Read here. Climate model predictions have proven to be utterly worthless and the newest evidence, as of December 2010, demonstrates they're getting no better. One of the grand failures has been Nasa's James Hansen's climate model predictions of ocean heat content growth. The model has ocean heat dramatically increasing as the red line in the chart below demonstrates. The actual heat content increase (decrease) is the blue line, which is literally flat.
The information represented in the chart is from the cutting edge, best-of-breed (Argo) technology specifically developed for ocean climate measurements.
(click on image to enlarge)
From Bob Tisdale: "...it is very obvious that ENSO and the distribution of warm and cool waters caused by ENSO are major components of Global Ocean Heat Content (OHC).....OHC studies such as Hansen et al (2005), however, do not include ENSO in their models. They assume that Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases have a measurable impact on Ocean Heat Content. The impacts of the failure of GISS to include ENSO and other natural variables in their analysis was illustrated and discussed in detail in Why Are OHC Observations (0-700m) Diverging From GISS Projections?"
Read here, and new climate oscillation graphs below.
The global warming causes cold and snow lie continues to be spread by the left/liberal propaganda machine.
Despite the name that suggests it embraces science, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) predictably agrees with Hollywood celebrities, and other publicity hounds, who believe that cold and snowy winters are now the result of global warming. Obviously choosing the Charlie Sheens of science as their consultants, the Union must be unfamiliar with the actual climate science, and the known empirical evidence. It's time to bring them up to speed.
1. Multiple climate scientists, including one of the most prominent NASA scientists, have stated that the global warming theory really doesn't support the Hollywood myth that GW causes adverse weather events. This includes the incredibly lame, anti-science claim that winter snow and cold is now the result of warming.
2. NOAA's forensic climate group of scientists have analyzed the recent cold, snowy weather and have concluded that this season's bad weather is due to natural climate oscillations that unfortunately worked in concert to produce bad weather. In addition, NOAA's real-world climate scientists also confirmed that the 2010 summer events, including the Russian heat wave and Pakistan monsoon flooding, had nothing to do with global warming.
3. And, regardless of Hollywood's and the MSM's claims, the UCS is amazingly forgetting the known science, which finds that this winter's weather is not so extreme that it lies outside the normal, historical winter variation of past years. (And by the way, over the last 200 years, the mainstream media has recorded multiple winter bad weather events that rivaled or exceeded the 2010/2011 winter, which this site would keep the UCS easily abreast of.)
[Note to UCS: One wonders if it would really be too much to ask "concerned" scientists to actually analyze current weather records versus past weather records before inserting feet in mouths.]
4. After multiple billions of dollars being expended on climate research over the past few decades, scientists have discovered, and documented, that multiple, natural climate oscillations/patterns dictate the cold weather, extreme events. This is especially true during those rare occasions when these multiple patterns get in 'sync.'
[Honestly, the UCS and theirmouthpiececollaborators must know this, but their fanatic desire to religiously push the global warming political agenda instead, positions themselves as obvious anti-science charlatans, or would global-warming-snow 'liars' be more accurate in this case?]
In a previous post, it was shown that the 2010/2011 winter was most likely a result of multiple climate oscillations/patterns working in rare concert to bring the northern hemisphere miserable winter weather. How about previous severe winters? Did a similar, past congruence of climate patterns also result in severe cold and snow?
As people with long memories recall, the 2010/2011 winter reminded many of the extreme cold and snow weather that took place during both the 1962/1963 and the 1978/1979 winters. As European and North American regional weather records show, for certain northern hemisphere areas those winters were truly brutal, and they shared a common characteristic with the brutal 2010/2011 winter: six climate patterns in extreme sync at the same time.
The climate oscillations during the 2010/2011 winter: (click on images to enlarge)
The climate oscillations during the severe 1978/1979 winter:
The climate oscillations during the severe 1962/1963 winter:
What do these three winters have in common? As the NOAA scientists have stated, severe winters are likely to occur if both the El Nino (ONI-red curve) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO-dark blue curve) are moving towards and/or inhabit the strong negative mode of their respective patterns. Clearly, all three severe winters (light blue-shaded areas above) depicted share those traits.
In addition, during the 2010/11, 1978/79, and the 1962/63 severe winters, the other major climate patterns (the Arctic Oscillation (AO), the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), the Southern Oscillation (SO), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)) were also moving towards and/or inhabiting the extreme ranges of their variation. The three blue-shaded areas of the charts reveal those rare periods when these patterns are in 'sync' during winter, which will likely result in harsh winter conditions in regions of the northern hemisphere when (not if) it happens again.
As a reminder to the UCS (you are scientists, correct?), these climate patterns are not a result of human CO2, nor are they a result of global warming. These climate patterns are natural, and they are also very difficult to predict the direction and magnitude of, let alone predicting a a rare synchronization or congruence of all the patterns. Yet some who actually study weather science and these climate patterns can make fairly accurate winter predictions well before winter's onset, unlike your UCS clowns that no one should believe.
Note: For the above graphical portrayals, the SOI was fractionally reduced for each month in order for it to scale visually with the other indicies. Also, both the SOI and the AAO (the two green curves) had their numeric signs reversed to better portray visually the rare direction/magnitude 'sync' of all six patterns. Actual data for each graph above can be found here.
Read here and here. The recent cold and snowy weather that some regions of the northern hemisphere have recently suffered has been determined by climate scientists to be a direct result of major ocean/atmospheric oscillations - namely, the combined, simultaneous negative modes of: the NAO, the AO and the El Niño. In the most prominent analysis, NOAA climate scientists revealed what the greenhouse gas-based climate models predicted in terms of winter precipitation (top chart) and what was actually observed (bottom chart). (click on images to enlarge; images source here)
By comparing these two charts, the virtual world versus the real-world, it is obvious there are significant issues (problems? failures?) with the government, bureaucrat-scientist designed climate models.
Those issues? One, climate models are totally inept at predictions and forecasting, even in the short-run of several months. Two, CO2 and other human produced greenhouse gases have little, if any, causation for producing severe weather, such as cold and precipitation. Or, three, a combination of the latter two, which help explains why climate modellers are sooo wrong, sooo frequently.
To put this into greater context of CO2-based climate models' and modeller failures, recall the utter failure of recent hurricane/cyclone seasonal forecasts for their being more intense and frequent; the prediction failure of the 2010 Russian heat wave; and, the concurrent failure to predict the large Pakistan rain/flooding event.
Yet, left/liberal/progressive "scientists" pushing their favored political agenda continue to proselytize the idea that CO2 and global warming are the cause of severe weather events, including the current severe cold and snow. Their denial of both the actual empirical evidence and peer-reviewed scientific literature is a conclusive testament to the left's anti-science mentality and propaganda.
This chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting February 1, 1997 and ending January 31, 2011. Per the NOAA/NCDC U.S. temperature data records, the 12-month period ending January 2011 was the 5th coldest January-ending period for the last 15 years. (In terms of a single month, January 2011 was 37th coldest January in the past 117 years.)
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 1.3°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
At some point, U.S. continental warming will resume, but the extended decade-long plus global cooling trend persists, contradicting the experts. None of the IPCC climate models, nor "consensus" experts predicted this cooling trend for the continental U.S.
With the continental U.S. having the most extensive thermometer network in the world, this suggests that possibly other areas of the world would be reporting a cooling trend if they also had the extent and quality of actual temperature measuring coverage that exists in the U.S.
As a reminder, the climate alarmist AGW hypothesis calls for total global warming, which is not happening across the large U.S. landmass. Obviously, the case for the AGW hypothesis (human-CO2 emissions inducing catastrophic warming) is significantly weakened by this real-world NOAA empirical evidence.
Note: A temperature trend, as shown in the above chart, is not a prediction.
Update 2/9/11: See U.S. winter tempertures decline dangerously at -31.2 degrees per century rate since 1998.
