By Ad Huijser
After reading “Into The Black Box” (ref. 1), once again a great and very informative contribution by Willis Eschenbach, I wasn’t so much surprised by the conclusion that a “one-liner climate model” could generate a result similar to that of the most complicated GCM’s. However, I was puzzled that he stopped his analysis there. The recurrent relation he applied, between temperature change and forcing, is a straightforward consequence of how the surface temperature T(t) dynamically restores the imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation at TOA as induced by a time dependent forcing F(t). And being based on the fundamental principle of the conservation of energy, this is not just another 1-D climate model; it is conditional for all climate models. So, he shouldn’t have just used it to curve-fit the outcomes of GCM’s, but should have used it to check the quality of GCM’s.
So, let’s look somewhat closer to this recurrent relation that I will (provocatively) refer to as CMC: the Climate Model Checker. If n-1, n, n+1 are consecutive times at unit time intervals we can easily derive this relation for small perturbations in the energy in- and outflows of the Earth climate system from the energy balance according to C ∂T/∂t = “Radiation IN” – “Radiation OUT”, as:
Tn+1 = Tn + λ (Fn+1 – Fn)(1 – exp (-1/τ)) + (Tn -Tn-1) exp(-1/τ)
in which τ is a specific response time primarily determined by the heat capacity C of the Earth’ climate system and λ a factor representing the climate sensitivity, the way in which the surface temperature T responds to an imbalance F at TOA. It’s obvious that λ = ∆T/F where ∆T is the surface temperature increase for t®µ , due to a step-wise forcing F at t = 0. This sensitivity can be related to the temperature rise due to the forcing of doubling of the CO2 concentration, the well-known Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity expressed as ECS = λ F2xCO2.
One might argue that I have just shifted the problem to estimating the parameters λ and τ, and thus to the ongoing discussion “what is the value of ECS?”. True, but first of all, we now have only 2 parameters to adjust rather than the large set of parameters/estimates in any complicated GCM. And secondly, we can begin by just using what seems reasonable and see where we get from there.
First, we have to estimate a realistic value for τ. For a water planet and based on the choice of the depth of the mixed ocean layer, textbooks (e.g. ref. 2) arrive at about 4-5 years. With 1/3 land, that value will probably be not much lower than 3 years. An average of 4 years will be a good estimate and is supported by Willis’ analysis of τ = 4.2 in fitting this CMC to the CMIP5 ensemble (ref. 1). In practice, this CMC happens to be not very sensitive to response times in the interval of 3 to 5 years.
Next, we need an estimate for the climate sensitivity λ. As a starter, I go blindly for the inverse of the Planck feedback parameter of 3.3 W/m2/K (don’t bother about +/- signs here) as it is derived from the same origin as our CMC, and equal to 4(1-a)Φ0/TS0, with the all sky albedo a = 0.3, the average solar incoming radiation Φ0 = 340 W/m2 and the equilibrium surface temperature TS0 = 288 K. So, λ = 0.3 K/ W/m2 would be an excellent choice, and indeed Willis’ analysis (ref. 1) of best fits to the CMIP5 outcomes, is showing values close to that.
But these values didn’t fit well the Berkeley temperature series where he needed λ = 0.4 K/ W/m2 and τ = 5 years. Now we all know: the output of models is a “translation” of the input, or in short: “what you put in, you get out” (but don’t forget: “what you don’t put in, you cannot get out”). So, the question arises, is this difference between the Berkeley, and this CMC calculated temperature range due to the wrong choice of λ and τ, or an effect of the chosen “input”, i.e. the time dependent forcings?
To find out, I downloaded Eschenbach’s Excel spread sheet and constructed my own accordingly. To test mine, I used the same CMIP5 input from the NASA/GISS site (ref 3). Instead of the Berkeley temperature series, I used the most recent HadCrut v5 (ref 4) series as being more “current”, to compare with. What became quickly clear is that with λ = 0.3 K/W/m2 and τ = 4 years, this CMC fits reasonably well to the HadCrut v5 temperature series. But with a slight increase to λ = 0.345 K/W/m2 it even fits excellently. This somewhat higher value for λ is not based on curve fitting, but comes from the simulations with the on-line MODTRAN module from the University of Chicago (ref. 5) for the US Standard Atmosphere + clouds (Stratus/Strato CU) + Relative Humidity taken 1 and “constant”. Since it doesn’t change any conclusions, and as I will also use some outcomes of MODTRAN under those particular conditions further on in this essay, I will use this higher λ value for practical/consistency reasons from now on.
This fit is shown in fig. 1a and in fig. 1b the same fit is show with the UAH LT temperature series (ref. 11), which is unfortunately only available for the last 40 years. To better show the warming trend, I used the option to suppress the volcano contribution to the total forcing (dashed lines).
Clearly, not bad at all, but no news given Willis Eschenbach’s earlier analysis (ref. 1), and I leave it to others to explain the enormous discrepancies between this CMC and measured temperatures around 1940 (hot WWII times?), apparently not due to any known anthropogenic forcing.
But downloading the CMIP5 forcings from the GISS website (ref. 3), I noticed also the availability of the CMIP6 database. Expecting it to be more actual, I tried those forcings as well (don’t know why Willis didn’t use this set). Anyhow, what came out of applying these CMIP6 inputs to the same CMC calculation with the identical λ and τ parameters, was a complete surprise as fig. 2 shows. And here, the remark that “the models’ output is always a reflection of the input”, makes clear that the CMIP6-models input is completely different from the CMIP5 input data, as shown in fig. 3. And not just by a small fraction; a forcing difference of 1 W/m2 in 2010 on an average of 2.5 W/m2 is simply outrages.
One could expect some new insights in the category “natural forcings”, but not in the forcings from the category of the well mixed greenhouse gasses (WMGHG). As both input data are from the same group of people with supporting literature (ref. 6), I searched in there for new insights or good arguments for these discrepancies. They Indicated some differences, but without clear explanations. Maybe my shortcoming, but I couldn’t find one serious discussion for their choices. But reading the following statement on their website (ref. 3) gives me the impression that they allow themselves the option to adjust anything they see necessary to tune the input to the output:
“Quantifying the actual forcing within a global climate model is quite complicated and can depend on the baseline climate state. This is therefore an additional source of uncertainty. Within a modern complex climate model, forcings other than solar are not imposed as energy flux perturbations. Rather, the flux perturbations are diagnosed after the specific physical change is made. Estimates of forcings for solar, volcanic and well-mixed GHGs derived from simpler models may be different from the effect in a GCM. Forcings from more heterogeneous forcings (aerosols, ozone, land use, etc.) are most often diagnosed from the GCMs directly”.
IPCC’s AGW-narrative is partially based on the claim that all these GCM’s can adequately replicate the warming since the pre-industrial period. It’s clear now that such claims are not about climate models, but about models+input. Where the CMIP5 models+input could be covered well with λ = 0.345 K/W/m2, the CMIP6 models+input needs a value of 0.555 K/W/m2 (fig. 4). And obviously, this “extra” 0.21 K/W/m2 climate sensitivity, is not model-, but input related. So, discussions on the change in climate sensitivity between CMIP5 and CMIP6 ensembles, are in fact useless, unless models and input are clearly decoupled and models are compared with the same set of forcings as input. It is too easy to speculate that this is proof of “tuned” input, but this issue anyhow asks for a better insight into the forcings applied in these ensembles. So, I tried to understand the CMIP6 composition in more detail as it has the lowest WMGHG-contribution, as depicted in fig. 3 & 5.
In the downloadable CMIP6 database, all GHG’s are clustered into one WMGHG forcing and to decompose this, I made use of AGGI, the NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index data (ref. 7) which goes back to 1979 (thin/red curves in fig. 5). Their total WMGHG (red dotted line) fits well with the CMIP6 data, but not at all with the CMIP5 input (black line). There are 4 major contributors, CO2 (solid thin red), CH4 (on top of CO2, dashed thin red) and the “rest” from NO2 and CFC/HCFC’s. The steep rise in forcing after 1970, is apparently caused by the latter 2 components, but it is difficult to imagine that they contribute almost all of a sudden about 1 W/m2 to the total forcing. Nevertheless, CMIP6 forcings are consistent with these AGGI data over the available period, so they are probably “objective” assessments from GHG-concentration changes in the atmosphere.
What we can easily check in that context, is the contribution of Carbon Dioxide and Methane. Here, the MODTRAN module is a handy tool as it allows to reconstruct the forcings for both CO2, being the largest contributor and Methane (CH4) as “runner up”. To do so, we just need the concentration of these GHG’s since the pre-industrial era. For CO2, that’s not a problem, as we have the Mauna Loa data plus the Carbon Project with long-time “best estimates” for historic fossil fuel emissions and the reconstructed 280 ppm in 1850 seems undisputed. For Methane the history is less clear. We have since 1984 reliable measurements, but Methane sources are pretty speculative, primarily coupled to the growth of the global population and the coupled growth in agriculture and the amount of cattle. The pre-industrial concentration (about 800 ppb in 1850) comes from analyzing trapped air in ice cores. How reliable those data are, is questionable. Although I modeled the known concentrations back to about 1100 ppb in 1850 using recent emission rates and a 9 years lifetime, I have no reason to reject this “official” value of 800 ppb and use it to calculate the CH4 forcing. If we use MODTRAN to simulate the effect of going from the 1850 CO2 and CH4 concentrations to today’s levels (414 ppm and 1880 ppb, respectively), we arrive at 1.85 W/m2 total forcing for the US Standard Atmosphere with Stratus/Strato CU-clouds, and the Water Vapor setting at 1 and at constant RH. The latter simulates “water vapor feedback” (WVFB), the effect of a changed H2O concentration due to temperature changes, so no need to have any discussion later on, on that controversial issue.
This total “MODTRAN” CO2+CH4 forcing, indicated in fig. 5 by the blue arrow, immediately questions the credibility of the NASA/GISS forcings used in the CMIP5 & 6 databases. The forcings used in the AGGI database seems to be based on the work of Myhre et al (ref 8) from which we immediately recognize the use of the well know 2xCO2 forcing value of 3.7 W/m2 and CH4 forcings from the same study (green solid and dashed curves). However, we know from the recent work of Van Wijngaarden and Happer (ref. 9), that the specific CO2 forcing is certainly too high and 3.0 W/m2 at max, since they determined it for clear sky conditions only. The MODTRAN module yields for that situation F2xCO2 = 2.95 W/m2, in good agreement with their work. But for the all sky (cloudy) conditions, as applied throughout this work (and including WVFB), this value drops even to 2.26-2.36 W/m2 (depending on the RH value between 100-60%) since clouds partially shield off the effect of GHG’s. To illustrate in fig. 5 the difference this makes, I included the “Likely CO2 only” curve with 2.4 W/m2 (orange curve).
The NO2 contribution in the AGGI is not more than 0.2 W/m2, so the steep rise in forcings must be due to the ChloroFluorCarbon’s. In MODTRAN, these are represented by the Freon Scale, and toggling that between 0 and 1, yields only 0.09 W/m2 of extra forcing for those gasses.This low value is difficult to match with the about 0.5 W/m2 forcings indicated by the CMIP6 and AGGI data.
Anyhow, the total forcing difference of the WMGHG’s CO2 + CH4 + NO2 + CFC’s, between 2020 and 1850 will certainly not be more than 2.3 W/m2 according to the numbers above; considerably lower than the 3.2 W/m2 as being used in the CMIP6 database from NASA/GISS. And I see absolutely no reason to doubt about my accounting, nor see any option to bridge this gap of almost 1 W/m2.
