Over the past decade, the public and policymakers have come to realize just how atrocious climate models are at predictions, forecasting and future climate scenarios.
Honestly, it's a wonder anyone still listens to any of the conventional, "consensus" climate modelers at this point, especially the modeling "experts" at NASA.
This chart depicts the famous global warming predictions made by NASA's chief climate scientist in 1988 at a hearing before the U.S. Senate.
NASA's James Hansen declared that if the world did not change its way, and kept emitting CO2 in the 'business-as-usual' (BAU) manner, global warming would skyrocket, threatening all of civilization. This is the 'Scenario A' plot on the chart.
Well.....not only has the world matched the 'BAU' growth of the 15 years prior to the 1988 testimony, we have increased the CO2 emission tonnes growth from 1.8% per year to 2.2% (the 15 years prior to 2013). To put those numbers into context, from 1972 through 1987, humans emitted 302 billion tonnes of CO2; in contrast, from 1998 through 2012 humans produced 461 billion tonnes.
Yet, despite the NASA "expertise" and the gigantic growth of human CO2 emissions, actual global temperatures over the past 25 years have closely matched Hansen's 'Scenario C', which he predicted would take place if CO2 emissions had been limited to year 2000 levels.....didn't happen.
Unexpectedly (i.e. not predicted), global temperatures flat-lined and CO2 emissions continued on their merry, amazing growth path, unabated.
Regarding climate reality, the lack of global warming was not a prediction that climate models were programmed to produce. The models do not rely on natural climate change or natural climate warming and cooling attributes. It is not in the models' software "DNA" because human climate experts really don't understand the chaotic nature of Earth's climate, nor comprehend the true power of nature.
Recently, the world's major climate agencies published their year-end empirical datasets for global temperatures.
How does actual climate reality compare with the IPCC's 2013 proclamation that their "extremely likely" predictions of global temperatures? With 95% certainty, embarrassingly bad. (click on chart to enlarge)
The chart on the left is a plot of the IPCC's RCP4.5 model output versus the climate reality, as represented by the UK's HadCRUT4 global monthly temperature dataset. The bright red and blue curves are simple 3-year moving averages that visually removes all the monthly gyrations.
It is clear that the IPCC's state-of-the-art 2013 climate models start diverging from climate reality around the 1995 period. And the divergence continues to widen to the point where one could conclude that any future output will be extremely unlikely to be of any value to policymakers.
Put another way, these billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded super-computer model simulations have performed atrociously, and are entirely worthless at predicting future climate scenarios.
How did this happen?
While the IPCC's associated climate "experts" are going through their own set of mental gyrations to explain the abysmal climate model and AGW hypothesis performances, two scientists explain how this failure was produced - article number one and article number two.
If you are curious as to the 'whys' of IPCC climate consensus failure, these articles are a must read. For those short on time, though, in a nutshell a compiled summary of reasons for failure:
natural climate variability ignorance
de-emphasis of large uncertainty
dogmatic co2-AGW orthodoxy
Until the above are adequately addressed and fixed, the probability that climate models will predict with accuracy that policymakers can actually rely on is extremely unlikely, with 99.9% certainty.
In this recent article, Bob Tisdale deconstructs the irrational and anti-science claims of a new global warming study produced by a couple of prominent climate reality deniers.
Parsing through Tisdale's analysis makes it clear that alarmists remain grasping at straws, while cherry-picking evidence that is easily refuted with updated empirical measurements.
As part of his analysis, he shows the adjacent chart comparing the state-of-the-art IPCC climate models versus climate reality. As observed, the computer simulations are not up to the task of accurately predicting global temperatures, whether being in the past or modern eras.
Essentially, as Tisdale notes, the CO2-centric models are failed prediction tools and actually contradict the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are a major factor in the modern era's past global warming, which, btw, stalled more than a decade ago.
Simply put, the IPCC's climate models and experts are unable to predict cloud formation and coverage, which makes accurately predicting climate conditions an impossible task.
As a result, the models have huge problems with predicting actual polar sea ice coverage and albedo characteristics - a continuing major fail that shreds the IPCC's creditability as a reliable source for climate fearmongering prognostications.
This latest study confirms that the state-of-the-art climate models have proven to be no better at predicting Arctic clouds and sea ice than their grossly inaccurate predecessors.
And as these plots (source) of polar sea ice indicate, the global sea ice area and extent exhibit an increasing trend that is the polar opposite of the IPCC's those fabled "expert" predictions.(bad pun intended)
The abysmal failure of climate models as tools to predict future climate is well documented.