Read here. As all empirical climate research demonstrates, climate models are atrocious prediction tools. The latest example is a peer-reviewed study by a team of 9 researchers from the U.S., the UK and Australia that found climate models to be worthless regarding precipitation levels and intensity.
"Stephens et al. determined that "the character of liquid precipitation (defined as a combination of accumulation, frequency, and intensity) over the global oceans is significantly different from the character of liquid precipitation produced by global weather and climate models," noting that "the differences between observed and modeled precipitation are larger than can be explained.....say their results imply that state-of-the-art weather and climate models have "little skill in precipitation calculated at individual grid points," and that "applications involving downscaling of grid point precipitation to yet even finer-scale resolution has little foundation and relevance to the real earth system," which is not too encouraging a result, considering it is the "real earth system" in which we live and for which we have great concern." [Graeme L. Stephens, Tristan L'Ecuyer, Richard Forbes, Andrew Gettlemen, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Kentaroh Suzuki, Philip Gabriel, John Haynes, J. 2010: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read here. In an obvious effort to promote the political agenda of global warming and the control/regulation/taxing of CO2 emitting fossil fuels, the IPCC, of 'Climategate' fame, chose to make hysterical predictions of weather calamities and disasters due to AGW.
As is well documented, the IPCC predicted that the world would suffer from more frequent and intense precipitation downpours because a warmer atmosphere (due to increased levels of CO2) holds more water vapor. A group of scientists decided to test this theoretical prediction against real world evidence.
Using data from the Hawaiian Island area, Chu et al. determined that instead of heavy downpours becoming more frequent and intense that the IPCC climate models predicted, the opposite was found: less frequent and less intense.
"In a study designed to address this question, Chu et al. write that "for the first time, five climate change indices for extreme precipitation (four related to wetness and one related to dryness) in Hawaii have been calculated," based on "daily observational records from the 1950s to 2007." These specific indices are (1) the simple daily intensity index, (2) the total number of days with precipitation ≥25.4 mm, (3) the annual maximum consecutive 5-day precipitation amount, (4) the fraction of annual total precipitation from events exceeding the 1961-1990 95th percentile, and (5) the number of consecutive dry days.....Chu et al. determined that the precipitation predictions of the IPCC had not only not been realized throughout the part of the Pacific that is home to the Hawaiian Islands, but that just the opposite had occurred there, once again demonstrating the degree to which the climate models employed by the IPCC fail to represent reality." [Chu, P.-S., Chen, Y.R. and Schroeder, T.A. 2010: Journal of Climate]
Read here for a new review of all the ins and outs of satellite temperatures.
Per the satellite data, 2010 lower atmosphere temperatures almost matched the 1998 readings - close enough to be called a tie. Soooo, despite the impressive growth of human CO2 emissions, it took 12-years for global temperatures to match those of 1998. What gives? (click on images to enlarge)
As the above chart depicts, over the last 30-years, the highly accurate satellite temperatures reveal a per century temperature trend on only 1.4°C - a trend that is substantially below all climate model and IPCC climate "expert" predictions. In addition, the above chart also depicts a wide variation of temperatures, which obviously has little relationship to the straight-line, linear growth of CO2 levels. In fact, as the empirical data represents, major warming and cooling phases are predominantly driven by the large ocean cycles, not by trace human CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.
The most current satellite measurements though, as shown in this second chart, confirm that the per century global warming trend has now declined to an almost unmeasurable 0.8°C per century trend. This century-long trend, based on science's most accurate measurement technology, is literally a fraction of what the United Nations and national climate climate agencies predicted (per their antiquated, completely CO2-myopic computer climate models). And if the current La Nina extends well into 2011, the per century temperature 10-year trend may well turn into negative territory.
Clearly, the world's best and most advanced technology is now establishing that the UN's IPCC/Climategate group has radically overestimated global warming, by many multiples. And, as the latest ten-year satellite data confirms, global warming is on an obvious, observed path towards a condition of global cooling. Definitely not good, if that continues.
Read here and here. Alarmists love to speak of catastrophic climate "tipping points" that the climate models predict. A favored "tipping point" are the models' prediction that an increase in methane gas released into the atmosphere (due to AGW-warming) will cause an acceleration of climate warming. That's the alarmist theory.
What's the data say though? Turns out the Gulf of Mexico oil spill provided real world empirical evidence that totally refutes the hysterical claims and model predictions for a methane "tipping point."
"“Based on our measurements from earlier in the summer and previous other measurements of methane respiration rates around the world, it appeared that (Deepwater Horizon) methane would be present in the Gulf for years to come. Instead, the methane respiration rates increased to levels higher than have ever been recorded, ultimately consuming it and prohibiting its release to the atmosphere.“"...."What the Deepwater Horizon incident has taught us is that releases of methane with similar characteristics will not have the capacity to influence climate.""
The Central England Temperature (CET) database is the world's oldest instrumental temperature record. Its temperature data has been used in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies because of its uniqueness and accuracy. It also has the advantage of never being manipulated by NASA's team of globalwarmingfabricators. (click on image to enlarge)
What's CET's venerable temperature record telling us as of the end of 2010? It confirms there has been no significant warming in the 15 years since 1995; actually, it instead reveals a slight cooling trend (green linear trend line) over that time span.
This record is the total opposite of what UK climate "experts" have predicted, and certainly mocks the past shrill hysteria and incompetence of the UK's ruling elites.
Read here. IPCC and national climate agency climate models have failed spectacularly at predicting the ENSO climate pattern changes that results in major regional weather conditions. A new peer-reviewed study helps expalin why the climate models fail consistently: the under estimation of both the Sun's impact and a powerful negative feedback ('ocean thermostat').
"A report in the December 3, 2010, issue of Science has reinforced what many scientists have suspected all along: variation in the Sun's output causes significant change in Earth's climate.....This new work indicates that even small variations in the Sun's output can have significant affect here on Earth. This is unsurprising, since the energy that drives Earth's climate comes from the Sun. Monsoon floods and decades long droughts are both part of the natural variation driven by our neighborhood star, but every climate fluctuation that causes human discomfort is blamed on anthropogenic global warming.....Their [Marchitto et al.] work is in agreement with the theoretical “ocean dynamical thermostat” response of ENSO to radiative forcing. Here is their description of the work: The influence of solar variability on Earth’s climate over centennial to millennial time scales is the subject of considerable debate. The change in total solar irradiance over recent 11-year sunspot cycles amounts to <0.1%, but greater changes at ultraviolet wavelengths may have substantial impacts on stratospheric ozone concentrations, thereby altering both stratospheric and tropospheric circulation patterns.....This model prediction is supported by paleoclimatic proxy reconstructions over the past millennium. In contrast, fully coupled general circulation models (GCMs) [IPCC climate models] lack a robust thermostat response because of an opposing tendency for the atmospheric circulation itself to strengthen under reduced radiative forcing." [Thomas M. Marchitto, Raimund Muscheler, Joseph D. Ortiz, Jose D. Carriquiry, Alexander van Geen 2010; Science 3 December 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6009 pp. 1378-1381]
Read here. The climate modelers employed by NASA, the IPCC, the Met Office and etc., all claim that their models indicate a temperature increase of 2.5°C+ due to a doubling of CO2 (climate sensitivity). Yet when the model results are actually analyzed by experts, the climate sensitivity is likely less than half this alarmist claim.
This analysis done by Willis Eschenbach clearly shows that future temperatures for year 2100 being predicted by government-funded climate agencies have no basis in real-world circumstances, or even their own virtual reality fantasies. (This is probably why the Mayor of London is now supporting the leading UK skeptic versus the incredibly failed climate modelers of the UK's Met Office.)
(click on image to enlarge)
Another key finding by Willis is the built-in linear warming that the NASA model exhibits. Literally, no matter what level of CO2 exists, the NASA model will automatically increase global temperatures.
