.

      Countless? Really??? Just more evidence that you are merely parroting what you have been trained to believe.

    • This isn’t some obscure view cropping up from a second rate professional. Even though the burden of proof is on the alarmist side, the way CAGW is all a lie is taking a very clear shape for decades now. This is at the core I think. I hate to use the phrase “scientific consensus”. If it applies anywhere on the sceptic side, this would be it. This same thing comes up in many posts again and again.

    • There is no evidence against your minister. There is a possible lack of evidence for. Seems there is some confusion on this point by many who claim to be “scientific”.

    • Johnhutton

      ……while ignoring the countless others on the other side?

      How many “countless” others?

      Where are they?

      What do they do?

      What “other side”?

      We keep hearing this (like the barmy 97%) but no one produces any evidence, names or numbers.

      Sceptics, on the other hand, have, amongst others, a list of 30,000 professionals who do not agree with the hypothesis of AGW, and they identify themselves to support their scepticism.

      Can you provide a list of 30,000 named individuals?

      Nor is there “sides” here, there are degrees of scepticism. You may be a 100% believer in the concept of entirely man made global warming but because someone thinks man is partly responsible, is he on the “other side” from you? Or perhaps he just has a different scientific opinion.

      The plain fact is, 100% of scientists agree they do not understand how clouds work, so to plug a guessed at variable into a climate model, and then believe the output, is simply insane. Promoting it as accurate is simply criminal.

      Along with homogenised data and many other clever tricks some fairly nasty people play (Climategate?) exaggeration, child abuse, political gain and rent seeking are what sceptics object to.

      None of us object to the perfectly obvious fact that the world is gently warming. In fact, in the face of some fairly convincing, positive evidence, we welcome warming.

    • John Hutton,
      Witness the graph of 90 CMIP5 models with spaghetti strewn all over the place and tell me that the models

      “do better than those here would have you believe”.

      You also assume that if the climate models were perfect, then

      “we’d know something was really wrong”

      So you are telling us that you have infallible personal knowledge of the workings of climate and a perfect climate model would merely demonstrate your infallible knowledge.

      ” really want to believe you guys are right”

      I do not believe you for an instant. In my experience alarmists revel in the thought that western civilization is going to hell in a handcart. Your worst nightmare would be to find that the effects of rising CO2 concentration are largely benign and beneficial to mankind.

    • Johnhutton,
      Dr. Mototaka Nakamura is a many times published authority in atmospheric and oceanic computational fluid dynamics. He is highly qualified to assess the myriad failing of computational climate models.

      What are your qualifications, other than empty trolling snark?

    • “Climate models are not perfect – if they were, we’d know something was really wrong.” Quite the contrary, we would probably know that very little is wrong. The problem with your side is a perfect track record of false predictions and outright lies.

    • Johnhutton September 29, 2019 at 2:46 am
      Isn’t it amazing how “skeptics” here are happy to sign up unsceptically to the view of any old scientist who sides with their (unprofessional) view while ignoring the countless others on the other side?

      Climate models are not perfect – if they were, we’d know something was really wrong. And they do far better than those here would have you believe.

      So you’ve decided that something is really wrong? Therefore the (hopelessly?) flawed climate models must be right (sort of)? You “unsceptically” accept their output even though a climate modeler said, “Anyone studying real cloud formation and then the treatment in climate models would be flabbergasted by the perfunctory treatment of clouds in the models.”?
      We should all ignore what he said because you’ve decided something is really wrong?

    • To “johnhutton”:

      What do you do when you can’t follow the science in detail? This applies to all sciences not just climate but I’ll focus on climate science.

      Do we “believe” one group or another? No, belief is for religion not science. Do we go with whatever the majority of scientists say? No, consensus is for politics not science.

      So what do we follow? Predictions! The scientific method requires them. If you are not making predictions that can be tested you are NOT doing science. See this 1 minute clip for an explanation:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7YcimsISUk

      Get PREDICTIONS with DATES and temperatures attached to them from both the natural cycles and CO2 groups. Then check up to see if their predictions happen. It is easy for anyone to do and kind of fun. Always copy the URL so you can check the wayback machine if they “clean up” their mistakes.

      As far as global warming goes, we are at a great juncture, a true fork in the road. The IPCC projects 0.5-1.0 C increase and the natural cycles scientists predict 0.25-1.0 C decrease over the next 20 years. They can’t both be correct but they both could be wrong.

      I will make only one prediction. CO2 will continue to increase by 1-2 PPM yearly over the next 20 years. China and India have said so and that is where it is determined.

    • Climate models do not do well. That’s just a fact. Claiming that they do is claiming something that is false. The evidence is against you. Claim g it is not is claiming something g that is false.

      Do you really think the sceptical scientists would be sceptical if models over the last 20-30 had been any good?

  5. Yes, they are know to modelers.

    For example, they know very well that climate models can reach negative humidity (or more than 100%) in the atmosphere: https://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/wd51we/reanal/random_notes/humidity

    Here are people complaining about it: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/4322/negative-values-of-relative-humidity-in-cfsr Why would anybody believe a model that can reach -1000 in the atmosphere is beyond my understanding. Did they hear about the principle of explosion?