Of course, we could try to fix this discrepancy by adapting the climate sensitivity λ and/or the response time τ. But that doesn’t make much sense as we have to go to at least 1 K/W/m2. This would imply a ridiculously high climate sensitivity (according to ECS = λ F2xCO2 ≈ 3 K) although still within the IPCC range or, in GCM’s terminologies, an indication for absurd high feedbacks. The latter is exactly the excuse of CMIP6 models and the background to the recent CMIP6 based alarmistic conclusions of even higher future warmings than forecasted before. And what I show here with this CMC calculation for both the CMIP6 and the REFO set is, that where the CMIP5 models + input can apparently fit the measured temperature series between 1850-2020 reasonably well, the CMIP5 & 6 models + objective input (as this REFO) don’t fit at all.
So, this gap between the anomalies calculated from forcings and what is observed will be difficult to bridge by anthropogenic driven effects. My own assessment (ref. 10) is that the change in cloud-cover since 1980 can do that job, when accepting a climate sensitivity to cloud-change of about -0.11 K/%cc rather than the awkwardly high positive cloud-feedbacks due to temperature increase in GCM’s. It’s amazing that MODTRAN, contrary to GCM’s, also gives a similar answer to that question but that’s “another story”, and not for this context to address. But keep in mind, the observed cloud change might not be the only effect influencing global climate change, so we have to keep our minds open to other options as well.
In conclusion: I have tried to analyze in a transparent way the quality of GCM climate models and whether the AGW-hypothesis is well proven by these models over the period 1850-2020, as the IPCC claims they do.
After this exercise, the only answer I can come up with is “no, absolutely not !”. Models that need model-specific input to replicate the known past, violate the most basic criteria of science to earn the label “scientifically proven”, independent of the “proven physics” they are based upon. These models are indeed “Black Boxes” but without any predictability. The striking inconsistencies in input values between the various generations, should already be sufficient reason to reject any outcome. And consequently, these models are totally, in all aspects, inept to forecast the future.
The question: “are these CMIP5 and CMIP6 forcings fixed to the temperatures of the last 1½ century to fit the respective GMC-models’ predetermined/wishful outcome”, remains unanswered as I have no insights in how GMC’s are actually tuned. But this analysis coupled to the earlier quote from the NASA/GISS website, leaves that option clearly open.
This conclusion doesn’t make me a climate denier or an advocate to go on polluting, but the idea that global warming could be influenced if not stopped, by massive CO2 reductions, is to my opinion not supported by proper scientific evidence.
With thanks to Willis Eschenbach for triggering me to make this analysis.
Ad Huijser February 20, 2022
Addendum
In the comments section, Nick Stokes made a relevant remark about the fact that the forcings as published by NASA/GISS, are derived from the GCM’s models and not “input”, but “output”.
Indeed, he is absolutely right, and with citing the quote from the NASA/GISS I apparently expected everybody would have understood. But I agree, rereading the text after his remark, made clear that what I wrote might be confusing and somewhat “clumsy”.
The fact that these forcings are “output”, make them at the same time, the perfect “input” for the Climate Model Checker.
My thesis remains: if GCM’s replicate the historic temperature series, the derived forcings should do the same through the CMC algorithm. Moreover, these forcings should be comparable to the historic data we have on the concentration-trends of GHG’s and their respective radiative forcing strengths. If not, these climate models must be wrong and cannot be used in forecasting the future climate.
And that’s what I showed with this analysis.
References
- Eschenbach, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/03/into-the-black-box/
- See for instance: http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture02%20–%20Solving%20the%20zero-dimensional%20EBM.html
- https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
- https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/
- http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
- Miller et al, 2014, CMIP5 historical simulations (1850-2012) with GISS ModelE2, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, vol. 2, 441-468 https://doi.org/10.1002/2013MS000266 and
Miller et al, 2021, CMIP6 historical simulations (1850-2014) with GISS-E2.1, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, vol. 13
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002034 - https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html
- Myhre et al, 1998, New Estimates of Radiative Forcing due to Well Mixed Greenhouse Gasses, Geophysical Research Letters, vol 24, 2715-2718
- W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules, arXiv:2103.16465v1, 30 Mar 2021
- Huijser, The under estimated role of Clouds, https://www.clepair.net/clouds-AdHuijser.pdf
- https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No climate model can be trusted, until one can actually replicate past climatic changes, such as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age transitions.
You mean the models that won the Nobel Prize can’t be trusted? https://phys.org/news/2021-10-nobel-prize-physics-awarded-scientists.html?fbclid=IwAR3WZweUwz88Dyg3w4Ql3Lh52ki9IFjKzoAcfNTJiQ7-jXK0MK2Pq-7wb2w
All models can’t be trusted — especially the Nobel Prizers … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98zl8SlObLE
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/?fbclid=IwAR05fG58MXkYvYQHTbIQQMKwNaXwqyQ_dHevWlwYaEIfubsW5PH1-5w4i8g
its an “ensemble” of models- if the science is settled, why is there an ensemble? Then when blurred together- they approximate measurements. Not impressive.
What is that supposed to mean? The major models have used a variety of methodologies and scenarios in their projections. And they’re proving to be accurate.
They can’t get the past right.
For future climate, the individual models are all over the map, and all of them when looking back at projections that have been made for the future over the last 30 years, all of them have predicted much more warming than actually occurred.
That’s not accurate.
OK, Barry Anthony, so here’s the big question: what are the confidence intervals for predictions from the climate models looking 5, 10, 20 and 50 years from now?
Simple. Very simple. There are very large differences between models. Some must be better than others. You will never get a more accurate result by averaging a better model with a worse one.
Your statement “they are proving to be accurate” is completely false, proven to be false by the fact that the models are in disagreement with themselves. In fact, almost all of the models have demonstrated no skill in forecasting.
You are lying. The question is why are you lying?
>>Your statement “they are proving to be accurate” is completely false,<< Why would you bother making a claim that’s completely debunked by the simple reality of empirical data? https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-predicted-2019-s-ominous-co2-milestone-in-1982-1834748763
Anything that confirms what you want to believe, must be true, no matter how ridiculous.
Throw a thousand darts at the dart board. One lucky shot might hit the bullseye. Pretty much how GCM’s work
Not only do they run GCMs repeatedly, they use false accuracy metrics by circling the dart hits they prefer, then claim ridiculous accuracy.
Advanced modern climate models do not produce predictions in any scientific sense. Much less Exxon’s suppositions from 1982.
That is always a mark of their stupidity to say they are ALL accurate when their modeled trends are all over the place.
At best only ONE model can be correct and the rest wrong.
I have read that even alarmists have acknowledged that CMIP-6 is running too hot.
All alarmist word salad claims where they predict storms, rainfall, drought, cold, snow, sea level rise, sea level acceleration, CO₂ catastrophic warmth, etc. are all personal opinions of alarmists, not actually contained in GCM results.
Did you even read anything that the author above wrote? The models are exercises in curve-fitting, not physics.
beng, “exercises in curve-fitting, not physics.”
Exactly right.
Models are tuned to reproduce the past temperature trend. So long as the climate state stays about the same, extrapolation from the tuned model will run close to subsequent observed air temperature
Under those conditions, the similarity of the model projection to the subsequent observed air temperature trend is physically meaningless.
The fact that all of them produce radically different outputs from each other proves that they can’t all be accurate. The idea that you can “average” a whole bunch of wrong answers in order to get a right answer is something that only makes sense to a global warming acolyte. BTW, none of the models comes “close” to what the real world has been doing.
>>BTW, none of the models comes “close” to what the real world has been doing.<< Why would you make such a ridiculous comment when even Exxon’s own projections from 40 years ago have proven to be accurate? https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-predicted-2019-s-ominous-co2-milestone-in-1982-1834748763
In other words the best you got is disproven propaganda.
>>In other words the best you got is disproven propaganda.<< An overwhelming volume of peer-reviewed research represents “propaganda,” to you?
When peer review devolves into pal review and exercises in excluding anything that doesn’t support the narrative, then peer review becomes nothing more than propaganda.
And you have evidence that major climate models have somehow been benefactors of unethical research review practices?
The fact that the models are so bad, is all the evidence that is needed.
After just a few years all the models turn into a linear equation, y = mx + b. No pauses, no pulses, no evidence of cyclical processes like ENSO, AMO, solar acctivity, etc.
We’ve seen at least two decadal pauses in just the past 30 years. Why would something similar not happen in the futre?
An eighth grader would figure this out pretty quickly, why have the climate scientists? Basically they just pick a value for “m” and tune the model to give that answer. That’s unethical – at least when they purport to claim that the models are built on the “physics”. Psychics more likely!
Climate modelers are unable to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.
It’s not a question of unethical review, but rather of a culture of incompetence.
“peer-reviewed research”
Climate modeling is video-game science. Change an parameter, see what the model does. That’s research, climate modeling style.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.1.0/svg/1f602.svg https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.1.0/svg/1f923.svg
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.1.0/svg/1f602.svg https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.1.0/svg/1f923.svg
Alarmists don’t do “peer review”! They do pal review which is why unreplicable drivel pretend science are repeatedly published.
How about defining what you mean by “accurate!” Do you mean that the Exxon projections are within 1% of today’s temperatures? If not, what do you mean?
“have proven to be accurate”
Proof, rather, that you don’t know what “accurate” means.
All the models assume that the climate is warming. All models predict warmer. Therefore all models are right.
Beyond that, any article that starts off with the claim that models accurately replicate past climate has lost all credibility.
The uncertainty in NASA’s graphic represents precision bounds, not accuracy bounds.
For physically valid accuracy bounds, see here.
Reliability of the model projection: zero.
Climate must be measured in a minimum of 30 years. Show me a 1990 climate projection.
What they have fooled the smooth-brains with is repeatedly showing updated models only a few years old forced to fit the current temperature.
Actually 30 years is what is needed to detect a change. Climates have not changed much over millennia.
See the following.
https://earthhow.com/koppen-climate-classification/
You shouldn’t diss Manabe’s work without reading it. You’ll probably say “I know that”, except in 1967 “they” didn’t…..and he greatly contributed to computerizing the calculations….
From that link:
How accurately? I couldn’t find that in that lengthy article. Roughly approximating? Fairly accurate? Super accurate?
Manabe’s papers are science. He found what he found. Hausfather is claiming his interpretation to be something that really isn’t anything Manabe put in his paper.
http://go.owu.edu/~chjackso/Climate/papers/Manabe_Wetherald_1967_Thermal%20equilibrium%20of%20the%20atmosphere%20with%20a%20given%20distribution%20of%20relative%20humidity.pdf
I should also point out that a studious read of Manabe would provide good points of debate for those who think IPCC’s ECS is far too high.
In 1988 Hanson made a presentation to Congress on CO2 and climate, making quite a few predictions about what would happen in the next 20 to 30 years. This was significantly responsible for starting the US political climate machinery turning,. A few years ago, on the anniversary of that presentation, quite a few msm journalists and other activists wrote articles about how everything Hanson said has turned out to be correct, with amazingly accuracy. These were all purely subjective evaluations, without any reference to specific presentation statements or real world outcomes.