The vast, multi-billion expenditure on tools that can't accurately predict may indeed further needed climate research, but as for model outputs being a sound foundation for policymakers, they're worthless.
This new study confirms that conclusion. Since policymakers need to thoughtfully plan for changes in future precipitation levels, this peer reviewed research makes it clear computer simulations are inappropriate and misleading tools to base policy on.
This top plot of satellite global temperatures is scientifically unequivocal (click on to enlarge):
The actual empirical evidence from state-of-the-art measurement technology reveals a global warming spike during the late 1990's (due to the Super El Nino), but after that, essentially zilch.
Thus, for the last 20 years (240 months) the global warming trend of +0.52°C by 2100AD is 'climate insignificant' - a trend that climate scientists certainly don't get excited about.
And when one examines the last 17-years, the satellite global temperature trend becomes slightly less than zero (i.e. global cooling). As a prominent climate alarmist scientist determined recently in a peer reviewed paper:
“There is a lot of noise in the climate system and it is quite possible that the noise can mask the effects of man-made carbon dioxide for a period of time. However if the slope is zero for 17 years, then we cannot blame noise any more but we have to face the facts that we humans do not affect the climate to any great extent.”
The bottom plot of global temperatures confirms the atrocious climate predictions of the IPCC "expert" climate models. This is irrefutable evidence that the consensus climate models can't predict squat and should not be relied upon by policymakers.
Finally, it is well established that Obama and his administration are serial pathological liars (sounds harsh but it is undeniable). This is not only true in the health care and Obamacare policy arena, but is also a common denominator in their climate change alarmist claims.
First, a generic wind stress definition is in order.
surface roughness (i.e., turbulence) as measured by satellite technology, is
referred to as 'wind stress' in climate models. In plain-speak, it is sea surface turbulence, obviously
driven by wind speed and direction, in addition to being impacted by atmospheric density/pressures, sea surface
temperatures, sea buoyancy and currents. Wind stress affects the air-sea heat exchange,
as well as the mixing of carbon/heat stored in the deeper parts of oceans. Wind
stress also has impacts on cloud cover, ocean current circulations and sea ice
In essence, wind stress is a powerful and critical elemental
influence on the world's climate. Thus, to forecast future climate conditions
with any sort of accuracy, it is absolutely necessary to be able to accurately simulate
As this latest peer reviewed scientific research reveals,
all climate "experts" and the IPCC's climate models remain unable to
accurately simulate wind stress on their massively expensive, sophisticated,
complex computer models.
National, regional and local politicians/policymakers, and those unelected bureaucrats, rely on the IPCC's climate models (and other similar simulations) to justify and make plans for vast expenditures of taxpayers' dollars to vanquish climate change.
Unfortunately, as this peer reviewed article finds, the latest climate models are absolutely worthless in regards to rational policy-making and expenditures for future weather/climate.
Intuitively, one would expect that after the gargantuan, multi-billion dollar sums that climate modellers spent, their sophisticated computer simulations would now, at minimum, accurately forecast the impacts of incredibly large weather phenomenon that occur regularly, such as the east Asian monsoons. Not so, as this scientific research clearly documents.
More often than not, the biggest, baddest, most complex and expensive models have a long history at abysmal prediction skill.
Objectively, the models
remain good tools for climate researchers to learn from, but they really
can't predict squat when it comes to future climate reality, and should never be used for that purpose.
The taxpayer-funded, billion-dollar black holes known as 'climate models' have been unable to predict squat when it comes to future climate conditions - as with global temperatures, the same holds true for the newer IPCC models predicting Antarctic sea ice extent.....it's the 'same old, same old'
Untold resources have been spent by government bureaucrats in an attempt to improve the dismal performance of the CMIP3 computer climate models. After billions being spent on these IPCC CMIP-class of models one would expect that they would have a confirmed capability to accurately predict Antarctic sea ice reality.
At least that's what 5 climate scientists expected. Wrong.