    Here is a comment from a AR5 ‘state of the art’ computer model source tree:

    “Occasionally (every 15-20 model years), the model will produce very fast velocities in the lower stratosphere near the pole (levels 7 or 8 for the standard layering). This will produce a number of warnings from the advection (such as limitq warning: abs(a)>1) and then finally a crash (limitq error: new sn < 0")"

    They easily reach out unphysical wind speeds but better to deny reality than a computer model…

    Here is NASA agreeing that climate computer models are pure crap: https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html

    Some quotes from there (and other pages on that site): "they create artificial climates that mathematically resemble the real one: their temperatures and winds are accurate to within about 5%, but their clouds and rainfall are only accurate to within about 25-35%" (this is HUGE, the CO2 pseudo-effect is way smaller than this error). "Unfortunately, such a margin of error is much too large for making a reliable forecast about climate changes" If you click around on that site, you may find interesting: "Cloud amount increased by about 2% during the first three years of ISCCP and then decreased by about 4% over the next decade" "Since there a number of events occurring during this time period, the cause of these cloud variations is not yet understood." " the climate varies naturally for reasons that are not fully understood. The problem for understanding climate changes that might be produced by human activities is that the predicted changes are similar in magnitude to those shown here. The difference between natural and human-induced climate change will only appear clearly in much longer ( ≥ 50 years) data records"

    I really love the 'limit' there, it could mean one billion years…

    • From the NASA link:
      “water vapor is nearly transparent at the wavelengths of sunlight (between 200 and 3,000 nm, nm = nanometer, one billionth of a meter), so it lets virtually all the sunlight reach the surface”

      The water vapour absorbs about a third of the solar near infrared. How much of the near infrared do clouds absorb?

      • Depends on what you mean by ‘sunlight’, too. Quite a bit of Sun radiation is not in the visible spectrum, and quite a bit of it is not allowed to pass through water vapor. H2O is way much potent at ‘greenhousing’ than CO2.

        Now, as Ulric already told you, water vapor is one thing, droplets from clouds is another issue. And that big issue is emphasized above. One thing is that clouds contribute massively to albedo of the planet, pseudo-cooling it… on the other hand during the nights they can keep things below warm. It’s also a matter of their altitude, things get really complicated and when you cannot simulate them (and you cannot, convection and clouds happen at a much smaller scale than the huge bullshit grid they use in models) you will certainly get wrong results (you’ll get them wrong no matter what, but that’s a different story).

    • Humidity over 100% is actually common when there are few condensation nuclei. Below 0 is of course physically impossible. Even 0 is never reached, not even in winter in central East Antarctica.

      • From my looks over climate computer model crap it seems that they handle those condensation nuclei separately, but let’s pretend that’s not the case… even so, -1000 is enough to render their bullshit as bullshit.

    • “For example, they know very well that climate models can reach negative humidity”
      Those are not climate models. They are reanalysis models. And those notes are from about 1995, when reanalysis was really new.

      • Stokes
        So, are you claiming that recent reanalysis models have solved the problem? In any event, it should give one pause in accepting the results of the reanalysis models.

        • I’m simply pointing out that reanalysis models are not GCMs. Don’t these simple facts matter any more?

          Reanalysis models ingest large amounts of data at each step. GCMs do not. Ingesting inconsistent data, which can happen, leads to temporarily unphysical effects,

          • You appear to blindly believe that if the reanalysis models are pure crap, the climate models are not. Especially for you, I give this copy/paste from a ‘state of the art’ (the art of bullshitting) AR5 climate model:

            C**** Check for v. rare negative humidity error condition
            DO L=LDMIN,LMAX
            IF(QM(L).LT.0.d0) then
            WRITE(6,*) ‘ Q neg: it,i,j,l,q,cm’,itime,i_debug,j_debug,l
            $ ,qm(l),cmneg(l)
            C**** reduce subsidence post hoc.
            LM1=max(1,L-1)
            IF (QM(LM1)+QM(L).lt.0) then
            write(6,*) “Q neg cannot be fixed!”,L,QM(LM1:L)
            ELSE
            QM(L-1)=QM(L-1)+QM(L)
            QM(L)=0.
            #ifdef TRACERS_WATER
            C**** corresponding water tracer adjustment
            DO N=1,NTX
            IF (tr_wd_type(n) .eq. nWater) then
            TM(L-1,N)=TM(L-1,N)+TM(L,N)
            TM(L,N)=0.
            END IF
            END DO
            #endif
            END IF
            END IF
            END DO

            See? The idiotic climate models DO reach negative humidity. Now, I reckon you would cling to the straw that they say it’s ‘rare’. A ‘rare’ event is enough to explode such a bullshit model.

          • Even for Fortran, that’s really ugly code. If I wrote something like that where I work, I would be laughed out of the office. Then fired. That’s the kind of crap that’s written by amateurs (in software development) who believe that “It was hard to write, so it should be hard to read.” But I suppose Nick thinks that’s a brilliant coding style. 🙁

          • The code of climate models looks like written by decerebrated monkeys.

            They know no programming. They are not software engineers.

            By the look of it, it seems written in many cases by the students in climastrology, totally ignorant of software engineering.

            It’s worse, they have no clue of computational physics, either. Totally ignorant there, too. For example, a common mistake they do everywhere is to convert back and forth between units of measure, which is a big NO (it adds errors). In physics, you choose some units (usually some natural ones, as in c=1) and use those until the end of computation. Then you convert to whatever units you want for displaying. Not that it matters, adding some more errors to the exponentially increased initial errors plus the exponentially increased huge numerical errors does not matter anymore. The results are already pure shit.

      • Yeah, climate models are way better than reanalysis models.
        Better in simulating a bullshit world in another universe, a bullshit one.

        Btw, the complains about the negative humidity are much newer than 1995, apparently there was not progress in that regard since 1995.

    • Adrian
      Your quote stated, “… their temperatures and winds are accurate to within about 5%, …”

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the historical averages for temperatures and winds predicted with similar accuracies. Historical rainfalls would probably be better than 35%, except for drought years.

    • …Here is a comment from a AR5 ‘state of the art’ computer model source tree:

      “Occasionally (every 15-20 model years), the model will produce very fast velocities in the lower stratosphere near the pole (levels 7 or 8 for the standard layering). This will produce a number of warnings from the advection (such as limitq warning: abs(a)>1) and then finally a crash (limitq error: new sn < 0")"…

      Funny. Nick Stokes recently insisted a number of times here that models operate within the constraints of physical laws (represented by differential equations). Such behavior should be impossible.

      • Well, I am very curious what physical law is this:

        Maybe the ‘expert’ Nick can enlighten us.