Other more objective reviewers, apparently all excluded from msm outlets, wrote reviews working directly from the presentation transcription, comparing Hanson’s claims to data and activity records of what happened in the intervening years. Their documentation was explicitly presented for every reader to see. None of Hanson’s predictions were even close to what actually came to pass but the majority of people, shielded from reality, probably still have no idea of the truth.
Al Gore won a Nobel Prize.
Not in a scientific field.
According to Wikipedia:
Because they spread the desired message. A “peace prize”? It diminishes the value of any and all Nobel Prizes once they stray out of science and become a movement.
That “prize” is not connected in any way to the Nobel prizes for medicine, physics, biology, etc. It comes from a totally different organization, one based on political activitism.
they certainly shouldn’t have the same name
Obama won a noble peace prize and proceeded to bomb brown people in the Middle East.
Again, not in a scientific context.
Again it is a noble prize
There’s nothing noble about it.
I think they call that the Nobel peace bomb prize.
Yes. And the Nobel Prize itself should not be trusted as a meaningful metric that validates any particular scientific work. Science is validated only by repeatable experimentation that shows the predicted result, not by peer review, and certainly not by the Nobel committee.
And the fact that major climate models going back decades–including those of Exxon–have proven to be exceptionally accurate against direct observation provides that validation.
“And the fact that major climate models going back decades–including those of Exxon–have proven to be exceptionally accurate against direct observation provides that validation.”
Really? Which specific ‘major climate models’ have done that? What are their names? What specific predictions have they made and which specific ‘direct observations’ have they been compared against?
And where have these comparisons been published? Please provide links to these ground-breaking studies to enable us to assess the truthfulness of your claim.
All I hear is crickets.
Like griff, once Barry gets behind, he moves on to a new thread.
You might want to check the article in Nature – Diagnosing Earth – from 5th August 2021. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02150-0.
Amongst other things it discusses climate models running hot. It notes that scientists are puzzled by models showing extremes of warming – which they find is contrary to other evidence.
Oh, and by the way DON’T call me a denier. If I, as a layman, cannot in a sensible way, question something in the scientific realm – then there’s a slight problem – isn’t there..?
BTW – I can see that some of the models are very useful/accurate – but some probably aren’t – check out the Nature article.
Syukuro Manabe won the Nobel. No model did so.
Baghouses for particulate removal, SOX and NOX removal all were in vogue toward the end of “ice age cometh” back in the 70’s on US coal fired plants. Recognizing that trying to reconstruct credible data from the distant past such as the MWP is problematic has anyone studied (objectively) the impact on climate of the Clean Air Act of late last century? Surely there is enough quality data to make objective conclusions about “aerosols and incoming radiation” in relation to global weather trends?
Many scientists arguing for the existence of the MWP have noted that the interval was characterized by an increase in incoming solar radiation paired with a relative absence of volcanic activity. (Aerosols expelled from volcanic eruptions have been shown to block a portion of incoming sunlight.) The combination of both phenomena would contribute to an increase in air temperatures. Some scientists have also attributed warmer air temperatures in the North Atlantic region to the delivery of warmer seawater (heated by solar radiation unimpeded by volcanic aerosols) by the Gulf Stream and other currents.
John, yes you are right, but these events and earlier ones should be analyzed as an ‘equation’ of natural variability, probably up to 1950.
After 1950, if CO2 is indeed a factor in warming, then if temperature forecasts prove to be 300% too high, then you must conclude that CO2 is, at best, a small player given what we know about the significant range of natural variability and the negative feedbacks that emerge to counter changes in both warming and cooling. So far, there is nothing ruling out natural variability as the only ’cause’ needed to give us the actual temperature record. This should be the thinking of any sober, disinterested scientific assessment of climate data.
>>After reading “Into The Black Box” (ref. 1), once again a great and very informative contribution by Willis Eschenbach,<< Citing an small-time shill with no credible scientific background whatsoever pretty much exposes this article as just another flaccid attempt at pseudoscience. The fact that climate models going back decades (including those of Exxon) have proven to be exceptionally accurate against direct observation has been a chestnut that the Denier narrative has desperately and increasingly frantically tried to crack.
It is always interesting to see how GCMs are described as accurate.
The ensemble average of multiple models, each one tuned, still shows real world results bumping along the bottom of the cone of averaged GCM outcomes.
And this is with successive versions of the GCMs tuned to “the latest available data”.
So in other words, the models are tuned to real world data, run for 5 or 6 years and still show a clear warm bias even in such a short time.
>>It is always interesting to see how GCMs are described as accurate.<< https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
How can a conclusion be drawn about model performance when their confidence band is so large relative to the changes in observed temperatures, particularly when the hindcast period of 30 years exceeds the 20 year period of independent observations? How have the models performed for local temperatures, precipitation and ice cover?
from that link:
“Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time.”
So, stop saying it’s settled science.
I think recalling what Manabe said about climate models might be helpful here. That the best models would chart the broad sweep of climate change but that they should not be used to predict future climates. Of course he added that that’s exactly what they would be used for. The record doesn’t indicate whether or not he sighed. But that’s what I imagine.
And, AGAIN, major climate models going back decades are STILL proving to be accurate against direct observation. It’s hilarious that Deniers can stare empirical data in the face and still pretend otherwise.
Only someone who is totally blind to reality, could claim that climate models are accurate.
Thanks for commenting Barry.
Please pick ONE climate model, not the average of MANY, other than the Russian model. and post it with all iterations from the FIRST documented run to show that it has ALWAYS been RIGHT as to the FUTURE and PAST “global average temperature anomaly”.
We will await your post with great eagerness. We hope you will actually learn something of the truth about “climate models”
Drake
Have you read this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/
I show that a simple linear extrapolation of Hansen’s own data does a better job of predicting today’s temperature than any of his model scenarios.
You are the one wearing rose-colored glasses and blinders.
Barry Anthony: but isn’t the whole point of this article that modellers have tweaked the input variables in just such a way that the models are “accurate” ? And furthermore that the tweaks are often unreasonable, i.e. they are not independently backed by underlying physics ?
If you can adjust the input variables at will to make the plot fit the observations, it makes it look accurate, but unfortunately it has no predictive value. Because once the line starts to deviate from reality again, you just tweak the variables again to make it fit better.
That is my broad brush understanding of what the article is saying.
Barry
It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t make it so.
What do you think the models are predicting? They can’t tell you whether Tmax is going up or Tmin is going up. Studies by agricultural scientists show that the growing season is extending and the total heat accumulation by crops are going down, even with the longer growing season. Their study results provide support for the conclusion that Tmax is going down and Tmin is going up. Please note that higher Tmin’s would give you an increasing average.
The GCM’s are really useless for predicting future climate. The “global average” is meaningless. It doesn’t describe the actual climate for *anyplace*.
What “empirical data”? Have you found someplace to actually measure the “global average temperature”? I can’t find that location described in any of the climate literature! So what “empirical data” are you talking about?
Are you Griff’s vacation replacement?
Any explanation for why this has not been updated since May 2017, which coincides with an El Nino event?
If you were in the market for a high-performance car, and the salesman told you that the car could achieve 0-60 MPH in 5 seconds, +/-3 seconds, would you be satisfied with the accuracy of his claim? If not, what would you expect?
Every trope and insult in the Scientology book.
Thank you for being you
He even hauled out the “denier” label.
Why the “Scientology” claim? Why does pointing at the simple reality of empirical data and how it debunks the pseudo science underneath the OP warrant such an accusation?
models are not empiracle data- and one of your links suggested that the models are “far from perfect”
just admit that climate science is a work in progress insufficient to make multi trillion dollar bets
The models are compared against empirical data. And it’s that comparison that proves they’re consistently accurate. Why bother with the pretense to the contrary? It’s unseemly.
Only someone who no ability to judge reality could come to the conclusion that models accurate reflect historical data, and that’s after the historical data has been cooked to better match the models.
Why are there so many models for settled science?
I would expect one.
And why do none of the models come even close to agreeing with the others?
What empirical data? Empirical data is MEASURED. Where are you measuring the global average temperature? There is *NO* empirical data against which the GCM outputs can be compared.
Yes he has the most basic thing wrong and it isn’t worth engaging with him till he does some reading.
“The models are compared against empirical data.”
No they aren’t and the fact you make that statement means you have no credibility.
Even stupidity AGW sites like Skeptical Science gets that right.
You obviously need the “dummies guide to climate models”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work
Scientology has a better record of being right, than does climate science.
Why not re-read “Into The Black Box” and why not explain where he is wrong and why?
I’m surprised you passed up the opportunity to do so. But then I would say you are unable to, hence the “Denier narrative” remark.
Major climate models going back decades have and continue to prove exceptionally accurate. The OP’s fundamental assertion is just a strawman.
Depends on your definition of “exceptionally accurate”.
“why not explain where he is wrong and why?
But then I would say you are unable to, hence the “Denier narrative” remark.”
It’s nice to get it right.
If “Major climate models going back decades” were so good, they wouldn’t need much improvement, would they? And CMIP6 is the worst iteration yet.
>>And CMIP6 is the worst iteration yet.<< Based on what criteria, specifically? Provide a credible, independent, and peer-reviewed study that supports your claim.
When you answer my question I’ll answer yours. That’s how it works in a discussion.
>>When you answer my question I’ll answer yours. That’s how it works in a discussion.<< Your post didn’t include a question.
Don’t play coy.
You claim Eschenbach is wrong or have you changed your mind on that already?
Do tell where and how he’s wrong – if you can.
>>You claim Eschenbach is wrong or have you changed your mind on that already?<< Eschenbach’s claim that major climate models are inaccurate isn’t supported by any credible, independent, and peer-reviewed research, and IS proven wrong by same. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming
You are a broken record aren’t you. And quoting Zeke doesn’t help your cause.
A model that works is singular.
Climate models don’t work, so they now have (for CMIP6) the “runs” from around 100 distinct climate models being produced across 49 or more different modelling groups.
All jam packed with parameterisation – or guesstimates. And all to no avail
“The vertical profile of recent tropical temperature trends: Persistent model biases in the context of internal variability”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9af7
“Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EA001281
Enjoy the read.
Interesting that neither one of the “studies” you provide are in a peer-reviewed format. Also interesting that the authors are well-documented shills and Deniers. So, no, you don’t appear to have any credible, independent, and peer-reviewed research supporting your claim that major climate models are inaccurate. Thanks for confirming.
And here we go again the peer review shibboleth.
The claim is that unless those who make their living from pushing the global warming myth agree with what you have written, what you have written must be ignored.
It’s becoming more and more obvious that you have absolutely no science or math background and believe in global warming because that’s what you want to believe.
It looks to me like the McKitrick-Christy research is published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed source. Did you not read it, or do you have a reading comprehension problem?
It’s not an officially recognized climate science source.
>>It looks to me like the McKitrick-Christy research is published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed source.<< You see the “Open Access” disclaimer at the top of the paper. This means it has not undergone peer review by the publishing journal, and they in no way vouch for its veracity.
“Peer Review” has come to mean something different than what it did originally. Because publishing is a big business, publishers use ‘gate keepers’ to help preserve their reputations by keeping the tin-foil hat writers at bay. However, the point of “peer review” is exactly what it says: Review and critique by peers of the writer. That can’t actually happen until something is published in a form with wide dissemination. It is hard to get wider dissemination than on the internet.
Even major journals do not vouch for veracity. They just make a good faith attempt at weeding out junk.