Read here. The images (below) from this article really say it all. Almost all the severe weather predictions produced by climate models that are based on human CO2-induced warming have miserable prediction records. This is especially true for global hurricane and cyclone activity, which the models in the past predicted greater frequency and intensity of hurricanes/cyclones. (click on images to enlarge)
Policymakers should reduce, immensely, the funding for the climate model quacks and any hurricane "expert" who got sucked in to the eye of the model fiasco. Funding should be made available to those researchers focused on why such variability in severe weather occurs, sans the human CO2-causes-everything-science of IPCC Climategate "scientists."
This is not likely to happen though, since left-oriented politicians (Democrats, liberals, progressives, etc.) do not support empirical-based science. Instead, U.S. liberals over recent decades have become completely enamored with the pseudo-science of Al Gore and other catastrophists.
Read here. Climate models are purported to be able to predict the climate and major climate components. These climate model claims are made mostly by government sponsored scientists who are attempting to sustain or increase their government funding. Their research grant greed and personal financial security cause these "scientists" to make false claims about climate model capabilities.
The most recent example of this gross misinformation campaign is the bogus claim that climate models can predict the ocean oscillation climate pattern known as ENSO. If these models had an iota of successful prediction capability, they would have predicted the significant La Niña condition that currently exists. Instead, as the image below indicates, all the climate models failed to accurately predict this last November (2009). (click on image to enlarge; image source)
The super CO2-spewing lifestyles of the billionaires makes many of them very vulnerable to the mega-rich guilt syndrome, leading to the support of left-activist oriented issues. A classic example of this phenomenon is the left dominated global warming fear-mongering.
Because of the guilt-complex, billionaires often will become the useful idiots of the anti-CO2 left. Thus, billionaires, such as Bill Gates, will condone and engage in the mindless CO2 fear-mongering promulgated by leftists, yet are completely reluctant to sacrifice his/her outlandish, personal $30,000 per month CO2 electric bill. Instead, the billionaires propose the rest of humanity should sacrifice by reducing their electric bill (CO2) to zero. (See below for the latest peer-reviewed article about climate-model-idiocy.)
Okay, the facts are still real world facts, despite the zombie billionaire dreamworld - reducing industrial and transportation CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 is totally impossible. And unless the billionaires are recommending that all fire combustion and human breathing be banned, the zero-CO2 idea is simply galactic stupidity on the scale of the stupidity that is exhibited by,....well....er....a 66,000 square foot house for a few family members, just for example.
How did Bill Gates and other Cancún-loving billionaires become so galactically stupid about global warming and CO2?
Simple. They've been infected by the computer virus contagion known as "virtual climate models" that only makes a stealthy jump from the Window's operating system (XP, W7, etc.) to very rich humans. It's been speculated that this stupidity-inducing virus was created by the combined effort of Indian/Chinese government hackers, in hopes of assuring massively idiotic economic and energy decisions being self-imposed on Western economies. [Caution: Attempting to remove this virus causes a human variety of the BSOD syndrome in those mega-CO2 emitting individuals already afflicted with megalomania and severe guilt complex. Removal failure is confirmed by continuous re-boot to the stupidity-state when confronted with real climate evidence and science.]
Soooo, back to the real world and no more Microsoft bashing in this post - what's the latest peer-reviewed science really say about climate models? In summary, one has to be really, really billionaire-stupid to believe any climate model's predictions:
"1. "the physics of unresolved phenomena such as clouds and other turbulent elements is not understood to the extent needed for incorporation into models," so that...
2. models are presently merely "experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable," that...
3. "current models depend heavily on undemonstrated positive feedback factors to predict high levels of warming," that...
4. "there is compelling evidence for all the known feedback factors to actually be negative," that...
5. "even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions," that...
6. "current models all predict that warmer climates will be accompanied by increasing humidity at all levels" but that "such behavior is an artifact of the models since they have neither the physics nor the numerical accuracy to deal with water vapor," and that...
7. "the models' predictions for the past century incorrectly describe the pattern of warming and greatly overestimate its magnitude." In this regard, Lindzen further states that a doubling of the air's present CO2 content might lead to a warming of only "0.5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade," [Lindzen, Richard 2010]
Read here and here. As 'C3' readers know, I'm not the least smitten with climate models. I think they are genuine travesties designed with a primary purpose of misleading the public, politicians and policymakers. These two linked articles are from people multiple times smarter than moi, but confirms a sense that climate models, and their practitioners, border on being worthless.
Both articles are a highly recommended read, as they are very enlightening about the generic climate model failure. Below are excerpts form one of the authors, a renowned, premier physicist, which are pretty acerbic and candid regarding climate models (and the climate model "scientists").
"The standards in the climate modeling community have dropped below the level of the stinkiest excrements, however. People don't mind being totally sloppy and dishonest because virtually all of their colleagues are sloppy and dishonest, too. The interdisciplinary comparisons have been banned because all competent scientists from other disciplines are called "deniers". This whole discipline has been filled with garbage people and it has to be fully abolished, all the people have to be fired, and if it is needed, we have to start from scratch.
The climate modeling community as a whole is bringing zero to the society and to science...If some of these predictions seriously fail, it's likely to be due to a serious problem with the model, and this problem is enough to invalidate many other predictions. To summarize, even the modelers who are sometimes trying to verify and (in)validate the models - and care about the results - don't do it right and deny most of the empirical evidence we actually possess.
Do models have to be better than a theory?...This is an important point and I think that Judith Curry herself would answer "Yes". The "Yes" answer is a manifestation of the "computer model addiction" which is totally irrational and unscientific. Some people think that if they use a computer, especially an expensive one, their scientific work is immediately more scientific or more valid. They think that their brain has doubled in size and a new aura of intellectual authority started to orbit their skulls.
What a pile of crap...A good theorist usually doesn't need any computer to produce the right answers to many questions, to make many predictions. He can sort the things in his brain. He can do the calculations manually. It's because he actually understands the relevant physical phenomena - and their manifestations in many situations. He knows many actual phenomena and many angles from which he can look at them.
The "fundamentalist climate modelers" are very different. They're sub-par scientists who actually don't know the physical phenomena and can't calculate the predictions with their own brains. They use a computer program but they don't really know why the computer produces one answer or another: the computer is a "black box" that they decided to mindless trust. They're not bothered by their ignorance. In fact, most of them think that it is an "advantage" not to understand what's happening inside the computer program...But this kind of "science" should be classified as occultism."
Read here. A new peer-reviewed study uncovers that climate models, including those used by the IPCC, seriously overestimated the impact on ocean and atmospheric warming, and sea levels, from both major and minor volcanoes. When corrected for, the models produce non-realistic results.
In essence, the IPCC climate models pretend there were no volcanoes prior to 1880's, so that the very first eruption in 1883 (Krakatoa) has this huge, long-term impact on temperatures in the model. Obviously, there were large and small volcanic eruptions prior to 1883, and when these are accurately taken into account, the the models' predicted temperatures moving forward no longer resemble reality. Summary: the models' predictions fail.
"The net result of this is that when the first volcano erupts into this virgin, volcano-free environment, it has a huge and long-lasting impact as the modeled climate has to incorporate this new perturbation throughout the entire system. The impact of subsequent volcanoes are less than the first, but still produce nearly additive results as the modeled climate is still adjusting to this new form of (negative) climate forcing...In his new paper, Gregory details the above-described model behavior, and goes on to suggest that if climate models were to be equilibrated to conditions which include periodically occurring volcanic eruptions, the impact of new eruptions is much shorter-lived and doesn’t lead to a long-term trend in oceanic heat content (or, thus, sea level rise).....This is major blow to the climate models, for it means that they are improperly handling the exchange of heat through the earth’s atmosphere/ocean system, with the ultimate result being that they are over-responsive to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Getting these things fixed will mostly likely lead to much more modest projections of future temperature rise and accompanying impacts. It seems as if it is time for the modelers to head back to the drawing board."