        From that AR5 ‘state of the art’ bullshit model:

        C**** LIMIT SIZE OF DOWNDRAFT IF NEEDED
        IF(DDRAFT.GT..95d0*(AIRM(L-1)+DMR(L-1)))
        * DDRAFT=.95d0*(AIRM(L-1)+DMR(L-1))
        EDRAFT=DDRAFT-DDRUP

        I’m curious for example what fundamental physical constant is that 0.95 value and why it isn’t 0.96735628471467

      • “Funny. Nick Stokes recently insisted a number of times here that models operate within the constraints of physical laws”

        Yes, they do. That is why the program gives warnings, and crashes. Something has gone wrong with the program. The crash is the inevitable result of breaching the constraints.

        GCMs operating properly (and yielding results) do not crash.

        • Yeah, they are totally accurate and precise when they do not crash, they aren’t when they do.

          What are you smoking, Nick?

          Do you know what their advice is for such a crash? Back in time a few years (because that’s what Nature does when it reaches ‘inconvenient’ and anti-physical values), adjust parameters a little so the trajectory goes exponentially far away from the crashing condition, reaching more believable but still pure bullshit climate states.

          You must be extremely delusional to think that just because you adjusted params a little so it wouldn’t crash, it’s not still exponentially far away from the real climate state. They could be even farther from the real climate state than in the crashing case.

        • “You must be extremely delusional to think that just because you adjusted params a little so it wouldn’t crash”
          Adrian, I am not delusional. I have over thirty years professional experience writing and operating CFD programs, dealing exactly with the kind of situation described here. You, on the other hand, don’t have a clue.

          The situation described is an error condition. You have to find the error and prevent it arising. Not just adjust parameters so it can carry on. That will in any case never work. A working GCM may or may not be a good representation of the intended situation. But it just has to comply with some basic physics, else failure, as described here.

          • I don’t give a rat’s ass on your ‘experience’.

            I don’t give a shit on your appeal to your pseudo-authority.

            There is no road for kings, and despite you blindly believing yourself as a king of the bullshit, there is no magic to make Lyapunov exponents disappear. Not even with one billion years of experience with CFD.

            And despite your other blind belief that I don’t have a clue, I do have more than ‘a clue’.

  6. “Solar input, absurdly, is modelled as a “never changing quantity”. He says, “It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square metre. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”

    sorry the last publication of this guy is 2010.

    Solar is NOT MODELLED as a never changing quantity.

    Circa 2007, FUTURE solar forcing was modelled by SOME as a flat line.

    PAST solar forcing has always been modelled as a changing value.
    In CMIP6, some folks will use variable future solar forcing.

    https://phys.org/news/2017-07-representation-solar-variability-climate.html

    • Okay, so what Nakamura claims about modelling of solar input is not correct or rather out of date, I gather from your comment? Does that mean that we can safely disregard most of his criticisms of climate models in general, or are they still relevant for the modelling of clouds, water vapor, aerosols, ocean dynamics, ice-albedo; all the other stuff he criticizes in the article? It would be really great if the climate models could represent all these things with a reasonable amount of accuracy and precision, but I strongly suspect they do not.

      • In the minds of the climate science cabal, if a critic is wrong in one thing, they are to be considered as wrong in everything.
        On the other hand if a climate scientist is right in one thing, he must be considered as being right in everything.

        • MarkW

          To be fair, sceptics are no less enthusiastic about condemning a lifetime of work for a momentary mistake.

          We do, however, have far more targets. 🙂

    • So all models pre-2007 were useless. But now they are good?

      Well, it seems we all agree on the first point.

      And that raises the issue of how anyone was persuaded by the flawed models before 2007.
      Those suckers are probably persuaded by unfit models today too.

      • Well, first you schedule the hearing in DC for a day that falls within the range of historically hot days.
        Then you open all the windows in room the night before to keep the AC from working properly.
        Then you …

    • “…PAST solar forcing has always been modelled as a changing value…”

      Here’s what I see in https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-06.pdf

      For the observational record of TSI – “…longer term and more accurate measurements are required before trends in TSI can be monitored to sufficient accuracy for application to studies of the radiative forcing of climate…”

      For reconstructions of past TSI – “…because of the large uncertainty in the absolute value of TSI and the reconstruction methods our assessment of the ‘level of scientific understanding’ is ‘very low’…”

      So it is a changing value in historical model runs based on what? Tuning? Guessing?

      “…In CMIP6, some folks will use variable future solar forcing…”

      Oh wow! They’ve come SOOOO far. Is this an admission that it “does matter” from all of the climate scientists who insisted 10+ years ago that it doesn’t?

      IPCC says they don’t have the long-term studies or accuracy to apply TSI trends, but they’ll incorporate them anyways! That’s climate science for you.

    • Mosher
      You said, “Circa 2007, FUTURE solar forcing was modelled [sic] by SOME as a flat line.” You are beginning to sound (more) like Stokes! If you put a constant value in, then you are implicitly declaring it to be non-variable. The complaint was that we only have good measurements on the ‘Solar Constant’ for about the last 40 years, which is far too short of a time to reliably predict that it doesn’t or won’t change over longer periods of time.

      You also said, “sorry [sic] the last publication of this guy is 2010.” You are implying that is is unreliable because it is 9 years old. This is really a non sequitur unless you can provide citations showing that newer research has disproven his claims. Would you similarly complain about Einstein’s Nobel Prize-winning paper on photoelectric effects because it is 100 years old?

      The 2-year old article that you linked to only has historical data up to 2,000 CE. Therefore, to incorporate insolation into future GCMs, it will be necessary to extrapolate with insolation models of unknown veracity. It is, apparently, models all the way down! Pat Frank has presented a reasonable challenge to the uncertainty of extant GCMs. Adding further uncertainty through modeled solar scenarios will just exacerbate the problem. It may be useful for sensitivity analyses, but I don’t see it adding anything to the reliability of climate forecasts.

    • Steven finds a niggling detail to quibble about, in a vain attempt to evade the myriad invalidities of current climate models outlined by Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. As Dr. Mototaka Nakamura is a many times published authority in atmospheric and oceanic computational fluid dynamics, his assessment of the invalidities of computational climate models is greatly appreciated here.