"The authors write that "Phase 5 of CMIP (CMIP5) will provide the model output that will form the basis of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]," and they therefore thought it important to determine how well these models represent reality...examined "the annual cycle and trends in Antarctic sea ice extent (SIE) for 18 models used in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project that were run with historical forcing for the 1850s to 2005."...report that (1) "the majority of models have too small of an SIE at the minimum in February," that (2) "several of the models have less than two-thirds of the observed SIE at the September maximum," that (3) "in contrast to the satellite data, which exhibit a slight increase in SIE, the mean SIE of the models over 1979-2005 shows a decrease in each month," that (4) "the models have very large differences in SIE over 1860-2005," and that (5) "the negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979-2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly." [John Turner, Thomas Bracegirdle, Tony Phillips, Gareth Marshall, Scott Hosking 2013: Journal of Climate]
Computer model simulations of complex, chaotic systems often are massive failures producing worthless prediction output.....all the climate models used by the IPCC and the major climate research agencies are no different - with that said, there are times when a simpler and more elegant model approach can produce superior results despite the chaos at hand, and for a fraction of the cost
(click on graphs to enlarge)
Above are plots of several climate models updated with the most current HadCRUT and/or NASA-GISS global temperature observations. As noted in previous 'C3' posts, the traditional, wildly expensive climate agency computer models have done an absolute abysmal job at forecasting climate change and global warming.
Charts 2, 3 and 4 reveal the massive forecasting failure that the billion-dollar climate simulations have delivered. In the face of consistent, very predictable growth in CO2 emissions over the 21st century, each of these models predicted a huge increase in global temperatures, which turned out to be the opposite of climate reality.
Chart #2 deserves special note. This is the NASA/James Hansen model of global temperatures that has been used since 1988 to effectively frighten the public. In 1988, James Hansen predicted that if human CO2 emissions growth continued in a "business as usual" manner then we would face runaway global warming - this outcome is depicted by the bright green curve labeled 'Scenario A' on Chart #2.
When Hansen made this prediction, the human CO2 emissions "business as usual" growth amounted to an approximate 32% increase over the prior 15 years to 1988. In contrast, the 15 years prior to 2013 saw CO2 emissions grow by about 41% - a significantly robust increase over Hansen's "business as usual" scenario.
Yet the actual plotted global temperature results on Chart #2, through June 2013, reveal that global warming has died and world temperatures are well below the NASA "business as usual" scenario. In fact, the actual temperatures are practically below the NASA model's 'Scenario C' (the cyan/aqua curve on chart) that assumes CO2 emissions had been reduced to year 2000 levels.
As the actual, objective empirical evidence clearly documents, the consensus "expert" models are severely flawed.
However, not all models are created equal and the one that produces the best global temperature predictions is also the one that is the most elegant, simplest and least costly. That model's superior performance is shown in Chart #1 (click on to enlarge).
This model was developed by Duke University scientist, Nicola Scafetta. This model's description and results are explained here and here. Needless to say, this model's continuing success is a product of non-consensus thinking, which the IPCC's climate "experts" reject because Scafetta's model is not based on the very obviously crippled CO2-AGW hypothesis.
And that's why the mainstream science/environmental "journalists" have not made this model's success widely known since it inconveniently, and embarrassingly, establishes that all their previous extreme global warming forecast articles per the consensus "experts" were wrong.
Note: If you desire to produce your own Excel chart to compare against Chart #4, download CMIP3 and HadCRUT3 data from here. For 'C3' Excel charts/graphs, this link has the vast majority of datasets used at our site.
For decades, the mainstream journalists have dutifully reported hysterical alarmism generated by a minority of scientists dedicated to the concept of human CO2-caused catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)...this style of sensationalist, tabloid "climate science" journalism however is dependent on either a condition of stuck-on-stupid mentality or a highly biased, politically motivated political agenda, not on scientific empirical evidence
Read here. Adjacent is a chart that depicts the output of climate alarmism of catastrophic global warming scientists, versus scientific reality. Per this empirical evidence, the experts and their wildly expensive, souped-up CAGW spreadsheet models obviously can't predict squat.
Despite this well documented, spectacular and long known failure of the "consensus," "expert" climate models, the stuck-on-stupid tabloid press is just now coming to grips with their own spectacular stupidity (gullibility?).
It would benefit all Americans, and the rest of the world's populace, if everyone just simply ignored the mainstream press in regards to any type of science reporting - if that were to happen, incredibly wasteful dumb policies would not be implemented by an even stupider class of individuals - the politicians.
The ultimate test for the IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis is the existence of the predicted "hotspot" that is a sign of a positive feedback loop for accelerating global warming - newest data show that even after record setting human CO2 emissions the "hotspot" failed to materialize
Per the IPCC's global warming hypothesis, at the very top of the troposphere, above the equator region, is the location (12km, 200hPa @ 20°N - 20°S) that triggers a positive climate feedback, which produces the mythical runaway, tipping point of accelerated, dangerous global warming, which of course is unequivocal and irrefutable, except when it isn't.