Read here. Almost all scientists agree that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will only raise global temperatures from 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The IPCC is well aware of this established science, so they had scientists add a hypothetical positive feedback to the climate models, which would then produce predictions of much higher temperatures.
Terrestrial nature abhors positive feedbacks; that's why the climate is dominated by negative feedbacks. IPCC scientists hate natural negative feedbacks because they automatically reduce future global warming, and that's why the IPCC climate models either minimize negative feedbacks or entirely ignore them. Unfortunately for the IPCC Climategate scientists, the science research continues about natural climate feedbacks, which has now led to a new major negative feedback being identified in a new region of the world by peer-reviewed research.
Simply put, Geibert et al. found as warming increases, more sea ice and icebergs are melting in the Southern Ocean. This freshwater melt decreases the salinity of water, while increasing the iron content in layers of the sea, allowing for a huge increase in phytoplankton blooms. The new phytoplankton blooms cause more CO2 absorption (i.e. sequester CO2) from the atmosphere, which is then transported to the ocean depths.
Depending on the specific climate model, this natural negative feedback of CO2 sequestration is completley ignored or accounted for in minimal terms.
"The authors write that "the Southern Ocean (SO) plays a key role in modulating atmospheric CO2 via physical and biological processes,"...the eleven researchers -- hailing from Germany, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom.....state that their findings "imply that future changes in sea-ice cover and dynamics could have a significant effect on carbon sequestration in the SO." And if those changes were to include enhanced melting of Antarctic sea ice and icebergs, such as climate alarmists continually claim will occur, the planet's deep-ocean carbon transferal system would shift into a higher gear and effectively sequester greater amounts of CO2-carbon from the atmosphere, reducing its rate of rise and thereby reducing the strength of the CO2 greenhouse effect." [W. Geibert, P.Assmy, D.C.E. Bakker, C. Hanfland, M. Hoppema, L. Pichevin, M. Schröder, J. N. Schwarz, I. Stimac, R. Usbeck, A. Webb 2010]
Read here. Déjà vu? This time it is a prominent German climate scientist saying climate model (climate experts?) predictions are worthless.
"We just know way too little about the various factors that influence climate and cannot possibly make any reliable prognoses”, says the managing director of Donnerwetter.de and climatologist Karsten Brandt.”.....It is simply nonsense. These prognoses are not worth the paper they’re printed on. The Gulf Stream has an impact on European weather that is 100 times larger than CO2.”
Read here. I'm sure the UK's Mike Hulme will be considered going over to the "dark side" by the green, anti-CO2 fanatics, but a statement made by him, a year after Climategate, is very revealing and important for policymakers. In a way though, some policymakers are way ahead of Mike on grasping reality with both hands.
"The events of the past year [Climategate, Copenhagen, etc.] have finally buried the notion that scientific predictions about future climate change can be certain or precise enough to force global policy-making."
Although he is stating the obvious, common sense view of the failed climate model output, it is critical that the bureaucrat/politician elite are finally starting to hear this message from the scientist ranks of pro-CAGW believers.
Read here. Insurance companies are seeking any means to increase premiums and profits. One of the current favorite approaches is to conjure up potential disaster scenarios, due to "consensus" global warming science, so that consumer/business insurance premiums can be raised with "expert consensus" justification, so as not to run afoul of regulators.
"RMS said the change that drove Florida property insurance bills to record highs was based on "scientific consensus."
To accomplish this task, all it takes is to rent a few climate "expert" bodies for an afternoon and ask them predict natural disasters based on their simplistic religion (ooops, hypothesis) that human CO2 causes global warming, which then supposedly causes more disasters. These are the great, scientific, climate expert minds at work, on the behalf of insurance companies seeking greater profits. (Hmmm....does RICO apply to insurance companies and their scientist collaborators?)
Turns out the "experts" were totally wrong, but what the heck...it only cost those pesky, ingrate consumers/businesses some additional $82 billion in hurricane premiums and policy cancellations.
Read here. A National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist, who is seeking more global warming funding from taxpayers for his institution, released a study based on 22 climate models. The climate models in this study erroneously project future drought for heavily populated areas across the globe. Why do we say erroneously? For multiple reasons:
#1. In the most scientific terms we can conjure up - climate models can't predict squat. Both peer-reviewed studies and actual observational evidence confirm the total prediction failures of climate models and "expert" scientists.
#5. This study's specific prediction about drought is completely reliant on the climate models being able to first successfully predict sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and major ocean oscillations (e.g. El Niño). Climate models are unable to do either, as the NCAR scientist admits:
"“Dai cautioned that the findings are based on the best current projections of greenhouse gas emissions. What actually happens in coming decades will depend on many factors, including actual future emissions of greenhouse gases as well as natural climate cycles such as El Niño.” [Aiguo Dai, 2010]
“Future efforts to predict drought will depend on models’ ability to predict tropical SSTs.”
In other words, there is NO way to assess the skill of these models are predicting drought as they have not yet shown any skill in SST predictions on time scales longer than a season, nor natural climate cycles such as El Niño [or the PDO, the NAO, ect].
Funding of multi-decadal regional climate predictions by the National Science Foundation which cannot be verified in terms of accuracy is not only a poor use of tax payer funds, but is misleading policymakers and others on the actual skill that exists in predicting changes in the frequency of drought in the future."
As is the usual routine, a U.S. climate scientist using taxpayer funds releases a study that is designed to promote fear based solely on defective climate models. The ultimate purpose of such climate model fearmongering is to assure the billions keep flowing to the climate modeling scientists and research centers. It's as simple as that.
Read here. There is a major climate pattern, often referred to as the South American Monsoon System (SAMS), that brings the annual rainy season to portions of S. America, including the Amazon area. Scientists (Bombardi, R.J. and Carvalho) analyzed the output of IPCC global climate models and discovered that not only did they fail to accurately forecast/predict the actual precipitation levels, they also failed at predicting the start and end points of the monsoon season.
"Bombardi and Carvalho report that over northern South America the annual precipitation cycle "is poorly represented by most models," and, more specifically, that "most models tend to underestimate precipitation during the peak of the rainy season." In addition, they say that "the misrepresentation of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone and its seasonal cycle seems to be one of the main reasons for the unrealistic out-of-phase annual cycles simulated near the equator by many GCMs," and that "poor representation of the total monsoonal precipitation over the Amazon and northeast Brazil is observed in a large majority of the models. As a consequence, therefore, they note that "simulations of the total seasonal precipitation, onset and end of the rainy season diverge among models and are notoriously unrealistic over [the] north and northwest Amazon for most models."
Read here. Per Stephen Hawking, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists, an attribute test of "good" models...
"A model is a good model if it: 1. Is elegant 2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements 3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations 4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.
Thus, Roger Pielke Sr., prominent climate scientist concludes the obvious:
"With respect to the multi-decadal global climate models, it is clear they fail these requirements to be a “good model”."
As just about every sentinent being has now come to realize, the global climate models are absolute failures as tools for climate prediction/forecasting. It doesn't matter if the models are used for short-term predictions, or for the long-term, 100 year scenario-forecasts, the climate models are designed to fail. And no matter how much faster computers become, or how much greater the granularity of information achieved, the climate models will always fail since they don't meet the fundamental 'Hawking' requirements to be "good" models - it's not in their genes, so-to-speak.
As a result of this failure design and failure in accurate results, policymakers should find the following, necessary strategic decision to be one of relative ease: Instead of continuing to pour scarce resources into these massive model failures, the billions of funding to support climate models should be re-allocated to more important endeavors throughout the scientific research world, including those climate research projects that are more worthy.
Read here. Clouds are critical in determining Earth's radiation balance. In order for climate models to accurately project future climate conditions, they absolutely must be able to simulate correctly the many facets of clouds interaction with radiation, both reflection and absorption. The newest peer-reviewed research finds that climate models fail miserably at cloud simulation, which may explain why climate model output ranges from bad to worthless.