      • Mosher is nothing bit a troll any more. He comes in, insults some people, and, regardless of the validity of his comments, never comes back to respond to subsequent comments. That’s the definition of a troll, just like Griff.

  7. While Politicians continue to use fear as a tool to garner votes, no facts to show that the very models which produce “”Data “” are faulty , will be accepted.

    Sadly the Green Myth is now big business and far too big to be allowed to fail.

    To those who are old enough to remember, will recall the very successful campaign to demonise what is in reality a wonder plant. I refer of course to Cannabis. .Just like the gas CO2 it is a good thing.

    To the younger ones type in the “”Story of Cannabis.”” It is in many ways similar to the Green Myth, except the ideology and their dream of a World Government.
    The ban against Cannabis was all about its potential to compete against four big businesses in the 1930 tees USA. But the propaganda used is very close to what is used today to support the Green nonsense.

    Sadly as again saying it, we will probably either see the Yellow shirts
    out in the streets protesting the ever higher cost of living, and/or the lights finally going out.

    MJE VK5ELL

  8. as a somewhat mathchallenged individual Ive always been unable to argue back with figures.
    but
    I know damned well that our planet is so chaotic and uncontrollable that saying you could fake it with a model and state your confidence in the outcomes was utterly ridiculous!
    presently theyre claiming that their AI medical programs are better than humans for picking some disease risks
    ( a risk is a possible but NOT a proven)
    well theyre also model based and working with humans also chaotic systems yes there are some basic similarities in all of us, but theres a huge variation in genetics, habitat, habits and gut biota thats proving to be rather wildl varied and affects outcomes
    NO AI is ever going to get that all sorted either.

  9. Got to get it through our heads that climate change was never about climate, it was about replacing capitalism. Arguing science is pointless, it will just confuse unless everyone is made aware that the goal is a destruction of their way of life with replacement by fundamental changes in society. At stake is their freedom; all we can now do is wait and see how many understand the underlying insidious movement. The worship of Greta goes on as scientists argue how many fairy models can fit on heads of pins or whether the pins poke holes in them.

    Good luck; it’s not the fiction of climate models that needs exposure. Fighting coal is just a smoke screen.

    • The hockey stick seems easy to explain. Some prominent climate scientist, maybe Trenberth or Jones, I can’t remember, said it was too bad about that inconvenient Medieval Warm Period. Shortly thereafter Mann produced his hockey stick. Coincidence, I think not.

      • It looks like it was Overpeck.

        I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. link

        Actually it was a bit different. Hansen was proposing a tipping point beyond which we would get runaway global warming. The MWP and the even warmer periods before it demonstrated that we had seen such temperatures before without triggering a tripping point.

  10. That article is like a message in a bottle from a castaway marooned on the island of climate science. He confirms everything I have thought about the models, based upon my understanding how people model things with computers. It is so difficult to express these flaws to the layman.

    • The way to express it to a layman is to ask, if models can’t reconstruct the past (which they can’t) and produce inflated results compared to current observations (which they do), why would you expect them to be able to accurately predict what will happen in the future? Would you trust your economic future with a financial adviser who had that kind of track record? Why are you doing so now?

    • Robert of Ottawa

      Talking as a layman might I suggest you start by asking people how much CO2 is in our atmosphere.

      With a little prompting, one usually gets an answer of anywhere between 10% and 50%.

      After the third or fourth person you pose the question to, you become adept at the art of stifling an uncontrollable guffaw, following which you can start to deal with the technicalities before moving on to the 97% when they inevitably cite it as their first objection.

      • “With a little prompting, one usually gets an answer of anywhere between 10% and 50%.”

        In that case we really are a “13th Floor” computer simulation

    • It is so difficult to express these flaws to the layman.

      It’s so simple even the IPCC does it (emphasis added):

      “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise 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 the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

      TAR-14, section 14.2.2.2, p. 774.

  11. Thanks, Pat, Mike, and CTM, interesting article. Climate Models are like those metal targets at a shooting gallery, when you hit them they flop over, then shortly afterward they pop up again. As long as the Swamp et al likes Climate Models for their political utility they will pop up again.

  12. My expertise lies in the thermodynamics of water as I was trained in the Navy as an engineer in the days of steam propulsion.
    As I see it the main omission in these models (among a number of other errors) is the behaviour of water in the evaporative phase change situation. The thermodynamics of this goes a long way to explain what is happening in the clouds and in the Hydro Cycle which is in fact a Rankine cycle.
    This omission leads to an overestimate of the Climate Sensitivity as it ignores the fact that, at phase change, the sensitivity coefficient (S) in the Planck equation dF = S*dT is zero since the change takes place at constant temperature.
    In practice this means that energy absorbed is converted into Latent Heat rather than in an increase in temperature and unless this is included in the calculation of the Global Sensitivity an error will result leading to an overestimate.

    A further aspect is also ignored namely that water vapor has intrinsic buoyancy due to its molecular weight wrt to dry air. This provides a physical force of some 8.8 Kg to a 1 Kg parcel of vapor, driving it upwards through the atmosphere oblivious of CO2 and thus carrying the latent heat energy which gets dissipated on the way up with some to space.
    Adding these two together it seems that contrary to the IPCC models water has a net strong NEGATIVE feedback to any increase in energy input whether by GHGs or otherwise.
    Evidence for this is demonstrated daily in our steam power generating plants where any increase in energy input to the boiler is reflected in an equivalent energy output ALL at constant temperature and pressure.
    Overall every kilogram of water evaporated from the surface dissipates some 694 Watthrs of energy to the atmosphere and beyond to space. Again oblivious of CO2.

    Much of this phase change activity occurs in the clouds and is a major influence in the extremely complex activity taking place. Again an area about which the IPCC is very shy and avoids in the models.

    A trite explanation of all of this maybe that “The Earth sweats to keep cool, just like you and I”.