I suspect you are as clueless about “open access” as you are about climatology. “Open access” is primarily an economic model the doesn’t impose fees on the writer or reader. There is no doubt in my mind that the American Geophysical Union exercises some oversight on what they accept and that the authors have at least asked one or two colleagues to review, if not edit it. No professional wants to look like they are a “Berry.” They therefore usually ask for informal review.
Barry Anthony wrote: You see the “Open Access” disclaimer at the top of the paper. This means it has not undergone peer review by the publishing journal, and they in no way vouch for its veracity.
By this statement you prove that you are not a scientist and scholar. Even graduate students know that “Open Access” means that the authors have chosen to make the work open to anyone and not keep it behind a paywall. This work was peer-reviewed and the journal stands behind the work.
If you don’t know even this simple fact about the world of scientific publishing, then you have no standing to comment on matters of science.
That makes you a shill.
Why play the man and not the ball?
If the papers are not reviewed, why does the author thank the anonymous reviewers?
If the papers are publishers are “rubbish”, why do are the papers cited positively in papers published in “proper” journals?
>>If the papers are not reviewed, why does the author thank the anonymous reviewers?<<
The paper as referenced in the link was clearly published as Open Access, i.e. not reviewed by the journal.
Why does being reviewed by a journal matter?
Open access papers are reviewed by everyone who reads the paper. That’s much better “peer review” then having a couple of people who frequently are co-authors with you, do the review.
This comment clearly shows your lack of knowledge
Both Earth and Space Science and Environmental Letters are listed by the DOAJ. This means:
Barry,
You wrote, “So, no, you don’t appear to have any credible, independent, and peer-reviewed research supporting your claim that major climate models are inaccurate.”
Please see, Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections. Patrick Frank
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the type of peer review you find in a place like this, is many times greater than any of the so called pal review journals.
Another idiot, making a fool of hisself.
“sciencemag”
derp.
There’s your question. Answer it!
one of your links said that models “are far from perfect”- which I think doesn’t justify “exceptionally accurate”
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming
The models predict warming. It warmed, therefore the models are 100% accurate.
Sciencemag.org 😉
Translation: I’ve been told what to believe and I’m not going to look at anything that differs from that.
Repeating your mantra does not make it true.
>>Repeating your mantra does not make it true.<< Hard data makes it true. And the hard data by way of direct observation clearly shows that the major climate models going back decades are exceptionally accurate.
If your claim is true, then there must exist a very large body of other models that are less accurate.
Where are they?
No matter how many times you repeat that lie, it still remains a lie.
You obviously didn’t bother to read the link I provided for my analysis of Hansen’s sub-standard work. You make assertions based on ignoring anything that doesn’t support your belief system.
Yeah but every time they adjust the temperature record, they have to retune the climate models to match the adjusted record.
Even the IPCC admits that the models run hot. link
Is the best you can do just lies and insults?
>>Yeah but every time they adjust the temperature record, they have to retune the climate models to match the adjusted record.<< And, AGAIN, major climate models going back decades are proving to be exceptionally accurate against direct observation. Empirical data simply shoots down the desperate Denier attempts to paint the models as inaccurate.
I back up my statements with links. You … not so much.
Links? Like what?
Do you have a problem seeing the color red?
Try reading with comprehension
And, AGAIN, major climate models going back decades have–and continue to–be accurate against direct observation. Do you understand how direct observation works within the scientific method?
The only way to get the models to even remotely match the data. is to use confidence intervals so large that they automatically refute the claim of model accuracy.
Do you not see the link in commieBobs comment?
Maybe you’re colour blind
More likely willfully blind but I will help him anyway.
I sometimes have trouble finding a dark blue link amidst black text. Especially if it isn’t bolded or somehow uses a different font.
More than once I’ve had to hover my mouse over text to try and find a link someone else has told me is there.
This LINK
U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming
The first paragraph of that link contains an amazing number of false assertions about extreme weather, sea levels, and polar ice.
You really are a broken record. No matter how many arguments and how much data is presented, you keep going back to one person’s claim that the models are accurate, even when it is pointed out to you that the article you keep presenting isn’t as definitive as you so desperately want to believe.
Why not look at the most recent — and therefore those which should be the best examples for being “exceptionally accurate” — climate models, i.e. those used in CMIP6 for the AR6 report ?
The most complete set of “direct observations” are those “Post 1975”.
It’s not like you have a large fraction of the CMIP6 models that “run hot” for that time period … is it ?
Alternatively, how about how the estimates for ECS have “narrowed” significantly between CMIP5 (AR5, 2013) and CMIP6 (AR6, 2021), with the “exceptional accuracy” of those models meaning that “expert judgement / assessment” is no longer needed to filter out the most egregiously in-accurate models, and end up with their “IPCC best estimate” for ECS going in the opposite direction from the way the models went over the last 8 or 9 years.
It’s not like the IPCC would need to add qualifiers along the lines of “projections in this assessment [AR6] do not solely rely on the models”, now would they ?
Oh ! … Wait …
That puts an end to Barry’s argument. Even the must august body of international climate scientists, after reviewing the peer reviewed literature on the subject, don’t trust the models.
Provide a source link for your chart and its supporting data, please.
[ Blinks in surprise … ]
Really ?!?
You are unable to go from “used in CMIP6 for the AR6 report” and “Figure 7.19” (and “FAQ 7.3 Figure 1”) to the source(s) ?
Wow …
– – – – –
OK, if you insist.
1) Go to the IPCC AR6 (WG1) website.
Link : https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
2) Scroll down to the “Full Report” section, then click on the “Chapters” bar to open it up.
3) Download the PDF file for “Chapter 7: The Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity” to your local hard disk (or right-click on the “DOWNLOAD” button and “Open link in a new tab” if your browser supports PDF files natively).
NB : In the “Final Government Draft / Subject to final editing” version of AR6 all figures for each chapter are grouped at the end of that chapter.
“Figure 7.19” can be found on page 7-198 (= “Page 204 of 210” in my PDF file reader application).
“FAQ 7.3 Figure 1” is on the last page of the entire file, 7-204 (= “Page 210 of 210”).
griff? is that you?
It does have a similar odor.
Nope.
I love the certainty of the models….
Why would you bother to post that tired old chart that uses the lower troposphere data from Spencer/Christy, two long-debunked Shill/Denier clowns? The black “direct observation” line is not surface temperature data.
Wow, the amount of hatred you posses for those who don’t worship as you do is incredible.
Someone wheel out the mirror.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/21/4-special-counsel-revelations-tying-spygate-to-hillary-clintons-campaign/
The Russia colluuuusion clown appears.
Trudeau blamed Russia for the truckers…classic
Do you realize that you have established a precedent? Don’t be surprised if someone now calls you a “clown,” or worse.
Barry: “two long-debunked Shill/Denier clowns?” You discredit yourself with such words. I would never call someone “clowns” in a debate. You do so, which excludes you.
All the best!
Well, Barry, it appears that you have something against Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy. Will you please provide links to the debunking of their science? Links that don’t rely on personal insults to make a rhetorical point, but present analysis of their publications and their published data? Which BTW documents global average LT temperatures increasing over the entire length of the satellite era, but not to a degree that causes alarm in me.
Your categorizing someone you disagree with as “small-time shill with no credible scientific background whatsoever” won’t work with those guys.
Willis Eschenbach doesn’t (AFAIK) claim to have much of a formal scientific background. What he does have is an inquiring mind and the ability to play with public-domain data in innovative and interesting ways, often leading to thought-provoking conclusions and fascinating hypotheses. Characteristics that are not prominently displayed in the climate-science community with its rigid orthodoxy.
On the basis of today’s sorry performance, if you want to see a genuine “Shill/Denier” you might try looking in the mirror.
Satellite data is way better than surface temperature data. It literally measures every single cubic inch of the atmosphere. A surface thermometer not only measures that tiny portion of one area but also suffers from homogenization and time bias. Now please go away alarmist Chicken Little.
The chart you dislike states Sea Surface Temperatures, and the Black line is ESSSTv5 which is Sea surface Temperature data.
You will have to post evidence to support your assertions about the chart.
Meanwhile you should stop attacking people calling them deniers which is a listed policy violation that would often allow me to delete it which would be a good idea since I approved almost all of your comments for this thread.
POLICY:
(Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted) SUNMOD
. . . and their “exceptional accuracy”, as claimed above by one highly misinformed commenter that just doesn’t have a clue as to reality.
https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-predicted-2019-s-ominous-co2-milestone-in-1982-1834748763
Sorry, Barry, but a single article by author Brian Khan (with his self-described bio tag-line of “Journalist on the apocalypse beat” — see https://www.linkedin.com/in/blkahn ) in a publication by gizmodo.com (not recognized as being a source of credible climate information) hardly qualifies as being scientifically objective.
First, the title of the article contains the pejorative phrase “2019’s Ominous CO2 Milestone”. So, what was ominous about the atmospheric CO2 levels in 2019, which according to NOAA Mauna Loa data had mean values that varied from 410 to 413 ppm? Is our current atmospheric CO2 level of about 418 ppm even that much more “ominous” in comparison?
Secondly, Exxon should be very proud that their employed scientists were so accurate in predicting the rise in atmospheric CO2—from all causes, both natural and human-originated—over a timespan of some 37 years. The IPCC should employ scientists of this caliber.
Everyone who disagrees with the narrative is a shill, regardless of scientific background.
Everyone who agrees with the narrative is a scientist, regardless of scientific background.
Excellent comment, Gordon!
Barry Anthony, in his disparaging, ad hominem reference to Willis Eschenbach, posted:
“Citing an small-time shill with no credible scientific background whatsoever . . .”
So, Barry, please provide your own “credible scientific background” (your curricula vitae, as it were) that you believe qualifies you to make such a dumb-a$$ statement.
Also, you need to learn the appropriate use of the articles “a” and “an”, since your got it wrong in your post’s excerpt that I cited above.
BTW, the last sentence of your comment is 100% scientifically-provable to be incorrect, assuming that an error of +300% and higher of various IPCC model predictions-versus-observational data does not qualify as being “exceptionally accurate” (your words)
>>So, Barry, please provide your own “credible scientific background” (your curricula vitae, as it were) that you believe qualifies you to make such a dumb-a$$ statement.<< I simply refer to the body of the credible, independent, and peer-reviewed research. This is what proves Eschenbach’s nonsense wrong. Surely you hold credible research in high regard, as opposed to the childish posturing of a bad actor? https://www.desmog.com/willis-eschenbach/
You get no credit for an attempt at deflection from the direct request I made to you.
Your silence in this regard speaks volumes . . . as does your failed attempt at deflection.
In summary, Eschenbach’s entirely unqualified claims are proven wrong by an overwhelming volume of peer-reviewed research and empirical data. What are your questions?
Reread my above post dated February 21, 2022 8:05 am that was made in reply to your post of February 21, 2022 6:29 am.
There was only one question/request and, here, I’ll even repeat it for you: “please provide your own “credible scientific background” (your curricula vitae, as it were)”
“please provide your own “credible scientific background” (your curricula vitae, as it were)”
I didn’t know you had to provide proof of experience in the field? Well that removes 99% of the people here then. Yep me included.
Barry is making the claim that only those who have officially recognized credentials have a right to be heard. Please try to keep up. For once.
Careful, lest Simon the Zealot accuse you of being a Canadian trucker.
Simon used to be a regular. After several months of being embarrassed he now limits his appearances to snapping at my heels.
It’s because he isn’t very bright.