"...authors Zhang et al. (2010) note that the different representations of clouds and their feedback processes in Global Climate Models (GCMs) have been identified as major sources of differences in model climate sensitivities, stating that "contemporary GCMs cannot resolve clouds and highly simplified parameterizations are used to represent the interactions between clouds and radiation.".....And what was particularly striking, in the words of Zhang et al., was "the model overestimate of the occurrence frequency of deep convection and the complete absence of cirrus anvils," plus the fact that "the modeled clouds are too reflective in all regimes.".....Since incoming and outgoing radiation are strongly affected by the 3D spatial pattern of clouds of various types, a model that gets the "right" current global temperature with the wrong pattern of clouds must have errors in its radiation and/or heat transfer parameterizations.....results of this study thus suggest that climate modelers' claims of physical realism in their models are not supported by detailed comparisons with the real world..."
Read here. At one time, the hubris of global warming scientists led them to believe their climate models could explain/predict the future ENSO variations. As usual, Mother Nature made fools of the scientists, so they went back to investigate what they and their models could actually explain/predict about ENSO.
End result of peer-reviewed study?
"...they state that "it is not yet possible to say whether ENSO activity will be enhanced or damped, or if the frequency of events will change."....."it is not clear at this stage which way ENSO variability will tip ... As far as we know, it could intensify, weaken, or even undergo little change depending on the balance of changes in the underlying processes."....."by a team of twelve researchers hailing from six different countries (Australia, France, India, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States), wherein they review the findings of what they describe as "a hierarchy of mathematical models [that] have been used to explain the dynamics, energetics, linear stability and nonlinearity of ENSO,""
"The authors write that "the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a naturally occurring fluctuation," whereby "on a timescale of two to seven years, the eastern equatorial Pacific climate varies between anomalously cold (La Niña) and warm (El Niño) conditions," and that "these swings in temperature are accompanied by changes in the structure of the subsurface ocean, variability in the strength of the equatorial easterly trade winds, shifts in the position of atmospheric convection, and global teleconnection patterns associated with these changes that lead to variations in rainfall and weather patterns in many parts of the world," which end up affecting "ecosystems, agriculture, freshwater supplies, hurricanes and other severe weather events worldwide.""
Read here. Over the recent past, IPCC climate alarmist scientists were predicting that the Amazon would suffer incredible shrinkage and losses from the increasing levels of CO2. As is often the case, the Amazonia speculative predictions appear to be without any merit - it would seem, the IPCC climate scientists' predictions just can't stand up to litmus test of empirical (non-computer model) scientific research.
"Three recent papers appearing in leading scientific journals spell trouble for the alarmists’ claims about global warming and the precious and delicate Amazon rainforest.....Saleska et al. used satellite-based measurements and much to their surprise, they found that forest canopy “greenness” over the drought-stricken areas increased at a highly significant rate. They conclude that “These observations suggest that intact Amazon forests may be more resilient than many ecosystem models assume, at least in response to short-term climatic anomalies.”.....Getting right to the bottom line, they [Laurance et al.] report that “Forest biomass also increased over time, with the basal area of trees in our plots, which correlate strongly with tree biomass, rising by 4% on average.”.....“The increasing forest dynamics, growth, and basal area observed are broadly consistent with the CO2 fertilization hypothesis.”.....Lapola et al. conclude “Biome projections for the end of the century in tropical South America are quite variable, depending not only on the climate scenario, but also on the effect of CO2 fertilization on photosynthesis."..... If the CO2 fertilization does in fact occur (and 1,000s of experiments suggest it is occurring and will occur in the future), “most of Amazonia would remain the same.”
Read here. Whether it's vegetation or animal species, global warming produces environments and local climates that allow species to thrive and prosper. Scientists have now concluded the same will happen for marine life around Australia, including sharks, turtles and the overall fisheries biomass. Excellent!
There is a fly-in-the-ointment, though. A huge caveat actually. The scientists used a variety of computer models to come to this conclusion. First, they used output from an IPCC climate model (the 'A2' warming scenario); then a ocean climate model was used based on the A2 output; that model's output was then fed into a "suite" of models; and finally, that output was fed into a dozen marine food web models. Yikes!
Objectively, the likelihood of a correct prediction from a serial chain of model outputs is probably as low as someone picking the correct six numbers (from zero to 99) for the mega-million lotto - that's a really low probability of success. Unfortunately, after spending billion on computer models, they're still nothing more than extreme crystal ball gazing with serious problems.
"In the concluding sentence of their paper, Brown et al. state that the primary production increases suggested by their work to result from future IPCC-envisioned greenhouse gas emissions and their calculated impacts on climate "will provide opportunities to recover overfished fisheries, increase profitability of fisheries and conserve threatened biodiversity," which is an incredibly nice set of consequences to result from something the world's climate alarmists claim to be an unmitigated climate catastrophe."
Read here. As AGW alarmist after AGW alarmist predicted, and as gullible reporter after gullible reporter dutifully reported, the Arctic is warming and will soon be nothing but a pond of tepid water. Of course if these predictions were true, this would mean the Arctic melt season would have lengthened - every year the melt season would be longer. Or stated another way, every year the Arctic melt season would start earlier and end later.
Guess what? The Arctic melt season has not experienced the predicted expansion trend over the last 3 decades. Instead it shows considerable variation due to natural weather/climate oscillation patterns. And based on the most current data, the 2010 melt season was the shortest in recent memory. (click on image to enlarge)
Computer model predictions from a virtual simulated climate are functionally worthless. For a multitude of reasons, climate simulation models will continue to fail at the task of predicting usable/actionable global climate forecasts. (click on images to enlarge)
Update: More proof that IPCC climate models don't work as claimed. Another update: "This paper reinforces two issues that have repeatedly been made on my weblog: The multi-decadal IPCC global climate models, which have predicted more-or-less perpetual drought in the southwestern United States, are failing in their regional prediction."
Yet, climate science and policy has been bedeviled by the extreme over-reliance on these virtually simulated climate projections. Like a crack addiction, the elites have become addicted to the faulty prediction output of these models, regardless of what the empirical climate data and observations say otherwise. The scientists, politicians, pundits and celebrities of the "elite" class have become so blinded by the "rush" of virtual climate global warming predictions that rationale and cost-effective solutions became literally impossible to civilly discuss/debate, let alone implement.
Unfortunately, the addiction to computer model forecasts is not restricted to climate science. The elites on "model-crack" exist throughout government, industry and the mainstream press, and they continue to be amazed at the gross failures of computer predictions, even those failures in the realm of simplicity (like the housing market) in comparison to the chaotic, complex computer models of the climate.
Read here. Climate alarmist experts almost solely rely on computer model predictions. These scientists then publicize the models' scariest predictions in order to build funding support for their global warming research. Unfortunately for the scientists, the climate models have been spectacularly wrong regarding future climate conditions. The newest example of this climate model fallibility? The precipitation levels and aridity of the southwestern United States.
"As we have covered in previous essays, global warming alarmists insist that the southwestern United States is getting drier and will get substantially drier in the future due to the buildup of greenhouse gases.....The latest article on this subject appears in a recent issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research and once again, the results are at odds with the popular perception of increased drought in the Southwest.....However, most of the statistically significant trends in the number of dry days and dry event length are negative trends for water years and cool seasons.”.....The number of dry days dropped over the entire study period..... Furthermore, they conclude “Since the mid-1970s, El Niño events have been more frequent, and this has resulted in increased precipitation in the southwestern United States, particularly during the cool season. The increased precipitation is associated with a decrease in the number of dry days and a decrease in dry event length.”"
Read here and here. German climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf has made a name for himself by predicting incredible sea level rises due to global warming. These "predictions" of course are based on computer models, which history tells us are completely worthless when predicting the chaotic climate of Earth.
Regardless, this hasn't stopped Stefan from avidly seeking the media limelight by announcing scary sea level increases generated by the dubious models.
