By Kenneth Richard on 19. February 2024
“Here, we have demonstrated a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in near-surface atmospheric water vapor in arid and semi-ari regions.” – Simpson et al., 2024
A new study published in PNAS has demonstrated, once again, that climate models fail to simulate what happens in the real world with regard to fundamental climate change variables like water vapor. This is a devastating finding, as water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas due to its alleged “feedback” capacity, accelerating warming well beyond what CO2 is said to be capable of alone.
The authors do not understate the significance of this climate modeling failure.
“This represents a major gap in our understanding and in climate model fidelity that must be understood and fixed as soon as possible in order to provide reliable hydroclimate projections for arid/semi-arid regions in the coming decades.”
Per state-of-the-art climate models, specific humidity (SH) should increase as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show no increasing SH trend over arid/semi-arid regions.
Per state-of-the-art climate models, relative humidity (RH) should decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show not a slight declining trend, but a declining trend that is “about an order of magnitude more than the models on average.” In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10.
Image Source: Simpson et al., 2024
A few years ago another study documented how wildly wrong 102 state-of-the-art climate models have been with regard to a 60-year temperature trends (1958-2017) over tropical regions.
The models say the tropical warming rate should have been nearly 3 times larger than the observations show – “0.389 ± 0.173°C per decade (models) and 0.142 ± 0.115°C per decade (observed)” – due to the assumed feedback response to CO2 forcing over warm regions. Instead, there is a “clear and significant tendency on the part of the models to overstate warming.”
These authors also do not understate the significance of this modeling failure. Climate models are not even realistic.
“Instead, we observe a discrepancy across all runs of all models, taking the form of a warming bias at a sufficiently strong rate as to reject the hypothesis that the models are realistic.”
“[T]he major hypothesis in contemporary climate models, namely, the theoretically based negative lapse rate feedback response to increasing greenhouse gases in the tropical atmosphere, is incorrect.”
There may be no other branch of physical science with model-observation discrepancies (failures) this profound, this fundamental.
Image Source: McKitrick and Christy, 2018
It’s been known for a long time that CO2 couldn’t do the heavy lifting by itself (global warming). Thus they created EGE (enhanced greenhouse effect). The idea was that a slight warming by CO2 would cause a major warming by water vapor. It’s never been observed. This post seems to confirm it–again.
They’ve got to keep the EGE in the models in order to keep the climate emergency narrative going.
El Niños and the Hunga Tonga Sub-Surface Volcanic Eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
Excerpts:
About 48.5% of solar energy to the world arrives, at the top of the atmosphere, in the Tropics.
Water Vapor, Tropics, is about 24811 ppm, at 27 C and 70% humidity
WV molecules are about 24811/423 = 58.66 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules
IR Photon Absorption
Worldwide: H2O molecules absorb 4037/(4037 + 423) = 90.5%, and CO2 molecules 9.5%; some sources state up to 8% of IR photons is absorbed by CO2
CO2 has a few narrow absorption bands; IR photons with certain wavelengths can be absorbed
H20 has many wide absorption bands: IR photons with many more wavelengths can be absorbed
Temperate zones: H2O molecules absorb 9022/(9022 + 423) = 95.5% and CO2 molecules 4.5%
Tropics: H2O molecules absorb 24811/(24811+ 423) = 98.3%, and CO2 molecules 1.7%
Remember CO2 plays a 1.7% role in the Tropics, which gets 48.5% of all solar energy arriving at the top of the atmosphere.
It is completely demented for the IPCC, and other GW hoax perpetrators, to assign any meaningful role to CO2 regarding GW
The CO2 and WV spectra overlap in places, meaning the rare CO2 molecules have to compete with the abundant WV molecules to catch photons. Some of these CO2 molecules catch almost nothing
The truth is that water vapor responds with a cooling effect. You can see it in Figure 10 of Miskolczi 2023.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf
Nice link–thanks.
Models incorporate numerous unphysical parameters and their own version of fissics.
Models are based on a fairy tale about “Greenhouse” gasses.
Anyone only need to follow the sun to know why the climate is changing and the different solar response of land versus oceans.
Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm until the permanent ice on land advances south and down the mountains.
The HadCRUT LST anomaly is tracking the accumulated solar energy anomaly on global land quite well
“their own version of fissics.”
Hey spell it gooder.. FIZZICS.. It is all to do with CO2, afterall.
Climate models justifiably use ‘hindcastng’ to fit the past, with the intent of making forecasting more accurate. They thus follow the von Neuman observation that “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” The climate models have enough parameters that the elephants not only have wiggling trunks, they also have sex and make baby elephants. They are, however, bound by one inviolate rule: CO2 is responsible for most of the observed temperature increases noted after the end of the “Little Ice Age”
This means that the other parameters can have any magnitude or sign, or even feedback as necessary to best match the historic temperature data (even the data that has been modified to match desired warming trends). It’s no wonder that some observations of things present don’t match the models.
I have done a comprehensive assessment of the forecasting ability of the GISS E2.1 model. Its prediction for 2022 had twice the RMS error over its grid for every month compared to assuming the temperature was the same as 1980 for each grid area.
The models get the overall trend in the right direction but they invariably warm the lower southern latitudes and cool the higher northern latitudes relative to measured data.
The solar energy predicts the observed changes well.
While, of course, we NEVER see confidence intervals applied to any climate model despite this being the most fundamental requirement of any proper scientific forecast. I wonder why…?
No climate scientist has ever been able to address this most basic of questions whenever I’ve asked them about it.