Bright enough to recognise a crook….Speaking of crooks how is that buddy of yours Trump going with his tax now his accountants have dumped him?
Russia colluuuusion strikes again 😉
You are so stupid…it really is amazing.
I’ll take it from your comment he’s not doing to well. Can I suggest it is going to get a whole lot worse for Donnie…
Haha you are still mad that you believed Russia colluuuusion and can’t admit you are wrong.
You are a clown indeed.
I suppose Russia was responsible for the truckers….hahaha
Wishful thinking, Simon.
Donnie may be out next president.
Tom, that is true, but as time passes it is looking less likely by the day. And let’s not forget, I’m pretty much the only one here who said he would lose last time.
Stolen election.
You have a problem with successful people, don’t you.
No, I am very fond of myself. I have a problem with crooks.
Trump is doing just fine, as far as I can tell.
Democrats have no conpunctions about using government power against their political opponents. That’s what is happening here and what has been happening ever since Trump was elected.
The Democrats haven’t laid a glove on Trump yet. I expect that to continue, since I believe Trump is an honest man wrongly accused by the Democrats for political purposes.
Come back when Trump is convicted of something.
Poor lil’ Simon is shilling for the Clintonistas, and is probably too stupid to realize this.
In the world of the left, if you are an opponent, accusation is the equivalent of conviction. If you are a supporter, even conviction doesn’t mean you are guilty.
“Come back when Trump is convicted of something.”
Well he has already through. Impeached twice, Trump University cost him an awful lot of money paying for his guilt and these tax charges look damning. But ok Tom let’s wait and see.
And once again, Simon has to try and distract from the fact that he is beclowning himself once again.
Your hatred for Trump has completely rotted any brain you might once have had.
Simon, one needs to provide such “proof of experience in the field” (your words) only when one decides to launch an ad hominem judgement against another individual with claims that he is a “small-time shill with no credible scientific background whatsoever “ (Barry Anthony’s words).
In simple terms, one needs to establish a basic degree of credibility (behind such rubbish) . . . in this case, BA has failed the litmus test.
It’s that simple.
Only science that agrees with your beliefs qualifies as science. Everyone else, not matter how well reasoned and documented, are dismissed as shills and unscientific.
I see that you are still trying to claim that only when an article is reviewed by your fellow climate scientists, is a paper deemed to be true.
“Surely you hold credible research in high regard, as opposed to the childish posturing of a bad actor?”
Mmmmm. I wouldn’t be so fast to say that.
Since that is what you do, I can see why you would be sympathetic for such a position.
Your ad hominem attacks on Willis and others does not serve you well. In science, unlike in a court of law, the argument is expected to stand on its own merit, not on the perceived character of the person writing the words.
If you insist on claiming that the character or competence of someone is pertinent, then you should be willing to show that you are qualified to pass judgement on those you are denigrating. You seem unwilling to do that. What conclusions can readers reach from your unwillingness to demonstrate you are at least Willis’ peer?
Barry, thanks for your comments. The response from the fine people who frequent this blog are very informative. They show how wrong you are. Even the IPCC doesn’t trust models. But stop the name calling. It only makes you look intellectually challenged, ugly, and rude.
So no credentials, so you admit to being a rank hypocrite, got it.
Isn’t it fascinating how everyone who disagrees with the climate narrative is a shill.
It’s almost as if he’s reading from a script and has absolutely no ability to think for himself.
it is a script and if this were a phone call we would here pages turning.
Reminds me of my experiences with calling an Indian/Pakistani service center for help with my computer. They lead with, “Are you sure it is plugged in?” followed by “Have you tried turning it off and back on?” followed in turn by, “Just a moment, I have to check something. I’ll be right back.”
Just don’t put your coffee cup in the cup holder.
By this, I assume you mean their use in predicting post-design direct observations?
Barry– just something to soak your mind in: when you come in swinging with ad hominem attacks and aspersion, you demonstrate that you are not interested in scientific debate. Rather you only care about being right. What might help your argument is if you drop the ad hominem attacks and aspersions and answer claims and counter-claims based directly on facts. Please demonstrate to us that you understand what you are talking about. I don’t know you but the way you behave here suggests anger and bitterness, not reasonableness and intelligence.
It would enhance his ability to engage in scientific debate, if he would actually try to engage in scientific debate. Dismissing anyone who disagrees with his beliefs as a shill seems to be the limit of his abilities.
Barry Anthony, the earth has been warming for the last 150 years, maybe even longer, and will in all probability continue to warm for another 150 years or more. Every climate model which predicts global warming will be proven over time to have gotten at least that part of it right.
My own interest in this debate focuses on the public policy aspects of the global warming question.
The Biden Administration is attempting to revive the Obama era Clean Power Plan, or at least the regulatory policy approach behind the CPP which focuses on coal and natural gas, but which ignores all other sources of America’s carbon emissions. A consortium of state attorney generals is opposing this policy approach in the courts.
My view has been that the CPP is intentionally constructed to fail in the courts, because it does not treat all carbon emissions equally and therefore does not effect all sectors of the economy and all political and demographic groups with equal force.
The alternative approach to the CPP — one which could be very powerful in controlling all of America’s carbon emissions but which has not so far been used — is for the EPA to classify carbon emissions as ‘criteria pollutants’ and to publish a Clean Air Act Section 108 Endanger Finding for carbon using 2009’s Section 202 finding as the model.
Taking this approach opens up a whole slew of EPA regulatory tools which are much more likely to survive in the courts than is a revival of the CPP and its policy of focusing on coal and natural.
Mr. Anthony, can you answer this question for me. Why aren’t climate activists pushing the Biden Administration to use the Section 108 approach for regulating carbon, an approach which is much more likely than a revived CPP to survive a court challenge?
What is your regulatory solution for AGW, specifically in regards to energy and environmental policy?
There is no problem that needs a solution.
The tiny bit of warming that the world has enjoyed over the last 150 years is entirely beneficial.
More CO2 in the atmosphere is very beneficial.
There has been no increase in the number or intensity of storms.
There has been no increase in the number or intensity of floods.
There has been no increase in the number or intensity of droughts.
Add in every carbon atom in your body came from CO2. CO2 is necessary for the carbon life forms here on earth how can it be a pollutant? Oh by the way we have not found any non carbon base life yet.
And driving atmospheric CO2 well outside the natural cycle can’t in any way, shape, or form be called a net positive, Mal.
What is this “natural cycle” that wads your panties so severely?
What’s so magical about 280ppm? As I’ve pointed out, in the not to distant past (from a geological point of view) CO2 levels were more than 20 times greater. If levels drop to 150ppm, plants at sea level start dying. Above sea level, they start dying at slightly higher concentrations.
Are you actually trying to claim that any change caused by man is bad and doesn’t need to be proven?
>>
There has been no increase in the number or intensity of storms.<< That’s a lie. As always, science catches liars sooner or later. https://www.eenews.net/articles/scientists-see-old-hurricane-predictions-coming-true/
EE News is not a peer-reviewed journal, rather it is a trade mag. By your own standards, you FAIL.
EE stands for electrical engineering. So by Barry’s own criteria, they aren’t qualified to have an opinion on this subject.
What is it about you and your desire to make a fool of yourself.
Even the guys who gather the data have admitted that ALL of the increase is in small storms that only last a few hours to day. These storms were often missed prior to the satellite era. In other words, even the scientists agree that there has been no increase in the number of storms, just in the number of storms spotted.
This is what Liz Bentley the Chief Executive of the UK Royal Meteorological Society said on BBC Radio 4 ‘World at One’ on 17th Feb 2022 in relation to the storms currently affecting the UK.
“If you look back over the last,say, fifty years or so there is not a compelling trend that we’ve seen in the amount of storms we get in the UK”
“We are not seeing any significant changes or trends within the number of storms or maximum wind gusts over the last five decades”
Barry Anthony asks: “What is your regulatory solution for AGW, specifically in regards to energy and environmental policy?”
Let’s assume for purposes of discussion that Congress refuses to fund the Green New Deal.
Back in the fall of 2021, I did an analysis which examines the question of how far the Executive Branch of the US Government could go under current environmental and national security law, using only its existing authorities, in taking bold regulatory action to reduce all of America’s carbon emissions, not just those from coal and natural gas:
The Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP)
These are the eight major elements of the September 2021 version of the SSCECP:
I: Establish the legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions (1941-2021. Status ‘Complete’)
II: Declare a Climate Emergency, declare a Carbon Pollution Emergency, and publish a Climate Crisis Response Plan (2021-2022)
III: Expand and extend federal regulation and control of all carbon emissions (2022)
IV: Establish an expanded carbon emission regulation program managed by the EPA (2022)
V: Establish a carbon fuel rationing program managed by the Department of Energy (2022)
VI: Establish a process for expedited energy project siting, permitting, and approval. (2022)
VII: Publish and implement a National Energy Infrastructure Transition Plan (2022)
VIII: Perform ongoing GHG reduction monitoring & control activities (2023 through 2050)
The details of each SSCECP major element are included in the above analysis.
FYI, I am now in the process of updating the SSCECP to be in better alignment with recent developments in the ongoing saga of how and why the climate activists will not use the full authority of the federal government in regulating all of America’s GHG’s, not just those from the energy sector.
My latest update to the SSCECP analysis will be finished in a month or so. But in the meantime, let’s ask if Joe Biden has a credible plan for meeting his climate action goals.
America’s carbon emissions are roughly 17% of world emissions. A fundamental issue climate activists must address is how to convince China, India, and the developing nations that they should abandon fossil fuels and should instead rely on wind, solar, and nuclear for their long term energy needs.
The argument is being made that America’s leadership in quickly reducing our own carbon emissions is a prerequisite for convincing China and India to reduce theirs.
The problem with that argument is that a credible plan must be presented by the Biden Administration which demonstrates that America can in fact meet its stated GHG reduction targets — net zero in the power generation sector by 2035 and net zero for the American economy as a whole by 2050.
Here are just a few of the things a credible plan must contain:
– A hard numbers estimate for what portion of Net Zero must be achieved through renewable energy development and what portion must be achieved through the imposition of strict energy conservation measures.
– A detailed, hard numbers estimate for the renewable energy resources America will be producing and consuming in 2035, identified and quantified as hard target objectives.
– A revised set of grid reliability planning objectives which is consistent with the realities of wind and solar’s intermittency.
– The numbers of wind turbines required, their nameplate capacities, their proposed locations, and their estimated capacity factors in the locations where these wind turbines are to be sited.
– The numbers of grid-scale solar farms required, their nameplate capacities, their proposed locations, and their estimated capacity factors in the locations where these solar farms are to be sited.
– The numbers of roof-top solar systems required, their nameplate capacities, their technical configurations, and their proposed distribution among business and residential structures.
– The numbers of grid-scale backup energy facilities required, their nominal capacities, their proposed locations, their technical configurations, and their estimated capacity factors.
– The numbers of smaller power generation backup systems likely to be required for individual cities and towns, and for large energy consuming industries.
– An inventory of the specific lands and coastal waters targeted for wind and solar development, including those lands needed for a greatly expanded energy transmission infrastructure.
– A credible policy and means for overcoming resistance to the Net Zero initiatives, means which may include abandoning parts or all of NEPA and reversing the decisions of government-charted local and state planning authorities which are adverse to wind and solar development.
We have seen nothing so far from the Biden Administration which even remotely resembles a credible plan for achieving net zero in the power generation sector by 2035 and net zero for the American economy as a whole by 2050.