    • Thank you Alasdair … as an old Navy nuke (nuclear reactor operator) I totally get your comments about energy transfer and phase changes in the contest of steam plants governed by the Rankine cycle. As a multi-decades experienced aircraft pilot, I also get the massive energy transfers that take place daily in the atmosphere due to the evaporation of water (from warming surface water, and evapo-transpired from green plants) in warming near-surface air, which rises to high altitudes and condenses to raindrops inside clouds, which raindrops and surrounding cooling air rapidly falls back to the surface, creating extremely energetic thunderstorm cells that release not only thermodynamic energy from the water but also massive electrostatic energy from lightning bolts, which in turn also creates massive heating effects.

      Water has always been the big kahuna in managing the distribution of heat energy throughout the atmosphere and upwards to the troposphere. Water vapor is by far the most effective greenhouse gas, with vastly higher quantities (more than times ten) that of CO2 at anywhere near current concentrations in the atmosphere, and with thermodynamic properties that CO2 gas simply does not possess.

      Water is the “miracle compound” of the earthian system. It overwhelms the effects on climate of everything else.

    • Alasdair. It seems to me that your negative feedback comment has to be correct because otherwise we would have had runaway heating long ago.

      • “Alasdair. It seems to me that your negative feedback comment has to be correct because otherwise we would have had runaway heating long ago.”

        That’s really the rub. We’re pretty sure it’s been much warmer in the past (thousands to millions of years ago) and no runaway CC occurred. Why would anyone think it can occur now?

        And, as a species, if we can’t compensate for a snail’s pace 1-3mm per year sea level rise, we deserve to be wiped out.

      • And, if we assume that say a doubling of CO2 causes a 3 degree rise in temp at the ocean surface, we find a rather huge increase in equilibrium water vapor in the warm air above that surface (7% per degree) We find rather high convection rates from ground level to the upper troposphere. We find rather high cloud formation rates and high precipitation. We find that the double CO2 at high altitude radiates IR to outer space at a high rate…..in short we find that the 3 degrees rise due to doubling is not possible and can only be about 1 degree…..oops…

    • Alasdair Fairbairn

      This is worth an article for WUWT. Please consider contributing as it’s yet another ill considered variable within climate models.

      I’m a layman, and whilst I don’t entirely get the science, like any good engineer you make the concepts easy to understand.

    • dF = S*dT is not my Planck’s equation. I don’t even know what it might be. It is definitely a Classical Thermodynamics, unrelated to quantum physics. The closest I get is dF = -S*dT – P*dV in a definition of Helmholtz’s Free Energy, where the “sensitivity” S is usually called Entropy.

  13. It has never been about the climate or the temperature or the sea levels it has always been about one world socialist government, controlling everything your money your assets every aspect of your life. To do this they must destroy the Western world system of government and they are using “climate emergency” as a tool to do that.

  14. > it is well worth reading the full Quadrant Online article – and sending the link on to all your friends and of course to all your enemies.

    GCM critics are not the enemy. That the Climate Muddlers think of us as such defines the problem.

    Enough time has passed to see the RCP 8.5 muddles to be proven wrong. It is time for the IPCC to disavow the scenario and tell ensemble muddlers to not use them in projections.

    • There is nothing wrong with sensitivity modeling using extreme conditions, Rob. The problem becomes the hysteria engendered when stating the extreme (RPC8.5) as the business-as-usual case. The modelers know it is a lie, but allow their political masters to get away with it unchallenged. CliSci, in a nutshell.

  15. From decades of building economic models, a practice introduced by Nobel Prize winning Jan Tinbergen we have learned that they are no better than a guess. Climate models are no better than a guess either and unlikely to get any better in the next couple of decades. And 3 cm of sea level rise per decade is not a catastrophe given storm surges in excess of 3 meters and land sinking 10 cm per decade.

  16. Questions on cloud albedo:
    How much visible solar irradiance is scattered by clouds and still reaches the surface?
    And how much of the solar near infrared is absorbed by the clouds? Given that the near infrared is around 49% of the total solar heating effect.

  17. Dr. Nakamura will be trashed and accused of being paid off by “big oil” and of “not being a real climate scientist” in 3, 2,…

    I see Griff has already said “his last published paper was in 2010.” Well, so what? When was Einstein’s last paper published?

    • He’s already been declared wrong on account of being old.

      That seems to be the new tactic of the trolls. Of course this is a mythology that directly appeals to the young, so that’s understandable.

    • F.LEGHORN
      You said, “I see Griff has already said ‘his last published paper was in 2010.’” Are you implying that Griff and Mosher are one and the same, or was that just a slip of the middle finger?

  18. I am a retired computer scientist. Were you an engineer/scientist who came to me with a proposal to model global climate (sic), I would have refused the project. We don’t know enough about the atmosphere to model it. Known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

    “Come back to me when you know something.”

    Of course, Dr. Nakamura is correct, but it doesn’t require his knowledge and experience to know it. Climate models are a non starter, per se nota.

  19. The sad reality is the models have served their purpose: providing ammunition. We’ve heard it all: the science is settled, we must do something/everything now to save the planet, nothing else matters, etc. It no longer matters that the models are faulty.

  20. Quite apart from the questionable data and assumptions used to drive computer models, I worry about the efficacy of the computer code.
    There is a dearth of information available on the code. Is it written by computer scientists? Are professional statisticians used to analyse and advise on data analysis?
    Is there a breadth of scientific experience among the people deciding what goes into the model assumption and interactions?
    Most importantly for computer code is how unit tests are carried out. A simple rounding error could have unknown and probably untraceable results.

    • Finn McCool

      Good questions. From what I can gather, many ‘climate scientists’, being the superior beings they consider themselves, writ a lot of their own code. I’m no climate scientist, nor computer scientist, but I have to wonder at a climate scientist being an expert in computer code.

      It also seems that professional statisticians pretty well ridicule the amateur efforts ‘climate scientists’ make at statistical analysis, another area they consider themselves expert in.