The water vapor feedback was created as a mathematical warming artifact in the 1967 paper by Manabe and Wetherald (M&W) “Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity”. They imposed a fixed relative humidity (RH) distribution on the air layers in this simplistic one dimensional radiative convective (1-D RC) model in order to get a better fit to the atmospheric temperature profile that they were trying to calculate. Almost as an afterthought, this fixed RH created the water vapor feedback. When the CO2 concentration was doubled in this model there was an increase in ‘equilibrium surface temperature’ of 2.9 °C for clear sky conditions. Today this is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity or ECS. The correct value should be too small to measure.
There are two mathematical warming artifacts in this model. The other one was created by the equilibrium or steady state assumption. When the CO2 concentration is doubled, there is a decrease in the long wave IR (LWIR) flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) of about 4 W m-2 – within the spectral region of the CO2 emission bands. In the 1-D RC M&W model, the surface and air temperatures were forced to increase to restore the LWIR flux at TOA. As the temperatures increased, so did the water vapor pressure to meet the fixed RH requirement. This was the start of the modern climate computer modeling fraud. This fictional water vapor feedback is essential to make the global warming magic work.
In the real world, there is no climate equilibrium or exact energy balance at TOA. The LWIR flux emitted at TOA is about 240 ±100 W m-2. In order to understand the atmospheric heating, any change in flux has to be converted to a change in the rate of cooling. The maximum effect of a CO2 doubling in the troposphere is a decrease in the cooling rate, or a slight warming of + 0.08 °C per day. This is too small to measure. Nor can it accumulate in the daily variations in temperature in the troposphere. The small amount of heat produced at each level in the troposphere is simply reradiated to space by wideband LWIR emission. There is no change to the energy balance of the earth.
Instead of talking about a hypothetical doubling of the CO2 concentration, it makes more sense to discuss the effect of an annual increase in CO2 concentration. At present the annual average increase in CO2 concentration is near 2.4 parts per million (ppm) per year. This produces an increase in downward LWIR flux from the lower troposphere to the surface of approximately 0.034 W m-2 per year. How can this cause any change in surface evaporation or surface temperature? How can 0.034 W m-2 per year have any effect on extreme weather?
It is time to shut down the climate models and abandon Net Zero.
A more detailed discussion of climate energy transfer is provided in the recent book ‘Finding Simplicity in a Complex World – The Role of the Diurnal Temperature Cycle in Climate energy Transfer and Climate Change’ by Roy Clark and Arthur Rörsch. A summary and selected abstracts including references relevant to this discussion are available at:
https://clarkrorschpublication.com/.
Create a totally FICTITIOUS Earth….. and base your models on that.
That is REAL “climate science”. 😉
Yes, it all started with Arrhenius. 😉
Wanabee and Metheral…. just added more layers of fiction.
The correct value of ECS IS too small to be measured… which is why it never has been.
And why, when ever asked to produce scientific evidence… they never can.
You are too harsh on Arrhenius.
No. Arrhenius got it wrong. He was contradicted by Ångström (I think in 1901). I haven’t been able to find the original paper, but here is an extract from an obituary of Ångström in Nature in 1910.
“Arrhenius in 1896 had given a very ingenious explanation of the Glacial period by assuming that the quantity of carbonic acid in the atmosphere had increased since that time. If it be assumed that the absorption is proportional to the total quantity present, it can indeed be shown that a small variation in quantity would exercise a very considerable effect on the temperature; but, as pointed out by Knut Ångström, the proportionality between absorption and quantity only holds when the quantities are sufficiently small, and he showed that the quantity of carbonic acid in the atmosphere must be reduced to about 20 per cent. of its present value before an appreciable effect in the total absorption can take place.”
I did see an article about Ångström pointing out that varying the concentration of water vapour caused most of the variation in IR absorption that Arhhenius’ experiments had attributed to CO2. Can’t find it any more.
Apparently, Svante Arrhenius was Greta Thunberg’s great-great-grandfather. So it’s OK to be harsh on him.
Knut Ångström, ‘Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre,” Ann Phys. 4 (1900): 720–33.
Also Knut Ångström on Atmospheric Absorption, Monthly Weather Review, 268 (1901).
Any idea what the viscosity of the atmosphere is on that totally fictitious Earth?
It actually started with Tyndall (sp?), but I agree with your point.
Indeed, the M&W feedback on water is fundamentally flawed. See last paragraph:
https://clintel.org/the-problem-with-climate-models-2/
The idea of the relatieve humidity being some kind of atmospheric invariant is just pie in the sky. There is no known physical mechanism why that should be the case. And even if it were correct the effect on the effective opacity in the 15 micron band, the mechanism that partly blocks the outgoing radiation, is negligible.
“The maximum effect of a CO2 doubling in the troposphere is a decrease in the cooling rate, or a slight warming of + 0.08 °C per day. This is too small to measure. Nor can it accumulate in the daily variations in temperature in the troposphere. The small amount of heat produced at each level in the troposphere is simply reradiated to space by wideband LWIR emission. There is no change to the energy balance of the earth.”
Good point. This is apparent in the visualizations of NOAA’s “CO2 Longwave IR” band as sensed from the geostationary satellites. This short time-lapse video is from last August, composed from GOES East images. More explanation in the description box on Youtube.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
“a slight warming of + 0.08 °C per day. This is too small to measure.”
If something is too small to measure, then you could not know how large it is. That requires measurements to collect data, which apparently do not exist.
You have contradicted yourself with that quote, and that makes your arguments a lot less persuasive.
I do enjoy your guitar playing however:
Roy Clark – Malaguena (youtube.com)
(Ignore this response. It is a courtesy dopamine boost to the above poster.)