As long as this remains the case, why would China, India, or any other developing nation take America’s professed commitment to climate action leadership seriously?
Barry Anthony, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you are in fact sincere in expressing your worries about climate change.
However, that being said, isn’t it time for you to start asking this question: Are those among the climate activists who are truly sincere being taken for a ride by Joe Biden and all the other big names and big organizations who don’t walk their talk of addressing climate change?
LOL, you answer a Question with a Question.
Bad form.
Being able to discern a positive slope for the temperature trend from a negative slope is not sufficient information to be certain that there is a problem, and if there is, whether it is severe enough to warrant actions, or what the best solution(s) is. It takes accurate numbers to answer the questions. The ensembles of model runs demonstrate the wide variance in the ‘projections,’ which should carry more importance than the nominal value called the average of numbers of uncertain accuracy.
Clyde, for committed climate activists, any warming at all that we observe in the temperature record is proof that the climate models are appropriate tools for use in making public policy decisions.
As long as the thirty-year running average trend of GMT has a positive slope, regardless of its magnitude, climate activists will continue to claim that the models have been fully verified by observation, simply for the fact that any warming has occurred at all.
How typical of a climate alarmist. Instead of actually dealing with the facts presented, resorts to insults and claims that unless one has the proper credentials, nothing they say is worth listening too.
The claim that climate models have accurately reproduced historical climate is easily refuted by simply comparing the output of the models to historical data.
The use of the word Denier is further proof that you have nothing to contribute and are trying to push a narrative.
Eschenbach doesn’t deal in facts. He deals in fake charts. Ask him to provide the specific file(s) he used to generate these charts. We’ll wait.
What if we ask you to provide the specific reasoning (including files, if need be) that supports your claim that Willis Eschenbach deals in “fake charts”.
Should be easy to do for one having your (hidden) scientific credentials.
I’ll not wait all that long for your action on this request, as I now realize that it will NEVER be forthcoming.
Willis always provides the sites and source code in the last couple the code is right in the article.
Barry is just a slandering troll, I suggest A) stop feeding his BS
B) I strongly suggest the mods shut him down for his slandering attacks on some of the best scientists in the field.
I’m beginning to think that his actual purpose is to hi-jack the tread to prevent serious discussion of the author’s analysis.
If you had read this article, and have any reading comprehension, you would have noticed that the author mentions having even downloaded an Excel file from Eschenbach. It is difficult to tell whether you are a compulsive liar, or if you actually believe your claims. If the latter, then I think you are in need of professional help.
First YOU have to show he is making fake charts which I have not seen you show.
Otherwise, what you are doing is normally called baiting him for something you have yet to show are fakes and that he isn’t here because he isn’t the author of this blog entry,
It is,
Ad Huijser
Who is the author
Willis wrote Into The Black Box three weeks ago where you didn’t post a single comment in, where Willis replied to many comments in the thread.
Meanwhile you lied anyway since Willis posted at the bottom of his post:
Technical Notes:
I’ve put all of the modeled temperatures and forcing data and a working example of how to do the fitting as an Excel xlsx workbook in my Dropbox here.
Forcings Source: Miller et al.
Model Results Source: KNMI
LOL you should slow down with the dumb attacks.
Hey Barry why don’t you get involved and write a well refuted article with your own research and words? Or do you find it too difficult to be involved and easier to sit on the sidelines deferring with out of context links and ad lib attacks?
here’s my “light math” denier challenge, Barry:
find me any official model forecast in which we can draw a horizontal line between two monthly temperature values 40 years apart, like we can in the actual UAH lower troposphere record
let’s see who actually denies reality lol
>>find me any official model forecast in which we can draw a horizontal line between two monthly temperature values 40 years apart, like we can in the actual UAH lower troposphere record<< Can you even articulate what that question means? The reality that major climate models going back decades have proven to be accurate against direct observation is impacted by this question how, exactly?
Insert nickel, the monkey repeats…
And once again, Barry proves that he is incapable of actually generating an original thought on his own. He just keeps repeating this tired and disproven mantra like the trained monkey that he turns out to be.
Translation: I can’t answer the question.
Once again, please define numerically what you mean by claiming “exceptionally accurate.”
Typical argumentum ab auctoritate.
“Citing an small-time shill with no credible scientific background whatsoever”
I guess we now see your true motivation. You’re a troll. A nasty troll.
MODTRAN is an excellent tool to explore questions of radiative transfer. However, the following limitations apply:
Modtran has much more “under the hood”, than is available through the UChicago wrapper. Unfortunately costs a couple of $K and 2/3$K per year in maintenance fees. Which is about the what old Fortran programs with a PC friendly front end driver costs these days….
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_order
The UChicago version is a wonderful resource for which students and armchair climatologists should be very grateful….parameterized not a GCM, with excellent radiative heat transfer calcs.
I would not worry too much about CMIP5 and older models anymore.
CMIP6, while certainly not perfect, represent a step forward in the simulation of clouds.
Older model are simply obsolete by now.
How can one know the global cloud cover in the pre-satellite era when benchmarking models with improved cloud meodeling?
How can you justify worse results, compared to reality, being a step forward? They need to find out why the results are worse. If it is discovered that it is a structural problem related to the simulation of clouds, then they may have to scrap the whole thing. Whether they can salvage CMIP-6, or have to fall back to CMIP-5 remains to be seen. I think you are jumping the gun.
Elbow here, nudge there, thumb there and there, put you foot on that, and shoulder in there.
Then close your eyes and squint, and Viola
To Mods.. Have you seen this article?
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/feb/19/we-are-afraid-erin-brockovich-pollutant-linked-to-global-electric-car-boom
Many Thanks
“The Guardian was told by the village midwife clinic of more than 900 cases of potentially deadly acute respiratory infections (ARI) among the approximately 4,000 residents of Kawasi in 2020. “
I wonder why?
Is it your claim that nickel usage is somehow exclusive to EVs?
apparently polluting the drinking water is OK in the name of Earthly Salvation
To be objective, the ‘Grauniad’ article doesn’t establish that the hexavalent chromium is a result of the mining. The chromium may well be in the soil and bedrock. Chromite is pretty resistant to weathering, even in the tropics. The Sierra Club has a long history of presenting problems that they attribute to mining, without supplying any historical evidence that the problem (such as arsenic) started with the mining.
If you know how something works you can model it. If you don’t know then you’re kind of stuck with what bits you do know and that just isn’t enough, especially where climate is concerned.
The current state of understanding certainly doesn’t warrant this:
The latest supercomputing technology will unleash the full potential of weather and climate data for the UK
Up to £1.2 billion investment has been confirmed for a state-of-the-art supercomputer to improve severe weather and climate forecasting,
Data from the supercomputer will be used to inform Government policy as part of leading the global fight against climate change and meeting net zero emission targets.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/corporate/2020/supercomputer-funding-2020
I’d give them a Sinclair ZX81.
That was my first pre-built personal computer. Had fun building new memory modules and printer interfaces.
Good analysis.
It seems that NO2 is mistakenly being used for N2O. NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) is not a greenhouse gas while N2O (nitrous oxide) is one.
Inhaling N2O, aka laughing gas, can be pleasurable. Inhaling NO2 is no laughing matter as it can be deadly.
Nice article showing how GCM’s are basically in their infancy and like infants trying to walk, they fall down.
H2O is a big player in all areas as it absorbs lots of the sun’s near IR, IR from the surface, and is a big factor in convection and subsequent clouds. This adds to any errors in GCM’s.
Focusing on radiation transfer in the atmosphere misses the biggest problems with climate models and all computations of sensitivity. The reason is the incorrect assumptions about the atmospheric boundary layer.
The boundary layer, first ~100 meters above the surface, is in thermal equilibrium with the surface, and eliminates most of the effects of warming seen in radiation models.
If you look at the atmosphere as multiple concentric layers you find almost all of the downwelling radiation assumed to be created by CO2 occurs within 10 meters of the surface. However, since the surface and this layer are at thermal equilibrium, the warming is lost. it simply flows back into the boundary layer via conduction and other forms of energy transfer.
This is the part of atmospheric physics not present in the current set of models or in any energy budget diagrams. In order to completely understand why, one only needs to look at the number of energy transfers that occur between the surface and gas molecules.
Kinetic energy transfers (aka conduction) occur at rates over a 1000 times higher than radiation transfers. In addition, all gases in the atmosphere are involved. There are 2500 gas molecules for every CO2 molecule. The total energy transfer opportunities are then 2500×1000 = 2.5 million.
Now consider a CO2 molecule radiating a photon downward toward the surface (50% go upward). Before the next one is radiated there will have been 5 million kinetic collisions. Thermal equilibrium is easily restored. The quantum of energy carried by the photon has a high probability of having already been returned to the atmosphere.
In other words, no warming occurred as a result of a radiation transfer between the boundary layer and the surface. Since this is where almost all the surface absorbed radiation calculated by programs like MODTRAN occurs, it is vastly overstating the warming potential.
Radiation transfer between the surface and the boundary layer are simply a small part of the total thermal equilibrium process. They provide no warming or cooling effect.
The final part of the puzzle becomes clear when you consider what happens above the boundary layer. More radiation travels upward than travels downward. The net radiation transfer is upward. Adding more CO2 will increase both. Double CO2 and you double the net radiation moving upward.
And yet, in spite of all your bluster, major climate models going back decades are still proving to be accurate today. Why is that?
Repeating a lie over and over again, doesn’t make a truth.
That seems to be a habit of alarmists.
What is more interesting is he doesn’t even understand the outputs of climate models and yet he makes the claim. I gave him a dummies guide to climate model link above.
I doubt he’ll be able to understand it.
If you opened your mind to other possibilities you would already know. Ocean cycles appear to have a direct effect on clouds. There’s been a significant brightening of the skies as more and more solar energy makes it’s way to the surface.
This was covered in multiple peer reviewed papers. The one with the clearest picture is Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001-2020, Hans-Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt, October 2021, Atmosphere.
What they detected were two key reductions in cloud thickness. The first one, just before the turn of the century, appears to be associated with the AMO. The second one, over the 2013-2015 time period, appears to be associated with the PDO. The effect of the 2nd one jumps out of the satellite data.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2014/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015/to/trend
As a result, the models are based on the wrong cause of warming. Maybe you forgot the old science warming, correlation does not mean causation.
“…doesn’t make me a climate denier or an advocate to go on polluting…”
Not a denier. Not a polluter. Well, bully for you.
What it does is make you a lambda headed for the slaughter. Because while you (and others) argue the minutia of angels on pinheads, our planet is being overrun by Comfasc warmunistas.
What’s your gripe with warming? Why do you model monkeys have such a giant cow about warmth? Are you even slightly aware that we live in the Ice Age, that Mother Earth is colder today than 99% of the last 250,000,000 years, that even a modicum of warmth would be boon for Life Itself? By the way, CO2 is not a “pollutant”; it’s the fundamental building block of all life, including yours.
You claim to be a scientist, right? But evidently not a paleo-ologist. What happened in the past is not your thing. Nor is biology. You’re a model guy. Fun with numbers. Pull some out and crunch away. Call it “science”. While weasels rip your flesh and everyone else’s. Go softly, go mincingly. Be a lambda.
The current rate of unnatural warming resulting from the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels is introducing not only accelerating sea level rise that will displace hundreds of millions of people around the world over the coming decades, but also drive stronger and more frequent storm activity.