This location is often referred to as the tropical "hotspot," supposedly an artifact of modern industrial/consumer human CO2 emissions.
The high climate sensitivity programmed into the IPCC's climate models is entirely dependent of this hotspot of positive feedback - with the hotspot, climate models predict a scary global warming range that spans from 2°C to 6°C.
If there is no tropical upper troposphere hotspot, then there is no positive feedback, and thus, no climate change crisis as predicted by the IPCC. If there is no hotspot, then the IPCC hypothesis of CO2 caused global warming (AGW) is essentially proven false.
Based on accepted physics, without the positive feedback triggered by the hotspot, surface global temperatures from a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 will increase by some +0.5° to 1.5°C. That is the range climate models predict (depending on the given climate model) if the "hotspot" does not exist.
The IPCC's gold-standard for upper troposphere data is the UK's HadAT2 dataset that represents high altitude balloon/radiosonde measurements. These balloons provide a higher resolution of the atmospheric layer temperatures than current satellites can provide. Over time, approximately 28+ million radiosonde measurements have taken place.
A few days ago (2/19/2013), the HadAT2 was finally updated through December 31, 2012 - the previous update of dataset was through 12/31/2011. The above chart plots the latest AT2 dataset and concurrent, well-mixed atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 17 years. (Why 17?)
Conclusions from the chart:
#1.The IPCC's tropical "hotspot" does not exist.
#2. Atmospheric CO2 levels over 350ppm do not cause a hotspot to occur.
#3. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is lower than expert assumptions.
#4. Temporary natural El Nino events do cause a spike in upper troposphere temperatures but then return to a lower temperature state (no positive feedback loop).
#5. The IPCC, its experts and climate models have been wrong about the mythical hotspot since the UN created the IPCC (1988).
#6. The continuing abysmal failure of climate models is likely associated with the lack of the mythical, hypothesized hotspot.
#7. The AGW hypothesis of tipping point, climate positive feedback is proven false after decades of zero empirical evidence supporting it.
#8. Despite all empirical evidence, IPCC scientists and bureaucrats will keep pushing the hotspot, positive feedback hypothesis in order to continue their lucrative taxpayer funding.
Recently, a new 2012 study by Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu found:
"It is demonstrated that even with historical SSTs as a boundary
condition, most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper
tropospheric warming relative to the lower-middle troposphere as
compared with satellite-borne microwave sounding unit measurements. It
is also shown that the results from CMIP5 coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs
are similar to findings from CMIP3 coupled GCMs. The apparent
model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming
represents an important problem..."
Previous studies have documented the tropical hotspot problem (source for all quotes here):
"Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the
upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface.
Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and
satellite data have often not shown this expected trend." Sherwood et al 2008.
"On multi-decadal timescales, tropospheric amplification of surface
warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but occurs in only one
observational dataset." Other observations show weak or even negative amplification.” Santer et al 2005
“A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a ‘potentially serious inconsistency’ between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.” Santer et al 2008
“Model results and observed temperature
trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being
separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In
layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than
observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.” Douglass et al 2007
Update, per a reader's email: First, from the 2nd order draft of the IPCC's AR5, and second, from a comment at Judith Curry's 'Climate Etc.' blog:
"Section 184.108.40.206.2, p. 9-26, lines 31-33: "In Summary, there is a high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 197902011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.""
"However my working hypothesis is that Santer would have continued to ignore these demonstrations, were it not for the Fu (2011, GRL) paper, which included Syukuro Manabe (godfather of CO2-climate modeling) as co-author also showing disagreement between models and measured temperatures...However, once the Fu 2011 paper came out, it became “establishment” that there was in fact a significant disagreement between models and measured temps. So now after the Fu 2011 paper we have (Thorne, 2011 [JGR], Po-Chedley (2012), Seidel (2012) and Santer (2012) all agreeing that models and measurements for tropical troposphere temperaures cannot be reconciled."
Note 1: A simple
hotspot explanation summarized from this article: Increasing CO2 levels causes atmosphere to warm;
then atmosphere causes Earth's surface to warm; warming of oceans cause
evaporation; increased evaporation leads to more water vapor in the
upper troposphere; water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms
the atmosphere even more (positive water vapor feedback); the Earth's surface warms
even more; and then auto 'repeat and rinse' until Earth's oceans boil, per an "expert."