Have a nice day
What did you told me the other day ?
Averages are measured.
Take the the +0.08°C / day as average, what it is and than your own contradiction is, as usual, perfect 😀
I need Hairy Krishna gibberish decoder ring for that statement.
It’s your gibberish I talk about, so translate your own BS
“If something is too small to measure, then you could not know how large it is.”
Oh dearie me, Dickie-bot is confusing a theoretical number with reality, yet again.
Don’t care who it is,… that is funny ! 🙂
Mr. 2000: In the Hall of Fame for verbal incontinence, this one from Mr. Greene should stand at the entrance, next to the gift shoppe.
Thank you for that burst of verbal flatulence
Your lack of self-awareness is spectacular.
Dear Mr. President: Once again, your loyal staff here to remind you to listen to Mrs. Biden and limit your communications to government servers. Once again, we are hearing from a Mr. Greene concerning posts under his name at some still-undetermined radio station, WUWT. This time, Mr. Greene said the comment showed a deep ignorance of math, science, and measurement precision. So, he was good with it.
If that was supposed to be funny, could you explain how?
Great comedians say that one can explain it, but it doesn’t get funnier.
I make no pretense to greatness, so here goes- WUWT (ha) is NOT (haha) a radio station!! Hahahaha, get it?
Oh, and pointing out an old man yelling at clouds is funny, too.
Chuckle. A very funny, and to the point post.
Thanks Paul 🙂
And the verbal diarrhea continues. Hint Mr Greene.. If something is small it cannot be large and smaller it is the larger it isn’t. Ha ha ha ha ha.
“an increase in downward LWIR flux from the lower troposphere to the surface”
What downward LWIR “flux”?
There is no downward flux as you infer. There is however, downward LWIR at the surface coming from CO2 molecules at the very bottom of the atmosphere. It has been measured and the number given is probably reasonable.
This energy actually enhances evaporative cooling at the surface. It produces no warming since it is well within the region of the atmosphere where conduction at the surface controls the temperature.
The extra evaporation carries latent heat high into the atmosphere where the energy is then released and easily radiated away.
Yea, a CO2 Causes Cooling Nutter
Charles says you need to stop insulting other posters.
Harassment – should be snipped.
“downward LWIR” energy, yes. This is usually measured in degrees C. “downward LWIR” power, e.g. in Watts, no. That has never been measured.
“Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere”
Ex falso, quodlibet.
Interestingly, it doesn’t seem like Roy is planning to stick around to defend his own words. That’s not very confidence-inspiring. If his book on “Climate Energy Transfer” was written by someone who apparently fell for the “downward LWIR flux” nonsense of the fake climate “scientists”, as it appears to be, then reading it is going to make you dumber, not smarter, unfortunately.
put together in your head my assembled ravings for the last 5 years:
We are in an immense amount of DooDoo and because this totally contrived and fantastical junk science are doing all the wrong things to save ourselves.
Every one of our supposed remedies is making it all worse – that clock-like ‘thing’ in your wall is telling you that
You need to be sedated.
Maybe so, but I upvoted him for pure entertainment value.
Fair comment
Me too! (I do read Peta’s comments – as they sometimes make eminent sense. Tempted to graph them against phases of the Moon, actually, but how do you measure sense?)
Sense:
harassment – should be snipped
Rather to be pitied than scorned, would be the Irish way of saying it.
You are pitied…. and scorned.
Wouldn’t have it any other way!
Of course they get it wrong. Because nobody knows how nature sets the humidity and relative humidity. Take the oceans. The relative humidity is on a clear day somewhere in the range 70 to 80%. Why is it not 60% or 90% or 100% (which it sometimes is in the morning with sea fog). Because it is an open system. What determines the relative humidity in an open system? Nobody really knows. Forget Clausius Clapeyron, that relates to a closed system in thermodynamic equilibrium, and the atmosphere is neither. Ignorance abounds in climate ‘science’.
Disagreeing with government models is a basis for fraud. Arrest mother nature now.
I think you mean “Arrest Birthing Person Nature, NOW!”
It cant be fixed. They may be able to better fit it but that’s the best they can do.
GCMs are not based in physics no matter what they claim. They may contain some calculations that are simplified physics but the moment they add any parameters in a stepwise calculation with the next step building on the previous one, they are not calculating with physics, they’re fitting a result.
It simply doesn’t matter how complex they make the models, their output is still nothing more than a linear projection that continues forever into the future. I can duplicate each of them with a ruler, a pencil, and a piece of graph paper. There isn’t any way this describes the Earth’s biosphere, it would mean that there will never be another ice age. Their foggy crystal ball gets foggier every single day.
This may explain why the CMIP3 multi-model mean isn’t warming as fast as observations:
You mean explain it because the model errors are all fitted such that overall, they model about the right amount of warming (not too little by the look of that) even though the actual factors such as humidity, rainfall, true surface temperature, OHC and so on are all out?
Ignore him. Coach Nick put him in the game to commit the intentional.
Two pointless, meaningless graphs.
The model mean is meaningless. It is mathematical idiocy to pretend a whole bunch of WRONG can be averaged to anything of any meaning.
GISS is manufactured from large amounts of really bad urban sites, then homogenised and adjusted until they got what the wanted.
It bears absolutely zero resemblance to anything real.
So you have managed to graph two totally FAKE and MEANINGLESS series against each other
…. well done. 😉
The really bizarre thing is that you actually think it means anything !!
It could be that GISS is underestimating the warming trend recently. Your favourite, UAH, is showing the fastest warming trend of all the global temperature data sets over the past 10-years, so maybe GISS does need a little ‘tweak’?