There is nothing unnatural about the current rate of warming. The warming since 1950 is no faster than the warming from 1850 to 1950, and that warming was not caused by CO2.
The current warming is slower than much of the warming coming out of the last glacial stage.
The seas are currently rising at the same rate that they have been rising at for the last 150 years, a few millimeters per year, or less than a foot per century. The idea that this rate of increase is going to displace 100’s of millions is something so ludicrous that only a true acolyte could say it with a straight face.
There is no increase in storm activity.
>>There is nothing unnatural about the current rate of warming.<< Notice something? http://railsback.org/FQS/FQSCO2&Temperature-Holocene02.jpg
The Marcott graph is a highly smoothed proxy graph, sticking a much higher resolution temperature graph on the end is designed to dupe media types and other idiots but it is clearly nonsense.
It is a discredited paper your use of it 9 years after that exposure shows you either that ignorant or lying.
According to people like Barry, whether a paper is accurate or not depends on whether it supports the narrative, not on whether the data supports the paper.
>>The current warming is slower than much of the warming coming out of the last glacial stage.<< False. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-hasnt-warmed-this-fast-in-tens-of-millions-of-years/?fbclid=IwAR3y3VC1d-t2S6aCEeyoTepc-Z5Ok2_LmKrIQ72bHxZCLZCb0WHBxwEWl5I
And, the rate of sea level rise is an order of magnitude smaller than the lateral movement of tectonic plates. What are the tectonic plates doing to the volume of the ocean basins?
It warms and cools everywhere on all time scales. There is nothing, nothing unusual or unnatural about a 1C change over the past 100 years, which by the way exhibit both warming and cooling cycles.
Just for perspective, in Colorado within the next 24 hours for example, there will be a greater that 50F drop in temperature. It appears likely that cold temperature records will be broken for the date (the accurate temperature record for area dates back to the later half of the 1800’s).
The climate record is replete with temperature changes of several degrees over mere decades. A thousand years ago, sea levels were higher than today and arctic ice extent was lower.
Your assertions fail the null hypothesis Mr. Anthony.
>>It warms and cools everywhere on all time scales.<< Throughout the planet’s history, the natural temperature has been driven by seismic/geological, carbon, Milankovitch, and solar cycles. (And of course there have been impact events scattered in.) The temperatures and CO2 levels have varied as a result of these cycles.
But the current spike in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are well outside of any natural cycle. And we know that human activity is behind this, with the widespread burning of fossil fuels increasing the greenhouse effect by driving up the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The science is rock-solid. There is no debate at this point. https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/06/06/global-warming-isnt-natural-and-heres-how-we-know/?fbclid=IwAR2v1Oig0BSjIkP9I8SswXLV-QdDXkJqfPpbyjOtNzzQBeZGyhQhbB7Z65g
Except for the natural cloud thinning that completely explains the warming.
“The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020).”
Not even close to being true.
A few million years ago, CO2 levels were between 5000 and 7000 ppm, yet temperatures were cooler than they are today.
If CO2 were the magic molecule you believe it to be, that would be impossible.
You think that you know. But, you don’t know what you don’t know. The seasonal variations in natural emissions are much larger than anthro’ emissions. The sinks can’t tell natural from anthro’. Therefore, the sinks absorb as much CO2 as they are capable of, where most of it is natural. Anthro’ CO2 is less than 4% of total. So, one should expect its impact to be proportional to its abundance.
We are 35 years into this Barry. Here is a graph of the sliding 10 year slope of the Maassluis tide gauge (one of the best in the world). Note that
If there were truly a crisis, it would show here. And it doesn’t.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Not interested in what they think Barry. I am interested in what you think of the graph. How do you explain it?
How does this graph exist (an others are like it) if the stated claim on that link is true?
>>Not interested in what they think Barry.<< You’re not interested in the data of the most prolific and respected oceanic research organization in the world?
Stop feeding the troll
Being prolific is proof of accuracy?
As to being respected, it is true that other climate alarmists like them, and since as you have declared, anyone who isn’t recognized as a climate scientist has no right to an opinion.
You didn’t answer his question how come?
Here is another graph. The blue line is the 1year mean sea level at maassluis. The gold is best fit and the RED is what NASA claims to be happening. Note that:
1) In the 20th century, what NOAA/NASA claim fits with Maassluis perfectly.
2) In 1993, the claim and maassluis begin to diverge. By 2020, the NASA trend is completely overshooting the gauge.
So, either
1) Maasluis just happened to begin to diverge from the “true” sea level rise exactly when the Earth sea-levels began to accelerate.
or
2) the noaa/nasa are wrong/skewed or misleading.
Which is more likely?
Post the source link and supporting data to your chart, Mr. Lee.
I did the analysis here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zkTZTBfp6F6MBbY1pHShvzunvQZflYRR0yaJHNgNfW4/edit?usp=sharing
feel free to check it….although it is not commented very well.
The idea was to match the level of the NASA claim and the tide gauge at 1993, and then see how well they match going forwards and backwards. Going backwards, they were in lock step (until 1920 or so), but going forward they immediately started to diverge.
The original data was from:(actually I think I got it from pmsl)
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=150-061
Data?…you know what that is, right?
Oh no not the increasing sea level bogie man !!!!!
What do you care … you will be dead and most coastal cities will have been rebuilt multiple times 🙂
Most buildings only last 30 to 50 years. This is especially true when building near the coast.
When it’s time to replace the building, Re-build it a few feet inland in order to compensate for rising sea levels.
lol of course CMIP6 has warmer inputs than CMIP5
very likely true for every generation
in the absence of sufficient present warming, the past trends had to be adjusted
this was well-documented by Goddard ten years ago, using NASA’s own published data
what? were they just suppose to admit wasting trillions of dollars on a mistake? no one does that
Ad,
It appears from Fig. 3 that the CMIP-6 forcings are smaller than CMIP-5. However, I have read that the CMIP-6 ‘projections’ are running warmer than CMIP-5. Do you have any thoughts on this?
The 1940 to 1945 blip may well have been caused by the large number of sunk shipping.
Oil on the ocean reduces albedo, reduces nutrients available to plankton and hence DMS production, reduces wave breaking and hence salt aerosols. Both the latter reduce low level stratus leading to even lower albedo.
Sewage pollution feeds phytoplankton, farming run-off introduces dissolved silica which ups the growth of oleaginous diatoms which use lipid release to increase light transmission into the depths as they pursue nutrients deeper.
Tom Wigley asked ‘why the blip?’ even as climate science adjusted it away
I have a longer explanation in Anthony’s inbox.
For an idea of the results look up the warming crisis in the Sea of Marmara. It’s warming at y deg K/century.
JF
6 dammit, not y!
Oil on the water would also reduce evaporation.
I am impressed with this analysis, it is a new way to attack the problem, and gives very useful real results.
Notice how Eschebach never provides the source data he uses to create these bogus charts?
(He posted the links to the data from the charts here it is at HIS blog post you never commented in) SUNMOD
Technical Notes:
I’ve put all of the modeled temperatures and forcing data and a working example of how to do the fitting as an Excel xlsx workbook in my Dropbox here.
Forcings Source: Miller et al.
Model Results Source: KNMI
LINK
Ahh, the useful idiot Barry.
The Models are wrong. This is a fact not an opinion.
Of course you cannot falsify them yet by just checking their forecasts against the real world as not enough time has passed to be definite. Also you cannot run an experiment with the Earth to falsify them.
However, there is another way to disprove any hypothesis. All you need to do is show that it produces an impossible result.
So what would be an impossible result for an accurate and correct model?
Well what does it output? It outputs a climate signal quantified by the Earths global temperature. This output is compared and graphed to past actual temperature data and is then taken forward to predict the future.
All the current climate models do very well on the back cast against data. Remarkably so really, over the 20th century as the temperature data shows rises and falls so do the models track it with little variation, except for the shortest periods. Is that good?…….. NO!
You see the models average out a lot of the natural variation factors, mainly ENSO. The designers original argument for this was that it made the models simpler (true) and that anyway natural variation was so small it did not affect the main signal significantly. (false)
Now since the ‘great pause’ of the early 21st century, they say that ‘of course natural variation is strong enough to mask the true signal and for quite long periods, way longer than a decade’.
So now both sceptics and warmists agree that natural variation (mainly ENSO) can completely alter the underlying modelled climate signal. Indeed the modelled climate signal, of a greatly accelerated warming rate, as compared to the 20th century (four times or so), has been masked completely since 2001. However, the warmists say ‘hey trust our models this is just natural variation doing its obvious thing’.
So we can see that the models and the temperature records are outputting different signals. One, a climate signal plus averaged variation and the other, the climate signal plus actual variation. It is now accepted that actual variation causes the models to drift away from reality for quite lengthy periods.
Therefore the fact that the models are currently drifting well away from reality does not prove they are wrong. Indeed it is a behaviour that only an accurate model would display in anything other than neutral variation. It doesn’t prove it is correct but it certainly doesn’t prove it is incorrect.
So what would be an impossible result for an accurate and correct model to output, in a world where natural variation has been ongoing during the modelled period?
Well clearly that would be a signal that does closely match the actual temperature data over the short to medium term. An apple doesn’t equal an orange no matter how you cut it. Only in the long run would the signals align. In the short to medium term an accurate model must run either hot or cold
So, given that ENSO has been doing its thing over the 20th century, the fact that on the back cast run the models track the temperature record very closely in all its up and down short to medium term movements proves that these models are in fact false, that is an impossible result for an accurate model and instead is the sign of a fitted model
In their hubris the warmists, when fiddling with their free parameters to make a great fit with the historical data, overlooked that they were trying to fit an apple to an orange! Or perhaps they didn’t think anyone would take much notice of them if they couldn’t even match the past.
“You see the models average out a lot of the natural variation factors, mainly ENSO. The designers original argument for this was that it made the models simpler (true)…”
No, they don’t. Models do ENSO. Here is a video of ENSO in GFDL.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aX9nHyMP4L0
What they won’t do is produce ENSO synchronous with those on Earth. Obviously, because else we would be able to predict ENSO’s well in advance, and we can’t.
Models are models. They behave like Earth, but independently. So they have weather, but up to the time scale of ENSOs and pauses, they are not synchronised to Earth or to each other. But the climate settles down in response to the GHG changes etc in a predictable way.
Yes, but the results shown and compared here are model ensemble means. Any events not synchronous between models will be averaged out when the ensemble mean is calculated.
Therefore, for the practical purpose of using the model mean, ENSO is effectively not in the output.
But it is in the observations.
They are not even synchronous among themselves. Consequently, ENSO IS averaged out of the predictions, excuse me, projections. Other natural variations are also averaged out when model means are calculated.
Climate science is the field of endeavor where you can get the right answer, by averaging a bunch of wrong answers.
Well, if there is ever a need to model a twin of Earth, maybe they will be useful. In the meantime, it would be fair to say that that The models don’t do ENSO.
That seems unlikely because two similar signals out of phase will result in destructive interference rather than constructive interference. However, maybe it will still work on Earth’s Evil Twin.
The bulk of the graphs posted are from IPCC reports, HADCrut etc, not Willis’s work. The footnote of the article, by Ad Huijser, lists his sources. WTF are you complaining about? But please, don’t stop posting, we all enjoy a good laugh here.
You expect Barry to actually read any piece of work that is not pre-approved by climate scientists?
Mickey Mann? Is this you behind the Howdy Doody mask?
Howdy Doody? It is more like Clarabell the Clown.