Note 2: A scientist discusses the IPCC hotspot issue and dismantles a lame pro-hotspot argument (geesh, talk about alarmists' "scientific" mis-truths).
Note 3: The catastrophic global warming alarmists, be they "scientists" or political hacks, are very alarmed that the "hotspot" never materialized. To cover up this major failure of the AGW hypothesis, they usually attempt excited hand-waving to distract the gullible, including: the disingenuous, circular logic claim that it must exist because the models predict it, thus the measurements must be wrong; or the amazing claim that the hotspot exists but it just doesn't reveal itself to humans (really, trust us, it's hiding).
Billions upon billions have been poured into climate research and the infamous climate computer models - after those untold billions, the newest CMIP5 climate models are still unable to predict global temperatures with any accuracy
Computer models, in general, are essentially worthless as policy tools when the number of variables and complexity of the relationships are beyond easy human comprehension.
Complex, mind-boggling multivariate models more often than not produce a huge surplus of garbage output (see chart) that confuses both policymakers and the public, resulting in poor policy choices and failed implementation strategies and tactics.
Combine that typical outcome with the well known phenomenon of garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) that is inherent to all computer simultations and the likely result is a manifesto for a big fail.
Some recent public examples of computer complex simulation fiascoes include: computer models causing a 2-year delay in finding the black box from Air France Flight 474; the hysterical computer projections about potential bird flu deaths; the abysmal computer prediction regarding Obama's "stimulus" affect on unemployment; and, of course, the Federal Reserve's 2007 econometric model prediction that completely missed the soon-to-be 'Great Recession' - and don't forget the recent gargantuan fail of these type of "expert" computer models.
So it should come as no surprise that computer attempts at predicting outcomes for the incredibly complex, chaotic world's climate are bound to fail.
To that point, it has been recently observed that past climate model forecasts have been spectacular failures due to bad assumptions and a fanatical blind loyalty to a very weak (lame?) AGW hypothesis. And as the above chart indicates, the newest CMIP5 climate simulations appear to be not much better.
Thus, it is a safe bet that proposing trillion-dollar climate solutions based on the outputs of these new models will prove to be another common sense (no computer needed) predictable disaster. However, that will again be in hindsight for the political elites and mainstream journalists.
Simply stated, the Obama Administration and leading Democrats refuse to be honest with the American public - the empirical evidence and climate scientists now confirm that real global warming and climate change will be significantly less than predicted, making the politician lies even more troubling
As previously discussed, the consensus regarding future global warming and climate change has fallen apart.
Essentially, the climate research agencies programmed their computer models with an extremely high sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels. As a result, these computer climate simulations predicted outlandishly high future temperatures.
These alarmist, catastrophic temperature simulations were portrayed to the public by the mainstream media, the United Nations and Obama's big government advocates as gospel truth, when in fact they were nothing more than hypothetical speculations with no empirical foundation.
The above two charts provide further proof that computer model simulations were spectacularly wrong.
The IPCC chart on the left has a mauve curve that represents future temperatures if CO2 emissions were held constant at 2000 levels. This chart also has two red lines of actual observed HadCRUT global temperature trends (red lines) when projected out to 2100AD.
Clearly, observed temperature trends are predicting a future temp that resembles the IPCC projection if CO2 was held constant - the actual trends are multiple times below the "runaway" and "accelerating" global warming that Obama and the IPCC still push.
The second chart on the right plots the IPCC's different CO2 scenarios that the world may follow. A close examination of this chart reveals that actual CO2 emissions continue to follow the 'business as usual' scenario (A1F1), which the IPCC and Obama state is the cause of "runaway" global warming and climate change.
Since the "runaway" and "accelerating" scenarios have been ginormous scientific failures, as previously discussed, AGW scientists and alarmists/advocates are having to seriously re-think the basic assumptions of catastrophic global warming.
As is usually the case though, the now proven bad, anti-science is not stopping Obama and his Democrat comrades in their attempts to perpetrate a new tax Americans on carbon usage.
Via the IPCC's gold-standard temperature dataset, it has become undisputed fact that global warming isn't - experts and pundits alike are searching for the reasons why and how this gross prediction failure took place, with most concurring (even the NY Times) that climate models' sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels was severely exaggerated - go figure
Multiple outlets, including the NY Times, have recently written about new research that is finding climate models' programmed sensitivity to CO2 levels being pegged too high. Sample articles explaining the underlying problem with climate sensitivity research can be found here, here , here, here, and here.