Looks like I said the same thing 1.5 hours later. Please do not confuse bNasty2000 with data — he wakes up thoroughly confused every morning, and you could send him over the edge.
Thanks for the chart. I had speculated in my comment that UAH shows more warming than surface data with El Ninos, and there were two El Nino heat spikes in the past 10 years.
30 seconds of semi-wakefulness when I wake up…
beats being perpetually confused, as dickie seems to be.
Poor Dickie… always “over the edge”.
Oh dear.. change the time period in a vain attempt to hide your FAKE data.
Then use the El Nino spike , which always affects the atmosphere more…. to show a trend.
You really are getting desperate.
I was just pointing out that what you call “totally fake and meaningless data” (quoted without the unnecessary shouting) must include UAH, in your view.
Over the longer term, UAH and GISS are in agreement as to trend, within their respective uncertainty ranges.
(Try not to shout, if you’re going to reply to this. The mods have noticed. I would hate to see you being banned.)
Please show in GISS where all temperatures after 1998 except the 2015 and 2023 El Ninos are below the 1998 El Nino.
UAH shows no-warming for most of the time. GISS shows linear warming because it is designed and fabricated to do so.
This sentence doesn’t make any sense…?
But it shows a long-term warming trend on a par with that shown in GISS.
Then it follows that UAH also shows ‘fabricated’ warming; but you don’t agree with that either!
You have some compromising to do with yourself, b-nasty.
WRONG… yet again
UAH shows no warming for most of the time.. 35+ years of no-warming.
The only warming is from El Nino events, as you keep proving by using them to create monkey-like linear trends..
There is no warming from 1980-1997, no warming from 2001-2015 (before the El Nino).
and slight cooling from after the 2015 El Nino until the start of the 2023 EL Nino.
Your total DENIAL of what the data actually shows, in preference to a nonsense monkey-like linear trend, says all that needs to be said about your scientific and mathematical aptitude.
Lol! Can you show a 35-year period in UAH that shows no warming?
You can’t. It doesn’t exist.
Here’s a prediction that doesn’t need a model:
B-nasty will now arm wave, like a windmill on steroids, trying to blame all the observed warming in UAH on El Nino, without mentioning its counterbalancing cooling phase, La Nina.
Stand back and watch….
Again, you have shown that you do not have the capacity to understand basic English
There is NO WARMING in the UAH data except for at El Nino events.
Those events take up less that 10 years of the data.
Therefore for 35 years of the 45 year data there is no warming.
Even you are capable of basic mathematics, surely !!
Again we see that fungal doesn’t not understand El Nino and La Nina.
Nothing new there.
“Please show in GISS where all temperatures after 1998 except the 2015 and 2023 El Ninos are below the 1998 El Nino.”
Sorry you have basic comprehension issues… your problem, not mine.
In UAH, all temperature apart from the peak of the 2015/16 El Nino and the 2023 El Nino are below the 1998 El Nino.
In GISS, basically everything is above 1998.
GISS is a lie. !
And thanks for pointing out that even GISS can’t hide the NO-WARMING between the 2015 and 2023 El Ninos.
The “adjustments™” to “fix” that, will come later. 😉
Eh?
Between 2015-2023 GISS warmed at +0.11C per decade.
Can we add ‘inability to read charts’ to your bourgeoning CV, wee b-nasty?
Again, the use of those beloved NATURAL El Ninos.
Very funny !
I said “between” the El Ninos.
not “including” the El Ninos.
Please learn to read.
Honestly, mate, it was you who chose those specific dates in the GISS data, 2015-2023; not me!
It was you who said they showed no warming trend, when in fact they show a clear warming trend.
I mean, what can I even say?
You’re an asset to those of us who value the debunking of fake climate skepticism.
Keep it up!
I cannot help it is you do not understand the word “between”.
That is your problem, not mine !
It is the El Ninos that choose the dates.. not me.
You have your brain-washed unscientific “belief”….
And you have your El Nino warming events which you always use to show warming.
I just used the dates you posted.
WRONG.. …
The 2015 El Nino ended in May 2016
The last month before the 2023 El Nino was April 2023
That is what “between” means.
UAH has a cooling trend of about 0.1C/decade…
… and I couldn’t be bothered calculating the trend in GISS, but it also looks to have a negative trend.
You really believe a rate of 0.11K per decade is measurable, let alone significant? This is far smaller than the resolution of most thermometers.
Particularly when the calculations are based totally on El Nino transients.
He/she keeps doing it, thus proving that he/she knows it is the only cause of atmospheric warming.
Right, you’re now accepting that there is actually a warming trend over the period that you just previously said there was no warming trend over?
We got there.
“We got there.”
Yes, you have just admitted that the trend comes purely from the El Ninos..
And that you are well aware of that fact. !
I’m just reporting what the GISS data show, and contrasting it with b-nasty’s false claim that there is no warming trend in the GISS data over that period.
There is one.
Probably not statistically significant, due to the shortness of the period, but there is a warming trend there in the data.
Even with GISS you have to use the 2023 El Nino spike to get a trend.
Thanks for verifying that EL Ninos are the only warming.
My claim was that there is no warming between the El Ninos.
You have not shown anything to counter that fact.
It was your good self who proposed those dates, not me. And over those dates there is a clear warming trend, contrary to your claim.
You still don’t understand the word “between” do you. !!
WRONG.. …
The 2015 El Nino ended in May 2016
The last month before the 2023 El Nino was April 2023
UAH has a cooling trend.
That is what “between” means… after one event has finished, to just before the next event.