Eschenbauch didn’t write this article, you are having bouts of hallucinations since the article Willis wrote was posted THREE WEEKS ago!
He did post the links to the data for his article which you apparently never read therefore you are talking like a troll.
The Author of THIS threads article is By Ad Huijser
Why are you again mentioning Eschenbach? He is not the author of this article. Come back when you are sober.
“And here, the remark that “the models’ output is always a reflection of the input”, makes clear that the CMIP6-models input is completely different from the CMIP5 input data, as shown in fig. 3. “
There is a very basic problem invalidating this analysis, as with Willis’s. The forcings shown (in W/m2) are not the input to the models. Instead they are calculated from the output, basically from TOA radiation balance, basically using arithmetic not too different from the CMC. That is why the output lines up with the forcing. It is because the forcing was calculated from the output. The real input is a set of gas concentrations, plus insolation etc. This is all explained here and following.
Ref 6 cited, sets this out, as shown in the linked comments. They even list the model runs whose outputs were used to calculate the forcings.
Nick Stokes,
You are absolutely right and I apologize for not making this clear enough in the text.The fact that they are output of the climate models make them the proper input for the CMC analysis. If GCM’s can reproduce the past, the derived forcing must through the CMC recurrent equation reproduce in the same manner the past as well. If not, the model must be wrong. And next, the calculated forcings have to be “plausible” in view of the existing knowledge about the past.
Thanks for the remark
The models are bogus, ergo these “forcing” numbers are bogus as well.
Good job, Nitpick Nick.
Academic point though. This article, Willis and the modellers you cite all effectively demonstrate that the inputs/outputs are simply linear transforms of each other.
Fine to be strictly accurate in your comment, but not relevant to the general point about trivial linear responses.
“This article, Willis and the modellers you cite all effectively demonstrate that the inputs/outputs are simply linear transforms of each other.”
No they don’t. How could they? They never look at the actual inputs, which are gas concentrations etc. They simply compare the output with something (forcing) that is derived from the output. And so they rediscover the relation from which it was derived.
because (as with the major error in the Hansen 1988 temperature predictions) the predicted gas concentrations are just the output of some other moderately plausible model, which should properly be considered part of the GCM
ultimately the primary input is the actual past temperature record to which which the model parameters are (poorly) backfit and which keeps getting adjusting to warmer trends as we constantly discover new and exciting ways the old temperature record had too much cooling
Perhaps you could take Barry Anthony aside and explain it to him because he is all over the place.
An excellent article. I will explain in a moment. Unfortunately the comments got hijacked by a troll.
The article itself is an audit. The procedure used is consistent with an audit, in that the audit tools must be different than the software under audit.
The results of the audit have returned a red flag. The inputs to the models from Gen 5 do not match Gen 6.
This is a big deal. Either the audit software is wrong or an error was made in moving from Gen 5 of the climate models to Gen 6.
Maybe the audit is wrong. No harm will result. Maybe the climate models are wrong. In which massive harm will be done, because the models drive global economic policy.
So, the audit should be independently checked. If it passes the test, then it must be brought to the attention of climate modellers to explain the discrepancy.
There should be at most only very minor changes to the inputs between CMIP5 and 6, because the inputs are from the past and thus cannot change. If there truly is a large change in the inputs then a very large error has been made.
>>So, the audit should be independently checked. If it passes the test, then it must be brought to the attention of climate modellers to explain the discrepancy<< And you will never get Eschenbach to provide a package of the *exact* data and graphing parameters he used in creating these bogus charts to allow independent validation.
Had you actually read the article, you would have found that Mr. Eschenbach did provide the source for his charts. However, as usual, you can’t be bothered to actually read what you criticize.
He is in the wrong thread, what a guy!
He is a true eco-warrior but not very bright
That’s redundant.
I see that you might read stuff but understanding it seems a bit beyond you. Perhaps we should rename you ‘Bamboozled Barry’!
Here is a question posed to that other lover of ‘authority’ Griff, he can’t answer it perhaps you will have a go?
Let’s just review the situation, CO2 has been increasing and temperatures have been rising, there is a recognised mechanism for this, the Greenhouse Effect.
I accept that, all other things being equal, a rise in CO2 leads to higher radiative forcing on the Earth and therefore higher temperatures.
However, this depends on ‘all other things being equal’. So have they been? A pretty key question don’t you think?
What is the main component of the Greenhouse Effect? Well that is overwhelmingly water vapour. CO2 is only a minor player compared to this.
So you would think any scientist worth his salt would have looked at trends in atmospheric water vapour over the so called problem period. I think that would be hard to disagree with, what do you think?
Well if you bother to look at such a thing some scientists have looked at it and they work for the World Metrological Organisation, through their Global Atmosphere Watch programme.
Mind you, it seems very few other scientists have been minded to look at atmospheric water vapour, probably because of this statement in the report.
…………………….
“[b]It is impossible for us to control directly the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere since water is found everywhere on our planet – it covers 71% of Earth’s surface[/b].”
……………………………………..
Not much money to be made studying something we have no control over is there?
So what did they find has been happening to water vapour over the so called problem period?
………………………………
“[b]Research has found that a 10% decrease in stratospheric water vapour between 2000 and 2009 acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over this time period”
” More data suggest that stratospheric water vapour probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s. These findings show that stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.[/b]”
………………………….
They also say.
………………………………..
“[b]A recent study showed that reanalysis data on high-altitude atmospheric water vapour, critical for the greenhouse effect, are not as accurate as previously thought. Water vapour data for the UTLS region from these reanalysis data sets have been compared to water vapour data from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) on the AURA satellite. These satellite data have not been used in the production of these reanalysis, so they represent an independent data set well suited for validation. The study found that the reanalyses differed quite a lot from the MLS observations, overestimating the annual global mean water vapour in the upper troposphere by about 150%[/b]”
…………………………………
Oh dear, what does this mean for the modellers who have been pugging this data into their models?
The report states –
………………………………
“[b]More accurate data with better geographical coverage is needed. The observed temporal trends in stratospheric water vapour are poorly understood and this demonstrates our lack of understanding of how water vapour enters the stratosphere.[/b]”
……………………………………………
Oh dear again! To finally put the cherry on the cake.
……………………………
“[b]The models that are used to predict future climate use reanalysis data to verify that the current climate is modelled correctly. The lack of accurate water vapour data in the important UTLS region will therefore limit the ability of these models to predict future climate.[/b]”
…………………………
What they should have said is that ‘CO2 rose and water vapour fell and temperatures decreased’.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2009/compress:12/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2009/trend
Best not to set the sheeple thinking, eh?
So what do you think? (do you think or are you currently going La La La in your head?)
I bet you wish you could claim that atmospheric water vapour and atmospheric CO2 are in lockstep with each other but the report kiboshes that as it states water vapour fell between 2000 and 2009 whilst CO2 continued its upward march, so there is no lockstep relationship between CO2 and water vapour they can alter independently of each other.
Water vapour rose and temperatures increased and CO2 rose at the same time. Water vapour fell and CO2 rose and temperatures fell.
Given that water vapour is by far the stronger of the two in the greenhouse effect which would you think was responsible for the vast majority of the temperature rise?
Care to give an opinion based on logic not faith?
Now this might involve thinking for yourself, alternatively you can just defer to authority and accept the WMO report, which completely undermines any reliance you can put on the model predictions.
https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour
Great summarization! I’m going to file this away for future reference. I am looking forward to the response to your questions.
Not much chance of that I am afraid. I have posted this a number of time on here to total silence from the usual suspects.
Where is Nick Stokes for one, surely he has something to say, I wouldn’t bet on it though, he can hardly label the WMO as a sceptical organisation.
It is well known that Antarctica is a high, cold desert, with very low humidity. We can reasonably expect that the Arctic and boreal latitudes were similar because the frozen oceans, streams, and lakes couldn’t evaporate water, and the dead vegetation covered by ice couldn’t transpire water vapor.
That all changed at the end of the last glaciation. Therefore, we can expect that there is more water vapor in the air column today than during the last glaciation. Thus, water vapor is probably driving the current warming.
You got it. Look at the near IR from the sun and how much H2O absorbs vs CO2.
These folks have become so inured to changing past data and “tuning” models that massive changes of the inputs are no big deal.
Your statement saying:
is a dead giveaway that what is happening is game playing. You don’t like the rules, then change them, who is going to know or care!
Predicting the future is very easy. Every years billions of dollars changes hands as a result.
Mutual funds are a great example. Start up 100 mutual funds and each year drop the 10 worst performers. At the he end of ten years you will have 10 mutual funds left out of your original 100.
These remaining 10 mutual funds will look like real winners. Having consistently been winners for 10 years, who wouldn’t want to buy them?
Only thing is these funds have zero predictive value.
Now ask yourself how different are scientists than mutual funds. 100 graduate and every year the worst performers are weeded out.
Good old survivor bias. Not a lot of people are familiar with the concept. I also like what I would consider to be its cousin, so to speak, the Anthropic Principle.
Get used to the phrase: “Extinction Trajectory”
If nothing else, this post and thread marks it out beautifully:
Not really. You get 0.3 based on the surface temperature. (289/288)^4 * 240 – 240 = 3.35. Or λ = 1 / 3.35 = 0.298 = ~0.3
But the surface temperature is irrelevant here. It is NOT the surface emitting 240W/m2 into space, but a combination of surface/atmosphere, at a much lower average temperature. If we assume the notorious 255K, then λ = 1/ ((256/255)^4 * 240 – 240) = 0.264.
Then, given emissivity will not be 1, the actual emission temperature will be somewhat higher, and λ = 0.27 may be more realistic.
Not quite. You may want to match the cloud options in modtran relative to their CRE. If the CRE is “adding” 30W/m2 to the GHE, then you need to check which cloud options over- or underestimate this CRE. Equally total emissions TOA should be somewhere around 240W/m2 (or below) with std atmosphere. Doing this properly you only get 2.15W/m2 for 2xCO2.
Further down the line there is another issue modtran does not account for, at least not this installment. It assumes a surface emissivity of 0.975, far too high. The lower the surface emissivity, the lower 2xCO2. One can investigate this effect with the spectral sciences installation linked below.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home
Doing this properly 2xCO2 forcing is quite precisely 2W/m2.
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-2xco2-forcing-disaster
It´s strange how Planck disagree with the greenhouse theory. From his book “theory of heat radiation”:
“But the empirical law that the emission of any volumeelement depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost s principle). A body A at 100 C. emits toward a body B at C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B at 1000 C.”
The theory of heat radiation (archive.org)
He clearly says that the emission of a body depends ONLY on what takes place INSIDE of the emitting body. The internal state, as Prevost called it. The atmosphere is not INSIDE the emitting body(solid earth), it´s OUTSIDE. According to Planck and Prevost there cannot be any greenhouse effect. I believe Planck and Prevost.
The only caveat is that body A can also absorb heat from a colder body thereby reducing the net heat between the two, i.e., it slows the cooling gradient but doesn’t ever reverse it even at equilibrium.
Obviously, in this case, the atmosphere is the emitting body. Your claims are refuted by this simple mistake.
Actually the sun heats both H2O in the atmosphere and in the oceans and also the solid planet (land). These both then radiate into the atmosphere which acts as an insulating body and heats until atmospheric radiation is emitted into space. However the atmosphere never gets as warm as the earth, at least while the sun is shining, therefore net heat flow is from the earth to the atmosphere during the day.