      I’m a layman. Were I to be offered a drive in a car commissioned by a climate scientist I would run a mile. It wouldn’t make it out the drive without killing me.

      • Mods.

        How long have I haunted the corridors of WUWT and how often have I caused offence? Perhaps once or twice.

        I’m in moderation again…….How about creating some exclusions for trusted posters?

          • MarkW

            How does one qualify if not by several years and innumerable inoffensive posts?

            [Well…a bottle of scotch mailed to the correct address wouldn’t hurt… 😉 -mod]

        • I’d guess it was the “k” word in your last sentence.
          I’ve gotten used to the delay in a comment appearing but the only times I see “your comment is in moderation” show up right away is when I’ve used a word that must trigger an “auto moderation” feature.
          The last time it happened, like you, I’d used the “k” word.

    • Most computer models use an off-the-shelf differential equation solver. The actual model code is mostly those “questionable data and assumptions”. In my opinion, the person making those assumptions is best qualified to code them; using services of a professional coder introduces a possibility of a misunderstanding.

      • As a professional Software Engineer, I couldn’t disagree more. If the scientist(s) provide proper requirements (including equations to solve and data input/output formats) then a professional SE (or team of SEs) will always produce better code that not only has fewer bugs, but is easier to maintain. You would also want to have the scientist’s input at every stage in the process, including peer reviews and validation/verification activities. There is a reason that scientists don’t design buildings or pour concrete – they leave that to the pros in those fields while they improve our understanding of the physical world so that those other people can do even more amazing things with that knowledge.

          • Of course with climate models they can’t provide such requirements because there is still too much they don’t know. The models were originally written to explore this problem space and figure out what produced nonsense results and what looked promising. In other words, they were designed as process models. That’s why they look like they were written by graduate students with no formal training in software development – because they were. Pressing these models into service as prediction tools was the original sin of the CAGW crowd.

  21. To paraphrase:
    Models will often completely lack some critically important processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful prediction. We use simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learn about the models problems and limitations in the process.

    Funny I think I learned this in my compter modeling / simulation classes.

  22. In proper application of the scientific method, we would call a climate model a hypothesis. The gold standard test of that hypothesis is whether it accurately predicts future outcomes, as it is designed to do. If it does not, it is falsified. We have moved into an age where that tried and true path has been abandoned, and ‘science’ as it presently works in the climate ‘sciences’ is allowed to ignore the falsification and is allowed to adjust the data to fit the model. What’s worse, the model’s advocates are allowed to make all sorts of frightening, catastrophic predictions to force scientists to join a nonexistent ‘consensus’.

  23. If weather forecasting models cannot be trusted beyond a few weeks, why does anyone think that climate forecasting models CAN be? Do you really have to be a scientist, climate or otherwise to grasp this simple truth?

  24. Climate models are simulations of reality.
    Some climate models resemble Earth’s climate in the same way that Pinocchio resembles a real boy.
    Other climate models resemble Earth’s climate in the same way that Cinderella resembles a real girl.

    • Good post. But . . . .

      “Climate models are simulations of reality.”

      They are simulations of the author’s ideas. They have no connection with reality.

      But then reality is a creation of the right wing to confuse people.

  25. Presumably there are still a few boffins beavering away somewhere with econometrics and models of the world economy. Just need to tweak a few more parameters and add a couple more ceteris paribuses and all will be revealed. Almost put the finishing touches on the black swan stagflation of the seventies and then it’s on to the GFC…

  26. The Climate Nazis love models. It allows them to make all kinds of unfounded predictions and they can play with computers what is not to like. BTW “Climate Nazis” is my new favorite term.

  27. Anybody with any experience of building or using computer-based models for the purpose of predicting the future of highly complex, multi-variate, non-linear phenomena knows better than to take the output seriously.

  28. Pat, I appreciate your guest blog, but I downloaded the Kindle version and have read the English portions several times, now; and you didn’t quote the specifics of why Mototaka feels the models are inadequate.

    He takes a very restricted view, largely two issues:
    1. The inadequate modeling of the ocean over poor resolution, and
    2. Parameterizations

    Under topic one he states a very specific complaint which is that the ocean momentum/salt/thermal diffusion is wrong. For example, momentum diffusion produces overly smoothed fields, and doesn’t produce any negative viscosity phenomena. Would a coupled ocean/atmosphere model that didn’t produce western boundary currents in the model suggest a problem?

    I think there are about a dozen credible and pertinent criticisms, and would like to know what his critics think of these.

    Already the complaints against him include that he hasn’t worked in climate science for 9 years, so his thoughts are out of date. Well, Lagrange hasn’t done any mechanics for a good 250 years; are his views of mechanics out of date? What would be more important is knowing whether some issues he complains about have been rectified or are they still issues?

  29. The IPCC general circulation models (GCM) have more than a 100 free variables that are subjectively set to produce the ‘predicted’ warming.

    What anchors the subjective GCM calculation that produces warming of 3C to 5C, and our thoughts is the Hanson calculated no feedback warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of 1.2C.

    It is interesting that there were peer reviewed “one-dimensional” studies that predicted a warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of 0.24C and 0.17C that were published at the same time as Hansen’s paper.

    The so-called one-dimensional radiative convection model is a toy model. Toy models are widely used in science and are very useful if there are conceptually correct.

    The problem is the cult of CAGW, Hansen in this case:

    1) fixed the lapse rate for the study (it is a physical fact that the additional CO2 increases the convection cooling of the atmosphere which offsets the warming by reducing the lapse rate so there will more warming higher in the atmosphere and significantly less surface warming) and

    2) ignored the fact that the atmosphere is saturated with water vapor in the tropics which greatly reduces the greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere due to the infrared frequency overlap of water vapour and CO2,

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoOEJhcUZBNzFBd3M/view?pli=1

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html

    ..In the 1DRCM studies, the most basic assumption is the fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2.