You need to learn the meaning of basic English words.
Your el nino theory misses the fact that the ENSO index would suggest an oppositely directed ENSO driven trend between 2015 and 2023:
Could you provide a quantitative estimate, including your methodology, of exactly how much of the observed warming trend was caused by ENSO-driven global warming? Can you also provide the physical mechanism by which ENSO might be strengthening?
While also explaining how ENSO can be strengthening given that the strongest El Nino events occurred in 1983 and 1998, respectively.
Denial that since 1980 there have been three very strong El Nino events…
… that have provided the only atmospheric warming in 45 years.
Facts… don’t let them kick in in the *** as you leave.
You can see from the ENSO index that they have not been stronger than 1998, so why have temperatures continued to climb? Is El Niño getting stronger, or are El Niño peaks simply getting higher because the planet is warming?
STILL in manic denial that since 1980 there have been three very strong El Nino events…
… that have provided the only atmospheric warming in 45 years.
You really have to look at facts instead of your warped anti-science idiotology..
You really can’t answer a single question asked of you, can you? I assume it’s because you’re a troll with no interest in actual discussion, but we can’t rule out sheer buffoonery, either.
If you think this current El Nino didn’t release one heck of a lot of energy, you have to explain how it heated the whole of tropical atmosphere by over 1ºC in just 6 months.
And please, don’t go down the CO2 fantasy path, you know you would never be able to provide a single bit of evidence of any human causation.
There are enough climate clowns already, perhaps you should join with JoBrand. .. you would make a luvly couple.
El Niño simply causes a redistribution of energy in the surface waters of the tropical Pacific, it does not “release” energy. In ENSO neutral conditions, the trade winds pile warm surface waters against Southeast Asia, and during El Niño the trade winds weaken and the warm surface water sloshes back across the Pacific, increasing the mean surface temperature. If we are going to say that El Niño is producing a long term warming trend, we must present a mechanism by which this is possible, which you are completely incapable of doing.
Still in DENIAL that the only atmospheric warming in the 45 years is from El Ninos.
Then compounding that DENIAL with a comment that shows you have very little idea what El Nino is and here the energy comes from..
Look up in the sky on a sunny day, for a really bright hint. (you will have to leave your padded basement first !)
We except nothing more than that DENIAL from you.
“The model mean is meaningless.”
Your posts are meaningless
A model average represents the Climate Howler consensus prediction better than any single model. It is an average of relatively similar CAGW opinions, with the main exception being the Russian INM model
NASA GISS numbers are not much different than UAH, especially when there are El Nino heat peaks which UAH measures as being hotter than NASA GISS. There were two El Ninos in 2015 . 2016 and in 2023 / 2024, so UAH will be boosted by those if you look only at January 2015 through January 2024.
The good news is you only made two wrong conclusions in your post. The bad news is there were only two conclusions.
“A model average represents the Climate Howler consensus prediction better than any single model.”
For a person who SEEMS to have a lot of knowledge how you can be so wrong is stupifying…averaging a bunch of wrong answers is still a wrong answer.
To bastardize Einstein, if they’re models were correct they would need only 1.
None of the models are correct
None are really models based on a thorough understanding of EVERY climate cange variable which does not exist.
The models are only opinions of the people who own / manage them, who appear to be Climate Howlers, except maybe the Russian INM.
An average of opinions used to program climate models is the climate consensus.
You’re no Einstein.
So are you saying that GISS shows no warming from 1980-1998
.. and no warming from 2001-2015
[snip, learn to behave-mod]
“learn to behave”
Perhaps look as Richard’s comment further up ??
All I did was ask him to show us.
I suggest you look in a mirror
There goes the mirror
I don’t use NASA-GISS or hadCRUT — don’t trust the organizations
I trust Roy Spencer, John Christy and their UAH
UAH shows the same warming trend, within the margins of error, as NASA, NOAA and HadCRUT.
Why do you trust one above the others?
UAH shows no warming at all for 35 out of the 45 years.
Only warming at El Nino events.
When are you going to understand what the data is showing you.
When are you going to stop using the El Nino events as you linear trend. ??
Let’s see if you can do simple addition.
No warming 1980-1997… 17 years
No warming 2001-2015… 14 years
No warming 2017-2022… 5 years
So yes, I apologise, it should be 36 years, not 35 years.
Also show us a GISS where everything after the 1998 El Nino is lower than that El Nino except the 2015/16 El Nino and 2023 El Nino
You KNOW its fake, so stop being a AGW Climate Howler.
I love global warming and have wanted double the current CO2 in the atmosphere since the late 1990s. How does that make me a Climate Howler?
I am certain, however, that climate change killed my dog
Noted…. you avoided the “show us evidence” part… again.
Wow. A MULTI-model mean. That really shows your (and their) ineptitude. 😉
IPCC, AR4, 8.1..2 [2018]
Models that are WRONG, cannot produce a correct model ensemble that explains anything. Why not just pick the model that most closely approaches the ensemble mean and call it the RIGHT ONE? Throw the rest away!
If each model is “testing” a different factor which causes a spread in the outputs of multiple models then how can the “mean” of them tell you anything? You might learn something from each individual one but it would only apply to each individual factor impact. The sum of those factors is not guaranteed to combine linearly which would be required for their mean actually carry any information of value.
This is something warmist/alarmists never understand because they suffer from modelitis which seems to greatly infect those who are liberals, socialists and Marxists, the cure is obvious.
The least wrong model is the Russian IMN model, but it’s ECS of CO2 is not within the current IPCC narrative of +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C.