Unfortunately for Stefan, the actual facts are always the proof that determines if model predictions have real-world value. The latest data, from the premier sea-level measuring program in the Pacific managed by the Aussies, totally shatters the Rahmstorf prediction that global warming is causing accelerated sea level rise trend. As the chart below indicates, there is no trend of sea level rise acceleration across the Pacific.
And it's not just this specific data that proves Rahmstorf is incompetent at his day job - multiple studies are making similar findings. Yet the media keeps quoting the IPCC's 'wrong-level' Stefan. Go figure.
Read here. Map source here. Much has been made of the demise of islands within Australia's Great Barrier Reef. The prediction by global warming alarmist scientists was that rising sea levels would overwhelm the islands, putting them beneath the waves forever. Like most alarmist predictions by the so-called climate scientists of the IPCC, they were wrong. This newest research revealed islands that actually increased in size, doing opposite of the predictions.
"Working on Raine Island at the northwest end of a planar reef on the outer edge of Australia's Great Barrier Reef -- which is one of the world's most important nesting sites for marine turtles -- Dawson and Smithers employed three historic survey maps and five topographic survey datasets of earlier researchers, supplementing them with digital elevation data collected in 1998, 2006 and 2007, to reconstruct a 40-year (1967-2007) shoreline history of the island.....The two Australian researchers report that their "detailed quantitative surveys and analyses demonstrate that Raine Island increased in area (~6%) and volume (~4%) between 1967 and 2007," and that "in the 40 years between 1967 and 2007 Raine Island underwent a net accretion of 68,400 ± 6,700 m3."
Read here. Obviously, the Princeton scientist shows his true colors as a racist as he develops research that will aid Democrats in supporting strict immigration policies for election reasons...of course, remember, not due to the brown-skinned horde, but due to the "serious" global warming crisis that will cause the brown-skinned horde.
Or, are his AGW-biased findings more in line with his being such a devout believer in human-caused global warming that he will say and predict anything, the science be damned. Well....there is definitely more truth for the latter position - as Princeton scientist Michael Oppenheimer previously stated his own beliefs:
"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United
States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the
amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these
Third World countries right where they are."
Hmmmm...was that last sentence from this IPCC scientist kind of, ya know, racist, and said with that white-skinned arrogance? Just asking.
Of course, the usual mainstream media outlets gave this bogus study wide coverage, but that's to be expected - today's journalists are some of the dumbest people you would ever want to meet. And, as the JournoList scandal has revealed, the liberal dominated media acts as the main propaganda organ for all things leftist and the Democratic party.
What's really sad, and a gargantuan embarrassment, is a major science publication lending credence to flat-out politically motivated science. This type of science is so awful, no genuine science journal should ever think of disseminating such garbage. As one scientist stated:
"To be blunt, the paper is guesswork piled on top of "what ifs" built on a foundation of tenuous assumptions.....To use this paper as a prediction of anything would be a mistake. It is a tentative sensitivity study of the effects of one variable on another, where the relationship between the two is itself questionable but more importantly, dependent upon many other far more important factors.....Climate change is real and worthy of our attention. Putting forward research claims that cannot be supported by the underlying analysis will not help the credibility of the climate science community.....The paper reflects a common pattern in the climate impacts literature of trying to pin negative outcomes on climate change using overly simplistic methods and ignoring those factors other than climate which have far more effect."
What really makes it clear to anyone listening is the Princeton scientist's own reasoning for the study (hint.....it's politics, not the science).
"Our primary objectives were, No. 1, to give policymakers something to think about..."
Okay, we'll cut the guy some slack and conclude he is not a racist. But instead, just another dufus scientist who makes it his daily calling to destroy the reputation and credibility of sciencevia his over-the-top global warming bias.
Read here, here, and here. As C3 readers have discovered, the multiple prediction failures of IPCC climate models are a result of many factors. A recent peer-reviewed study now adds a new one to the ever growing list.
Scientists, using empirical evidence from actual real-world experiments, find that the IPCC climate models' assumption that there is a huge positive feedback from an increase in temperatures, causing more CO2 release from soils and vegetation, causing more temperature increase, ad infinitum, is gigantically wrong. So wrong that it's even becoming obvious to the mainstream press: "
‘Runaway climate change’
‘unrealistic’, say scientists
Several of the critical points from the study:
"1. The climate is quite temperamental: countless factors are involved and many feedback mechanisms enhance effects such as the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. This makes it difficult to make predictions, especially as many processes in the Earth system are still not completely understood. 2. Particularly alarmist scenarios for the feedback between global warming and ecosystem respiration thus prove to be unrealistic.” 3. “It is still not possible to predict whether this attenuates the positive feedback between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature,” says Markus Reichstein. “The study shows very clearly that we do not yet have a good understanding of the global material cycles and their importance for long-term developments.” 4. “We were surprised to find that the primary production in the tropics is not so strongly dependent on the amount of rain,” says Markus Reichstein. “Here, too, we therefore need to critically scrutinize the forecasts of some climate models which predict the Amazon will die as the world gets drier.”"
Read here. The long and wide acceptance of the oceans' conveyor belt theory was, until recently, a confirmed scientific consensus. The conveyor belt theory was also a foundational cornerstone of all climate models. But, as oceanographers did more research and scrutinized the empirical evidence, they determined the popular, consensus conveyor belt theory was no longer sustainable, nor valid.
Where's that leave the IPCC's climate models then? Up a certain creek, without the proverbial paddle.
"Here is a list of recent discoveries that have shaken the foundation of the conveyor belt theory.
Most of the subpolar-to-subtropical exchange in the North Atlantic occurs along interior pathways.
The deep deep western boundary current (DWBC) breaks up into eddies at 11°S.
There is little meridional coherence in the overturning transport from one gyre to the next.
Wind forcing, rather than buoyancy forcing, can play a dominant role in changing the transport of the overturning.
The southward transport of deep waters at 8°S, off the Brazilian coast, was shown to be carried entirely by migrating coherent eddies.
Floats launched within the DWBC at 53°N do not follow a continuous boundary current, but instead take multiple paths to the subtropics, including interior pathways far removed from the DWBC.
Two recent studies have found unexpected pathways in the upper ocean.
A recent study shows that MOC transport in the subtropical North Atlantic is susceptible to variability in the "leakage" of warm and salty water into the South Atlantic.
Studies showing little to no coherence across gyre boundaries have prompted interest in monitoring the overturning circulation in the South Atlantic and the subpolar North Atlantic.
The connectivity of the overturning and, more importantly, of the meridional heat transport from one basin to the next can no longer be assumed on interannual time scales.
When all of these observations are combined, they indicate that the conventional conceptual model of ocean overturning needs revamping....."As the study of the modern ocean’s role in climate continues apace, the conveyor-belt model no longer serves the community well— not because it is a gross oversimplification but because it ignores crucial structure and mechanics of the ocean’s intricate global overturning."....."I repeat my earlier assertion: if the conveyor belt model is wrong then
none of the IPCC's model results can be taken seriously.""
Read here. The ozone hole is "believed" to have a major impact on the climate, especially in the Antarctic region. It is hypothesized that more ozone destroying CFC's in the atmosphere causes warming, but in the Antarctic area, the decreased ozone due to CFC's causes cooling. When the ozone hole closes, as a result of less CFC's, this supposedly will cause more warming in Antarctica. Unfortunately, this science speculation is more than just a bit fuzzy, and as a result, the climate models are rather schizophrenic on the critical ozone impact on the global climate.
"The projections from the measured data does not provide a clear picture of how fast the changes will take place or how significant they will be. In their prediction of future climate, many IPCC models did not consider the expected ozone recovery and its potential impacts on climate change.....which may have profound impacts on the surface winds and on other aspects of the Earth's climate, including surface temperatures, locations of storm tracks, extent of dry zones, amount of sea ice, and ocean circulation.....“Our results suggest that stratospheric ozone is important for the Southern Hemisphere climate change, and ought to be more carefully considered in the next set of IPCC model integrations,” said lead-author of the study.....Meaning that the current IPCC models, the ones that all the global warming predictions are based on, are not correct."