    There is no guarantee, however, for the same lapse rate maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 [Chylek & Kiehl, 1981; Sinha, 1995]. Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis as shown in Fig.1. In the figure, line B shows the FLRA giving a uniform warming for the troposphere and the surface. Since the CS (FAH) greatly changes with a minute variation of the lapse rate for 2xCO2, the computed results of the 1DRCM studies in Table 1 are theoretically meaningless along with the failure of the
    FLRA.

    In physical reality, the surface climate sensitivity is 0.1~0.2K from the energy budget of the earth and the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W.m2 for 2xCO2.

    Since there is no positive feedback from water vapor and ice albedo at the surface, the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS (FAH) is also 0.1~0.2K. A 1K warming occurs in responding to the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the effective radiation height of 5km. This gives the slightly reduced lapse rate of 6.3K/km from 6.5K/km as shown in Fig.2.

    In the physical reality with a bold line in Fig.2, the surface temperature increases as much as 0.1~0.2K with the slightly decreased lapse rate of 6.3K/km from 6.5K/km.

    Since the CS (FAH) is negligible small at the surface, there is no water vapor and ice albedo feedback which are large positive feedbacks in the 3DGCMs studies of the IPCC.

    …. (c) More than 100 parameters are utilized in the 3DGCMs (William: Three dimensional General Circulation Models, silly toy models) giving the canonical climate sensitivity of 3K claimed by the IPCC with the tuning of them.

    The followings are supporting data for the Kimoto lapse rate theory above.

    (A) Kiehl & Ramanathan (1982) shows the following radiative forcing for 2xCO2. Radiative forcing at the tropopause: 3.7W/m2. Radiative forcing at the surface: 0.55~1.56W/m2 (averaged 1.1W/m2).

    This denies the FLRA giving the uniform warming throughout the troposphere in the 1DRCM and the 3DGCMs studies.

    (B) Newell & Dopplick (1979) obtained a climate sensitivity of 0.24K considering the evaporation cooling from the surface of the ocean.

    (C) Ramanathan (1981) shows the surface temperature increase of 0.17K with the direct heating of 1.2W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the surface.

  30. Speaking of BAD climate models, browsing the internet regarding another issue led me to this
    January 4, 2008 post at “Climate Audit”

    https://climateaudit.org/2008/01/04/ipcc-on-radiative-forcing-1-ar11990/

    The item that caught my eye was this quote regarding IPCC AR1:

    “3.3.2 Water Vapor Feedback
    … an increase in one greenhouse gas (CO2) induces an increase in yet another greenhouse gas (water vapor) resulting in a positive feedback…..”

    To be more specific on this point, Raval and Ramanathan 1989 have recently employed satellite data to quantify the temperature dependence of the water vapor greenhouse effect. From their results, it readily follows (Cess, 1989) that water vapor feedback reduces ΔF/ΔTs from the prior value of 2.2 wm-2 K-1 to 2.3 wm-2 K-1. This in turn increases λ from 0.3 K m2 w-1 to 0.32 K m2 w-1 and thus increases the global warming from ΔTs= 1.2 deg C to 1.7 deg C.”

    For the sake of argument, I’ll not dispute that additional warming might lead to additional water vapor, but this SECOND part below is wrong on the face of it!

    “There is yet a further amplification caused by the increased water vapor. Since water vapor also absorbs solar radiation, water vapor feedback leads to an additional heating of the climate system through enhanced absorption of solar radiation.In terms of ΔS/ΔTs as appears within the expression for λ, this results in ΔS/ΔTs = 0.2 wm-2 K-1 (Cess et al 1989) so that λ is now 0.48 Km2w-1 while ΔTs=1.9 deg C. The poinst is that water vapor feedback has amplified the initial global warming of 1.2 deg C to 1.9 deg C, an amplification factor of 1.6.”

    What is being described is zero or negative feedback. If the atmosphere both absorbs and emits radiation from the Sun, the net greenhouse effect of the part of the radiation absorbed directly by the atmosphere is zero. If the atmosphere absorbs radiation from the Sun but not the infrared from the ground, you get a NEGATIVE greenhouse effect, as happens for some frequencies on Saturn’s moon, Titan. That additional postulate 0.2° C factor hypothetically INCREASING warming would actually REDUCE warming by that 0.2 °C factor, from 1.7 ° C to 1.5° C.

    This of course ignores negative feedbacks due do a larger fraction of the additional wattage going into latent heat. The evaporation of additional water does not come free- additional wattage is eaten up in the latent heat of evaporation and convection to carry that water vapor into the atmosphere.

  31. I was having a conversation with a doctor. He remarked, “Just because you are a professor of computer science doesn’t mean you automatically know what their models are.”
    I have taught computer modeling since about 1967-68. There are two main problems in computer models. The first is obvious, simplification. A model must simplify. The problem case is oversimplification. Paramaterization of cloud cover is a simplification.
    The second problem is a simplification of data input. When significant data is ignored — garbage in, garbage out.
    Either kind of simplification (necessary because of limited computer power) is problematic.
    Modeling using 1960’s-2015 methods is almost surely doomed to fail. However, using a self-taught AI given all the data (including stuff not believed to be important) may well come up with a way to predict 10 years out. No one is doing this as far as I know.

  32. He has an inexpensive ebook available too. Half English, half Japanese. When you feed the text into Google translate it translates it. Don’t give the translation service html. It will break. I handles a mixture of Japanese and English, returning English. The book has no images.

  33. His views summarized:

    Now, I must emphasize here that my skepticism on the “global warming hypothesis” is targeted on the “catastrophic” part of the hypothesis and not on the “global warming” per se. That is, there is no doubt that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere does have some warming effect on the lower troposphere (about 0.5 degrees Kelvin for a doubling from the pre-industrial revolution era, according to true experts), although it has not been proven that the warming effect actually results in a rise in the global mean surface temperature, because of the extremely complex processes operating in the real climate system, many of which are represented in perfunctory manner at best or ignored altogether in climate simulation models.