Picking that model might make sense if you wanted to make climate predictions, but INM does NOT represent the Climate Howler consensus. So that would be cherry picking a model.
Even the Russian model is nothing more than a linear projection whose slope is constant for the entire future. My point was not that it would be correct but would be *the* model, right, wrong, or indifferent as it may be.
“If there are several standards, there is no standard.”
I have called models Climate Confuser Games since the 1990s and do not take any game seriously even the INM. If they happen to appear accurate it was just a lucky guess.
My theory is that climate can not be predicted. These are just computerized guessing games. But I can’t prove that other than listing wrong predictions since the 1970s.
I have another theory that it is impossible to prove anything. But I can’t prove it.
Except it would be ”cherry picking” the only model that comes anywhere near matching observations. So IPCC narrative is wrong.
Agreed, but the CMIP3 multi-model mean is very close to observations; so not ‘wrong’. They’re a little slower than the observed warming rate, but close enough.
No they do NOT match any real observations.
You cannot average 50 WRONGS and, in any rational world, pretend it is correct.. That is mathematical nonsense.
While I’m as skeptical about climate models as much as you are, hurricane forecasters would like a word about your generalizations.
Hurricane forecasters actually use and report mathematics properly. The further out they forecast a storm track, the larger their reported error bars.
They also do NOT average the various models to produce one “ensemble.”
An ensemble that is considered to be 100% accurate!
There’s a big difference between projecting a 100 years with an “AGW signal” and projecting a few days or a week from reasonably accurate initial conditions.
As the CMIP3 model ensemble demonstrate, they are very good at matching observations.
As explained by the IPCC, no single model is expected to replicate observations. They can’t be expected to predict the onset of El Ninos, etc.
But taken together, as an ensemble, the expectation is that, over time, the average of the models will start to resemble observations.
That is exactly what we are now seeing with the CMIP3 model range.
Mr. Nail: Above, you quote “this cannot be tested directly.” You bolded it, right? So you seem to contradict yourself. Maybe what you meant is, “it can’t be tested, because if we compared any one model to observations, it would prove the model wrong. So we create an “ensemble” of models to obfuscate the situation beyond hope. But that’s better than admitting one of our models could be wrong.” There ya go!
Before you talk about CMIP3 or whatever, were there parameters for that model?
You can call me TheFinal.
It’s a fair point and it underlines the general principle that ‘all models are wrong’.
That’s exactly the IPCC’s point: in a chaotic situation, where there are multiple natural influences on climate, it is more likely that the average of a range of model outputs will better represent reality than a single model alone; especially in the early part of the forecast.
“ in a chaotic situation, where there are multiple natural influences on climate, it is more likely that the average of a range of model outputs will better represent reality than a single model alone; especially in the early part of the forecast.”
That’s nothing more than a rationalization. There is no mathematical proof that averaging wrong models can result in a correct result! That is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Just the usual hand-waving to justify everything being random and cancels…
I dont know about mathematical proof, but there is a valid argument from “wisdom of crowds”. The real problem is that they’re all tuned to be what we expect, not what is going to be true.
Wisdom of crowds can never pick lotto numbers, for example, and there is an underlying bias of continued warming.
““wisdom of crowds”
This is really just warmed over Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”. Both depend on the “accumulation of real world experience” in making judgements about all kinds of things. The climate models have no “accumulation of real world experience” from which real world conclusions can be reached.
Agreed. Its all expectation bias. I’ve never heard of anyone claiming an ensemble has wisdom of crowds even though its the kind of argument I’d expect them to make.
What’s “very close”?
Are they the 0.00n C means, or the 0.0n C means?
Maybe the 0.000n C means?
‘Very close’ is as demonstrated in the charts.
There’s a hair’s breadth between observations and forecasts of warming. In fact, the multi-model average is actually trailing the observed warming rate in the case of the CMIP3 models.
GISS is NOT observations.
It a fabrication of urban homogenisation, and junk data.
The chimp3 model mean is also a total fabrication from junk models
You are graphing two meaningless junk fabrications and pretending there is meaning.
It is the exact opposite of science, mathematics, logic and rational thought.
For the wrong reasons.
Quoting the IPCC here is equivalent to quoting Mein Kampf in Israel.
BS!
If it can’t be tested against observations, it isn’t science
It is being tested against observations, so….?
No it is NOT.
It is one fabrication against another fabrication.
Against real temperatures.. models are a complete failure.
Assuming you are, as usual, dismissing the NASA data, which is derived from the NOAA, data, which is running less warm than the UAH data over the past decade?
Yet you will not hear a word said against the UAH data: the warmest-running.
Bizarre.
Again, using the twin El Ninos to show UAH warming.
The trend hinging totally on the very strong atmospheric energy for the current El Nino.
Thanks for yet again proving my point that El Ninos are the only warming you have.
You cannot test against future observations, you can only speculate.
Models are not data.
IPCC, AR4, 8.1..2 [2018]
Science requires data
CAGW has no data
The warming since 1975, even if entirely blamed on humans, is nOT CAGW.
Therefore, CAGW predictions are not science. CAGW only exists in the imagination.
Lol except yours right?
AGW requires data
You have shown that you have no data.
AGW (as defined by the IPCC) , ie CO2 warming, exists only in your imagination.
Greene –
”CAGW requires data”
AGW requires only consensus. No measurement is necessary…..
Greene conflates (confuses) Co2 radiative physics with AGW
Greene stupid. Lol
Dry lands cannot sustain the moistening / cooling fluxes, because they are dry lands.
A few runs on UChicago Modtran will clear up much of the water vapor amplification confusion.