As an aside, how much smaller is the ozone hole since enforcement of the Montreal Protocol began in 1989? Unfortunately, after 20 years the ozone hole size still exhibits an upward trend in growth and the maximum size remains well above the 1989 hole size. Additionally, its wide annual size variation suggests an impact factor other than simple human CFC's at work. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. Another failed prediction from "consensus" science of the IPCC. New research discovers that many of the region's rivers are not highly impacted from glacier melt, thus the fear of water supply shortage was not only wrong, it was purposefully overblown.
In addition, it was revealed that the climate models do a terrible job assessing climate change impact on monsoon rainfall. The IPCC and climate models: literally, the blind-leading-the-blind.
"Although global warming is expected to shrink glaciers in the Himalayas and other high mountains in Central Asia, the declining ice will have less overall impact on the region's water supplies than previously believed, a study concludes.....Combining these and looking at averages from five climate models, Immerzeel and colleagues concluded that the change in upstream water inputs will range from a decrease of 19.6% for the Brahmaputra to a 9.5% increase for the Yellow River. The latter, he notes, is due to increased winter rains. "The Yellow River depends only marginally on meltwater," he says, "and, on average, the models project an increase in winter precipitation in the Yellow River basin."....."What this means, Armstrong says, is that river flows are dominated by seasonal rains. "The glaciers are tiny, compared with the monsoon," he says."....."One caveat is that climate models don't fare well at simulating the effect of warming on Asian rainfall. "There's still a lot of research going into the effect of climate change on the behaviour of the monsoon,"
Read here. In an AAAS magazine publication, there is an amazing admission that actual CO2 emissions, human and natural, are unknown. Present CO2 emissions quoted as "truth" are nothing more than back-of-envelope guesstimates. Climate alarmists scientists now admit they have no clue about the quantities of CO2 emissions, nor the sources of all CO2 emissions. To simply summarize the significance of this admission: All the IPCC climate models are wrong.
At this point, everyone should be questioning the sanity of proceeding with the draconian economic solutions proposed by scientists to curb human CO2 emissions. But true to form, the scientists are demanding more monies to "fix" their ignorance problem.
"How can you control GHG emissions when you cannot accurately identify their sources? And how can you blame the rise in atmospheric CO2 solely on humanity if you cannot reconcile actual emissions with atmospheric measurements? The answer is that you cannot. To try and shore up the case for emissions control—including all those calls for “cap and trade” and a carbon tax—the authors want to establish a global network to provide a “top down” assessment of anthropogenic emission.....The solution, they say, is to send more money. More money for more instruments, more money for more studies, and more money for more computer models. In the meantime, governments and the public are expected to take concrete actions to curb GHG emissions based on climate science's self-professed inaccurate predictions. They guess and everyone else sacrifices."
Read here. The best U.S scientists made predictions for solar power during the first energy "crisis." How good were their predictions? Terrible, which is the the usual outcome with expert predictions, including 99.99% of all climate change predictions that the gullible-MSM faithfully repeats from the scientist press releases.
In comparison to the simple solar power market, it is often said that Earth's climate is the most complex system known because it incorporates these characteristics: non-linear, chaotic, and coupled. These three attributes should invoke immense climate scientist humility, but they don't seem to. In addition, for these numerous fundamental reasons (besides the déjà vu of experts always being wrong) the public and policymakers should outright reject any notion that climate predictions from scientists and climate models have any real-world validity.
Read here. In previous testimony given to the Senate, a climate scientist provided the following evidence that climate models don't work and should not be relied upon for policy decisions, unless being political toast is one's goal. Listening to climate model scientists and their supporters, and ignoring what really happened, is a guarantee for political 'toastdom'. (click on image to enlarge)
As the majority of voters in the U.S. have realized, these government climate model scientists/advocates have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars and still they continue to be wrong, consistently....
Read here. Most politicians, journalists and Hollywood celebrities believe that computer climate models possess predictive capabilities that exhibit a high degree of accuracy. The more informed public knows this absolutely not to be the case.
This week more proof was provided about abysmal computer models when the UK's Met Office, which is notorious for spectacularly wrong model predictions, again interrupted travel plans of air passengers with its most recent predictions regarding Iceland's volcano ash plume.
"Michael O’Leary, Ryanair’s chief executive, said: ‘It is frankly ridiculous that the flight plans of millions of air passengers are being disrupted on a daily basis by an outdated, inappropriate and imaginary computer-generated model. It is time these charts were done away with.’...A CAA spokesman said: ‘The Met Office model was predicting ash which was not there when the test flights were done. We have asked the Met Office why their forecast model showed something which was not subsequently backed up.’"
Read here. Not only has the IPCC flagrantly reported false science in its reports, it has also been the purveyor of incredibly, wrong-way predictions about the climate. Why are the IPCC's climate models so awfully bad at climate predictions?
Well, the real scientists keep doing the needed grunt research, which includes the discovery that the ocean current conveyor system is entirely different than what the IPCC climate models assumed.
When a mistake of this magnitude is made, it is safe to conclude that any previous IPCC climate report predictions had no basis in reality. Indeed, garbage input definitely ends up producing garbage output; a truism that the IPCC constantly lives up to.
"That seems all well and good, except the MOC [Meridional Overturning Circulation] is not following the IPCC script. As the paper by Dr. Willis shows, there has been no slowdown over the past 7 years and probably none over the past 20 years, years during which global temperatures are purported to have risen significantly...The conveyor belt doesn't work as scientists thought and that has implications for global heat transfer, and hence climate, over time. Now it would appear that discrepancy was only the beginning and climate science has once again gotten the conveyor belt currents wrong...This shows the weakness of the science behind climate change. The predictions of future climate change are based on current understanding of how climate works—the theory. And the theory is based on observations of climate behavior in the past—the data. Except that the data regarding fluctuations in the MOC were spotty and incomplete. Now, with better data it looks like the theory is wrong. This in turn, means that all existing models are based on incorrect assumptions and may also have been calibrated using erroneous historical data. Yet predictions of future disaster generated by these models form the heart of the climate change alarmists' case for radical socioeconomic change."
Read here. IPCC-oriented climate models predicts that areas of China will have increased precipitation resulting in much greater volumes of actual river discharge. Chinese scientists decide to test the models' predictions and thus discover that the river discharge volume has not increased at all.
The researchers report that over the period of their study, "river discharges in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, in general, have no obvious change with the increase of the Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature." Because they could detect, in their words, "no increase in the stream discharge in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau with global warming," Cao et al. conclude that their real-world findings are not "in accordance with the anticipated ideas" that led them to conduct their study. Indeed, the maintenance of the status quo in this and so many other studies argues strongly against either the claimed consequences of global warming (tending towards catastrophic) or the claimed degree of global warming (already unprecedented) or both of these standard climate-alarmist claims.
The revelation that the decision to close Europe’s skies following last week’s eruption of an unpronounceable Icelandic volcano, and the spewing of ash into the sky, was triggered by advice from the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre of the UK Met Office, based not on all relevant empirical evidence but on their computer model, has led to no small controversy... the Met Office spokesman claimed that this was irrelevant, since the policy in force was one of 'zero tolerance'. This, of course, is complete idiocy (and is conspicuously not the policy in the US, whose air safety record is as good as Europe's). It is, however, the so-called precautionary principle again – and indeed only a few days ago the Eurocontrol spokeswoman was explicitly justifying the original blanket flying ban on the grounds of the precautionary principle.