  34. Book excerpt, translated (by Google Translate) from Japanese:

    I heard a story that seems to be common. At that time she had a [male] friend from Taiwan who worked hard to obtain a PhD at the University of Illinois under professor Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist. (I don’t know Professor Schlesinger directly, but one of my teachers, Professor Peter Stone, MIT, said Professor Schlesinger, who had made an outrageous claim in a public debate over a paper, “That guy is a fool. “I have heard that I was down.” My friend was doing research on climate warming as a topic of his IPCC report under the guidance of Professor Schlesinger. As part of that, he was experimenting with a CO2 doubling scenario using a climate simulation model. It seems that the friend was worried and confided to her, but under the guidance of Professor Schlesinger, it was possible to change the various parameter values ​​in the simulation model and repeat the experiment until the professor’s desired global average temperature rise value came out It was. The friend said that she was worried about the question, “This isn’t science?”

    In fact, there are many parameters in a climate simulation model, and these values ​​are not determined based on scientific evidence, but are often determined by the convenience of the model user. That is, the value is determined for the purpose of “tuning” the behavior of the simulation model. This is inevitable as many physical and chemical processes that the climate model cannot express with physical and chemical equations are represented using the “just kidding” representation method. I myself tuned the climate model using various parameter values. Naturally, the climate simulation model is a tool for academic research that has been developed to be used for scientifically meaningful research within the limits of such models, and is used for climate change prediction. It is not something that should be done. It seems that the serious graduate student knew the simple fact that there was no way to make meaningful predictions by changing the parameter values ​​that could be chosen arbitrarily, and the results would change. That is why he was seriously troubled by his supervisor’s command to continue tuning the model until the desired result was achieved.

  35. I suspect the models would do far better if they had the correct value for climate sensitivity entered into them. That is supported by the Russian model, which John Christy points out does a reasonable job at matching the temperature record.

    Unfortunately for them if the ensemble modellers did include the correct sensitivity they’d show that CAGW can’t happen, and they would lose their funding.

  36. My Masters Thesis involved adding biases (fudge factors) into a tropical cyclone forecast model to better initialize the current motion of the storm. We had to add these fudge factors, because (1) the tropical storm science was limited, and (2) worse yet, the data was very limited. It’s all about the science stupid and all about the data stupid. Climate modeling has the same and even greater challenges because there are even more feedback mechanisms involved. Until we can adequately model past Ice Ages, we have very little hope of achieving reasonable climate modeling. Remember what Winston Churchill said, “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see.”

  37. Here is a thought about computer modelling to be commented on please.
    The lengthy discussions over the years here and elsewhere consider digital computer models.
    There is an alternative:- analog models. And I think we live in one and have all the parameters to hand if we measure them! Time frame is another issue which we cannot change with the model we live in. But maybe, maybe by honing our skills to interpret the past both of the ‘analog’ earth and the sun would be a better way to spend our wealth.

    ‘Old’ Nick.

  38. Not an issue!

    Take this article:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0383-x

    >The Hadley circulation has large climate impacts at low latitudes by transferring heat and moisture between the tropics and subtropics. Climate projections show a robust weakening of the Northern Hemisphere Hadley circulation by the end of the twenty-first century. Over the past several decades, however, atmospheric reanalyses indicate a strengthening of the Hadley circulation. Here we show that the strengthening of the circulation in the Northern Hemisphere is not seen in climate models; instead, these models simulate a weakening of the circulation in the past 40 years. Using observations and a large ensemble of model simulations we elucidate this discrepancy between climate models and reanalyses, and show that it does not stem from internal climate variability or biases in climate models, but appears related to artefacts in the representation of latent heating in the reanalyses. Our results highlight the role of anthropogenic emissions in the recent slowdown of the atmospheric circulation, which is projected to continue in coming decades, and question the reliability of reanalyses for estimating trends in the Hadley circulation.

    So, apparently, yet again the reanalysis shows the opposite trend with the models…. too bad for reanalysis! It must be biased and has to be corrected! Not models, no – they are perfect; the reanalysis is flawed!

  39. The problem here, of course, is the idolatry of ideology combined with a system of unimaginable corporate graft infused with a white-knuckled lust for concentrated, total, unaccountable power over virtually every aspect of human existence and choice (in even the most trivial and mundane realms of life) at the international, national and state (California in particular) levels where the Left (and the Left, in the 20th century to the present, has been alternatively brown, black, red and now, in recent decades, green, but its the same Left seeking very much the same ends, aims and goals and driven by the same underlying collectivist vision) dominates and controls discourse, the creation, interpretation and dissemination of information and the acceptable parameters of thought, discussion and debate.

    Having overwhelmed and smothered the academic humanaties and social sciences several generations ago, the totemic spirits of political correctness now seek new conquests even within the natural and hard sciences. This is not new. Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union (and the very idea of Marxism as a scientific discipline known as “scientific socialism”) and concepts of “Aryan” physics, chemistry or biology within Nazi ideology, are all representative of the inevitable metastasization of the underlying totalitarian, collectivist mentality and zeitgeist once in social, cultural, political and legal place common to all manifestations of the progressive vision, that vision, Dr. Sowell tells us of “the Anointed.”

    The idea, in other words, of progressive ideology of one kind or another driving, animating and determining the nature and acceptable range of discourse within science is not a novel development, but rather the reemergence, under the banner of “saving the planet,” “the climate crisis” and “sustainability” of ideas long fundamental to the leftist/progressive project of “changing the world.”

    And if the world has to be razed to the ground, and its ashes scattered, to do so, then so be it. To “save the planet,” bring to pass a new golden world of “hope and change,” and redeem and purify humankind in a future world of “social justice” and Edenic felicity, what lie is too big to tell, what crime to awful to contemplate, what means to that end beyond possibility?

    What data too clear to fudge…or hide?

  40. The underpinning of the climate models are based on the suppositions made by a chemist-cum-physist Svante Arrhenius, and his ideas about the influence of CO2 and carbonic acid in the atmosphere.
    He was wrong then, the models are wrong now.
    End of story!

Comments are closed.