Modtran allows you to select either fixed water vapor in the atmosphere, or it will adjust water content for relative humidity at temperature. Water vapor pressure and thus the number of molecules of water in the gas above the water surface increases by 7% per degree of water temperature at 15 C.
1) Save the base 400 ppm case to background. This is a clear sky tropical case.
2) Double the CO2 leaving fixed WV pressure. This means no change in water vapor in the atmosphere. Adjust “ground temperature offset” until difference to base case is zero watts.
3) Result is .77 degrees of warming.
4) Now change WV to fixed RH. This will increase WV in the atmosphere by 7% per degree of warming. Run again. Adjust “ground temperature offset” again until zero difference to base case.
5) Result is 1.21 degrees of warming.
So the warming caused by CO2 causes more water vapor which causes more warming….blah…blah…blah….BUT it is much smaller than the trippling or quadruppling often claimed and it is self limiting by Planck’s law (you included it by using ‘ground temp offset” in your runs).
Plus the planet is 65% covered by clouds, and if you run some Modtran cases with cloud cover and different latitudes and 400 ppm CO2 as a base case (instead of the tropical clear sky default case) checking against what happens at 800 ppm and fixed RH…you will find even less warming…
You can’t scare people about CO2 with MODTRAN or HITRAN.
The purpose of “climate change is to scare people until they demand that government “do something”
The actual climate is irrelevant. I’m building an ark in my back yard, just in case.
I find it useful in discussions with climate crazies to be able to say “Look I’ve run Modtran at double CO2 and it’s Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is already below 1.5, so our present crisis reaction mentality is way off the mark, and in fact is likely just being manipulated by political and profiteering opportunists.” The conversation then usually takes a more intelligent turn.
MODTRAN is very useful to the extent you have shown. However, as a ‘simple’ radiant transfer model, it’s missing most of the complexity of the Earth’s climate ‘system’, particularly in the areas of cloud and other negative feedbacks. Evidence of the last statement comes from extensive paleo data that shows that CO2 has doubled / halved (or more) many times in last 65+ my with little effect on temperature.
Best answer to the climate crazies is that plate tectonics and orbital mechanics dictate set points or climate regimes, around which the Earth does a pretty good job of maintaining stasis.
This is not how “climate science” calculates. Neither it is an “issue with modtran”. It is just a different “logic”..
https://greenhousedefect.com/unboxing-the-black-box
Interestingly WV feedback is not even based on radiative transfer models like modtran. There the figures are much lower anyway. Rather it is based on the dOLR/dTs relation.
The more we learn, the weaker the case gets for Human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change.
The “Climate Science” is not settled.
We should not be destroying our economies trying to reduce CO2, when there is no evidence that CO2 needs to be reduced.
No tropospheric Hot Spot. Can’t get the clouds or humidity correct. What next?
It appears Climate Alarmists don’t know what they are talking about. But we knew that, didn’t we.
Now, if only our politicians would figure that out.
They have figured it out. Climate and science are irrelevant except to the extent that perception can be manipulated to support an agenda, and as always the agenda of authority is to expand that authority and discredit dissent.
The big water vapor positive feedback (WVPF) is needed to create the coming CAGW fairy tale, created in the 1970s. That feedback can not be measured in the atmosphere, so its effect is a wild guess.
If you want to be a Climate Howler and scare people, the WVPF must be huge.
If you want to be a climate Realist, the WVPF must be small or moderate.
If you want to be honest, you say the WVPF is unknown.
A warmer troposphere has the capability of holding more water vapor. But with more water vapor, could there be more clouds too?
The answer is no one knows: There are no accurate measurements / statistics of global average water vapor or global average cloudiness.
But the lack of data is not important to leftists. The planet must be saved, they claim. Climate change must be stopped, they claim. And that can only be done with leftist fascism. Which is currently called Nut Zero, and previously called The Green New Ordeal.
These Nut Zero policies will not be accepted voluntarily by most people — they must be forced on us, and that folks, is called fascism. Climate change is just an excuse to get there.
I usually ignore every Kenneth Richard article because he is usually a CO2 Does Little or Nothing Nutter who will publish any “study” with that conclusion … and ignore all others.
I read this comment because it’s not fair to comment without doing that.
This has the usual Richard bias. Some amount of water vapor positive feedback makes logical sense but can not be measured in the atmosphere because it is impossible to measure the global average absolute water vapor.
SH trends over arid/semi-arid region is not a global average absolute water vapor statistic. It is a local measurement of dubious quality. Not a proxy for the global average absolute water vapor.
Arid areas are typically sub-tropical and include deserts. These warn areas have had the least amount of global warming since 1975, compared with the Northern half of the Northern Hemisphere. Therefore, the arid areas should be expected to have the smallest increase of atmospheric water vapor since 1975, Which is related to increased atmospheric temperature.
It’s likely a WV positive feedback will boosts the effect of CO2, which is small above the current 420ppm without that feedback.
Lab spectroscopy suggests +0.7 degrees C. warming per CO2 x 2, which would take 168 years at the current rise rate of +2.5ppm a year.
Leftists can’t scare anyone by predicting +0.7 degrees C. warming in 168 years.
So you add a big WV positive feedback and increase the number to +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C., which is from 3.5x to 6x larger than CO2’s estimated warming alone.
Then you program your climate confuser games to have those scary results. The Russians refuse to do so, but we can’t trust those pesky Russians.
Then you tell people they must do everything we brilliant leftist politicians say, without question, not because we lust for power and control … but only to save the planet for the children.
Richard here is a graph of emissivity of CO2. Please explain how it does what is claimed with a emissivity of almost zero at the temperatures and pressures we live in.