As we have stated multiple times before, computer models are worthless when used as a basis for making major policy decisions, including those regarding climate change. Unless the computer "prediction" is based on hard physics and well-established, scientifically known relationships, the computer models can end up being more dangerous for society than the theoretical calamity they are predicting. This is especially true when the models are used in combination with the infamous total-risk-avoidance precautionary principle to justify imposing major decisions and regulatory actions.
The recent Iceland volcano eruption and the subsequent closing of European airspace for an extended period is just the most recent massive computer model failure and clear evidence of the harm these models do. In a nutshell, the computer model prediction of Iceland volcano ash and its atmospheric spread was used by government policy makers to close major portions of EU airspace to aircraft for multiple days. This major decision was not based on scientific evidence nor actual observations.
As real-world data poured in though, the volcanic ash cloud actually was not a threat to European aircraft, but the tremendous economic damage and disruption imposed by the toxic combination of the the precautionary principle and the computer models had already been done. The end result is a human manufactured disaster, based on computer junk output, that is facilitated by alarmist scientists and politicians, who are incapable of moderating their hysteria that is so publicly infectious, and that is sooo coveted by the mainstream press.
Read here. U.S. government climate "experts" predicted that Arctic sea ice would melt to nothing because of the CO2-induced "unprecedented" (not) warming. As with almost all climate predictions emanating from U.S. climate scientists, nature is proving them wrong.
Why are U.S. climate scientists always so wrong? Are they just incredibly stupid? Nope, that's not the case - it's more venal than that. Simply put, their research funding (and salaries) provides the necessary incentive to mislead and lie about the global warming "crisis." Like all humans, scientists can be corrupted too.
For more failed predictions, read on. (click on left image to enlarge)
Read here. Well....the NASA scientist did not actually use the word "suck", but his description of the capabilities and problems of the models definitely leave that impression. In his own words...
We still can't predict future climate responses at low and high latitudes, which constrains our ability to forecast changes in atmospheric dynamics and regional climate.
Rind begins his review and analysis of this important subject by noting that Charney et al. (1979) concluded that global temperature sensitivity to a doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was "between 1.5° and 4.5°C," while noting that since that time "we have not moved very far from that range."
....he reports that uncertainty in our assessment of high- and low-latitude climate sensitivity "is also still as great as ever, with a factor of 2 at both high and low latitudes."
....whether the water vapor response to warming employed by climate models "is realistic is hard to assess," as he puts it, "because we have not had recent climate changes of the magnitude forecast for the rest of this century" to test it against."
Closely associated are low-latitude difficulties related to modeling both low- and high-level clouds in the tropics and the physics and dynamics associated with them, plus high-latitude difficulties associated with cryosphere feedbacks related to sea ice and snow cover.
"we can have greater confidence in the multi-model mean changes than in that of any individual model for climate change assessments." However, he says "it is doubtful that averaging different formulations together will end up giving the 'right' result," since "model responses (e.g., tropical land precipitation) can often be of different signs, and there can be little confidence that averaging them together will produce a better result."
Rind thus concludes that "at this point, we cannot determine the low- and high-latitude sensitivities, and we have no real way of obtaining them," which unknowns, in his opinion, "affect the confidence we can have in many of our projections of atmospheric dynamic and hydrologic responses to global warming."
As we have stated many times before in previous postings, climate models are basically worthless as prediction tools and should not be relied upon by policy makers for billion/trillion dollar decisions.
Read here. Great article regarding the wild and irresponsible predictions by "experts" about the Arctic sea ice extent (or lack of) made over the last decade. Simply summarized, for political and funding reasons, scientists made claims about melting sea ice, based on models that were designed to predict melting sea ice in the first place -- it's a simple as that. No IPCC scientist or government expert predicted, nor any climate model, that the polar sea ice would actually expand as the chart below shows. Consensus "science" and climate models present a united front in documenting why both are worthless.
At the end of the article is a rationale, scientific explanation of what happened to cause the melting Arctic sea ice from a non-hysterical scientist, unlike those representing the IPCC and the NSIDC. (click on image to enlarge)
A few "expert" quotes from the article -
2007: "And Serreze, "concerned at the accelerated annual loss of Arctic ice", was predicting that the entire polar region, including the North Pole, could witness a total summer melt by 2030."
2007: "He and his team were offering "modelling studies" that indicated northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years, putting the complete disappearance of summer ice at 2013."
2008: "Serreze was back in the fray in June 2008, offering 50-50 odds that the North Pole would be ice-free that summer, "a first in recorded history", he claimed. And, even if it didn't happen that year, it was "just a matter of time"."
2008: "With predictions mounting that the 2008 melt could surpass the "extraordinary 2007 record low", in the August, Serreze was talking to Reuters, telling them that last year's record was blamed squarely on human-spurred climate change. "No matter where we stand at the end of the melt season it's just reinforcing this notion that Arctic ice is in its death spiral," said Serreze."
2009: "the NSIDC, this time in the form of Walt Meier, a research scientist, was saying that the Arctic Ocean "will" be effectively ice free sometime between 2020 and 2040, although it is possible it could happen as early as 2013."
2009: "another study was claiming that: "virtually all the sea ice in the Arctic will have melted during the summer months by 2037, and that it may even disappear as soon as the summer of 2020." The survey was carried out by scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Washington in Seattle "using the six most sensitive computer models of the Arctic region."
Read here. The coastal elites, who have serious delusions of grandeur and omniscience disorders, are just now learning that climate models have been ineffective (okay, absolute failures). Between the coasts where reality exists, it is common knowledge that the computer models are worthless and not getting any better, despite researchers wasting billions on the models.
"....said that climate models are highly flawed. He said the scientists who build them don't know enough about solar cycles, ocean temperatures and other things that can nudge the earth's temperature up or down. He said that because models produce results that sound impressively exact, they can give off an air of infallibility....if the model isn't built correctly -- its results can be both precise-sounding and wrong...."The hubris that can be associated with a model is amazing, because suddenly you take this sketchy understanding of a process, and you embody it in a model," and it appears more trustworthy...."It's almost like money laundering.""
Her new job appears to be promoting the faux science of climate models, which just about everyone now knows are a total joke, except for those individuals who have a strong contempt for empirical, objective, testable science, like the bimbo.
This week, she announced that her models have secretly told her that the northern U.S. may experience less freezing during future March months, some 50 to 90 years from now. She felt obligated to the world to share the climate model make-believe "predictions" - lucky us. Unfortunately for Heidi though, the empirical, objective science just keeps mocking her and her models.
"If Climate Central’s press release theory were correct, we would expect to have already seen an increase in March temperatures, and an increase in number of years above freezing....Conclusion: Based on the NCDC data, there is no evidence that increases in CO2 over the last 30 years have affected March temperatures in the north central region of the USA or moved the freeze line north. Once again, we see a case of scientists trusting climate models ahead of reality."
"The alarmists at Climate Central (slogan: “Sound science & vibrant media”) have an interactive map showing the area projected to be above freezing in the coming decades. They say “US temperatures have been warming over the last century, and climate scientists expect much more of the same in the future....average March temperature for Minnesota from 1970 to 2009....has had only one March above freezing since the mid 1980s and a declining trend since the mid-1970s....If only their science was as sound as their media are vibrant."
Here's what James Lovelock, who formulated the Gaia Hypothesis, thinks of the bimbo's favored climate model predictions:
“We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to
the climate in 50 years, or whatever,” said Lovelock. “It's almost
naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate
predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it's
wrong to do it.”"
Read here. As we have discussed many times before, climate models are basically worthless. The should be banned from any policy making decision process as they have proven to be exceedingly unreliable -their horrendously wrong predictions of snowfall for the Northern Hemisphere is the classic example. (click on image to enlarge)
"While some journalists insist that recent winter snows are proof of global warming effects, they miss the fact that models have been predicting less snow in the northern hemisphere....As we know, winter snow cover has actually increased about 5% since it bottomed in 1989, and is now close to a record maximum....So far, the climate models have the wrong polarity on their predictions of winter snow cover changes."