M.Kelly….I thought we went through this the other day. The lines on the chart are bar-cm, an indirect measure of the number of CO2 molecules absorbing and radiating. So a typical number for the atmosphere would be say .5 bar times 400 per million times 20,000 meters x 100 cm/m or about 400. Oops off the top of the graph.
Typical Earthly Temperature….say 15 C or 288 K. Oops off the chart to the left.
Also observe a bump around 800 K in the lower lines. That’s the 4 micron CO2 peak showing up in the wide band treatment. Down around 190 K (also way off chart to the left) there is going to be a big rise in all those lines for15 micron CO2 absorption but how high it goes isn’t on the chart.
So your chart is useful for what it was intended, which is furnace flues less than a meter in diameter, flue gases at 2000 K cooling to 400 K, with a CO2 concentration measured in tens of percents, which can be treated on a broad band basis. It is however not useful for calculating the emissivity of CO2 at a 400 ppm over many cm of atmosphere at a max temp of 300 K down to 80 K with a 15 micron peak. Hitran is good for that….
Have a look at the PSL NOAA timeseries site, you find a lot of data, all in NC format for plotting over the globe.
And you get “reconstructions” out of the NC in csv, txt, format for normal EXCEL diagrams.
F.e. rel. hum,, spec. hum., clouds all in different time steps, globally averaged.
And than there are you telling unknowingly in your absolutely arrogant attitude, there are no data. There are, you are only unable to look for, to find them, and as you can’t find them, they don’t exist. Childish, strange, thrawn.
There’s no such thing as WVPF on planet Earth. There is a lot of negative feedback which essentially cancels all the warming CO2 might otherwise provide.
If there is a water vapor feedback, then pan evaporation should be increasing. It’s actually decreasing. So now we have global dimming–another nonsense creation.
Models do not do clouds from basic physical laws.
Tom, I think the Global Circ Models try to use basic physical laws but it is simply too complicated. Check the diverse atmosphere conditions at a couple of differing locations from the skew-T diagrams available to pilots at
https://meteocentre.com/numerical-weather-prediction/
Do you really think a model can predict these conditions very well to start with ? Since it takes a weather balloon to actually measure them ? And then extrapolate a century ahead ? Complete tea leaf reading.
Not the ones I’ve seen. They form a cloud under certain circumstances such as a particular humidity level (typically at or near 100%), pressure, temperature, maybe using CCNs, convection, probably sunlight. No doubt more modern ones have even more parameters but that’s not using basic physical laws. That’s a rule of thumb tuned to mimic what we see in nature.
And because they’re what we see in nature, they aren’t what we haven’t seen in nature such as on an earth 1C warmer than it is now.
Interesting that models overestimate warming by ~300% in tropical climates relative to observations using models. When warming globally was forecast by IPCC in the heydays of global warming, they turned out to be 300% higher than subsequent observations, I suggested the mistake in the models was their ceteris paribus construction (‘all other things remain the same’). They are remarkably unaware of the Le Châtelier Principle (LCP)
which, not only states that all other components of an interactive system do not remain the same, but rather each and every component reacts in such a way as to resist the imposed change thereby resulting in a smaller change than expected. At the time I suggested their result should be multiplied by an LCP coefficient of 0.33!
Here is an easy to understand example of how it works. If you heat the atmosphere, it expands which is a reaction that cools the air, thereby resulting in an air temperature somewhat cooler than expected. Another: If you burn fossil fuels and add a billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere, 31% of it dissolves in the ocean where it is ‘fixed’ by plankton, carbonate shells, etc. A similar amount is sequestered by trees and other plants. When you then come to analyze the air, we discover that 60% of our emissions have disappeared!
Scores of other components are also at work in the system at all times, battling against changes of all kinds (like induced changes in SH and RH of this thread). The take home here is almost all “feedbacks” are negative in the natural world!!! Positive feedbacks are a rare exception (e.g.:nuclear reactions).
They also do not understand the significance of significant figures in representing the precision of measurements and calculations.
If Climate “Scientists” can’t even understand error bars and the importance of significant figures in their numbers, there is little point even engaging with them.
Knut Angstrom on Atmospheric Absorption, Monthly Weather Review, 268 (1901).
The remainder of Angstrom’s paper is devoted to a destructive criticism of the theories put forth by the Swedish chemist, S. Arrhenius, in which the total absorption of CO2, is quite inadmissibly inferred from data which include the combined absorption of CO2, and the vapor of water. On these
incorrect premises Arrheuius has founded an hypothesis as to the cause of the Ice Age, attributing it to variation in the amount of atmospheric CO2. The geologists who have adopted Arrhenius’s views should recall that his hypothesis evidently fails in the light of present knowledge of the absorptive
powers of carbon dioxide. Undoubtedly the aqueous vapor powerfully absorbs the terrestrial radiation, but no quantitative estimates of its effect are made by Professor Angstrom.
This is evidence for what I have been saying for many years (e.g. our 1997 BAMS article, “How Dry is the Tropical Free Troposphere: Implications for Global Warming Theory”): The cloud microphysical processes in the free troposphere are not well known enough to determine whether water vapor there will increase with warming. The near-surface air in arid regions is determined by this because the air there is slowly sinking from the mid- and upper-troposphere, so surface humidity in these regions is an indirect measure of free tropospheric humidity. This is also connected to a lack of a tropical “hot spot”, which in models is also an indirect measure of positive water vapor feedback. This all doesn’t necessarily mean water vapor feedback is negative (because most of the global boundary layer has moistened with warming)… just that it’s not nearly as positive as models assume.