The adjacent chart points to the serious problem with the original high sensitivity estimates from the IPCC and others. (The gold-standard HadCRUT global and CET temperature datasets are plotted.)
In the case of the IPCC, they published a flat-out fear-mongering sensitivity that in computer simulations would produce a temperature increase of +6.4°C (pink line) by 2100AD, if CO2 emissions were not stabilized. This incredibly high computer output was designed to scare policymakers and the mainstream media into action.
And, there are even higher published estimates of sensitivity, which will never happen in the real-world, but are touted as potential realistic threats (climate science gospel) to the gullible with deep pockets and a pennant for government intrusion. Case in point:
“...one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action..." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan
As a reminder, this description of a scientist's behavior comports with the incredible level of climate scientist fraud, deception and falsehoods revealed by the embarrassing publication of the Climategate emails. Venal, corrupt anti-science attitudes continue to run blatant and deep in the climate science community.
Back to the chart...in reality, CO2 emissions have not stabilized, they are growing in a 'business as usual' manner yet the impact on global temperatures has been minimal. As the chart depicts, over the last 15 years global warming is increasing at a 0.17°C per century rate, a sliver-fraction of the IPCC absurd sensitivity simulated outcome. Other straight red lines on the chart tell the same story - the IPCC's climate sensitivity produces temperature predictions out-of-touch with this real-world empirical observational evidence.
"But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot
readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All
the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle
comes up with similar answers. By failing to meet this problem head-on,
the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan
The same story holds true for the chart's plot of Central England Temperatures (CET) (green curve and lines). Over the last 15-years, the CET century trend is a surprisingly minus 3.8°C. That is a significant cooling trend (in contrast, the last 15 years has the U.S. at a minus 0.94°C trend) that should not happen in a high sensitivity, tipping-point type of warming world.
#1. There is no scientific consensus about the correct climate sensitivity to CO2 levels.
#2. A scientific consensus is building though regarding the IPCC and other climate model agencies having exaggerated the sensitivity in the past, and a need to lower the models' said sensitivity to better match reality.
#3. Past real-world global warming (see jagged red chart curve) is not dangerous, nor accelerating - instead, it is presently flat with an equal possibility of becoming a cooling trend, or resuming its non-alarming warming trend
#4. CO2 levels would appear to have a weak influence on both global and regional temperatures.
Taxpayers have spent billions on CO2-driven climate model "science," which the empirical evidence now suggests was like pouring money down a rat-hole....the abysmal prediction failure of CO2-centric models is simply fact - are there actual scientific models that can replace this current wasteland of biased AGW climate research?
As major mainstreamnewsoutlets are starting to report, global warming has essentially disappeared, replaced with a slight cooling trend in recent years. Taxpayer-funded climate scientists are finally being forced to go on record stating the obvious - their global warming predictions were incorrect.
Their favorite euphemism to describe what is happening is that global warming is at a "standstill." Even the most infamous climate reality denier has started using that terminology to describe a decade of non-existent warming - he can't quite yet bring himself to say global cooling.
Three of the above charts (top-left, top-right and bottom-left) represent the state-of-the-art models used by the "consensus" climate experts. As seen, all three have been spectacularly wrong through the end of 2012.
These three models (World Climate Research Programme, NASA-GISS and the IPCC) are CO2-centric climate models - global warming and climate change are primarily driven by levels of atmospheric CO2. As a result, they have long predicted dangerous and accelerating global warming for Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land surfaces - and it bears repeating, they have been spectacularly wrong.
The majority of scientists now agree that these "consensus" science models are flawed (at least 97% of scientists would agree ;-) and are incapable of accurately predicting global temperatures. Thus, newer models based on non-CO2 drivers of climate are starting to see the light of day, so-to-speak.
One such newer model is represented by the bottom-right chart above. This model appears to have better global temperature prediction capabilities, which also happens to verify that CO2 is not the principal climate driver, as scientists on the taxpayer dole claim (and misrepresent).
The atmospheric humidity levels that NOAA researchers publish continue to trend lower than climate model predictions - however, the mythical runaway global warming that catastrophic global warming (CAGW) alarmists promulgate requires atmospheric humidity to increase
The recent evidence is overwhelming that climate models are completely ineffective at predicting global temperatures, and newer research confirms they have serious problems properly simulating major component/regions of the globe's environment
(click image to enlarge)
Read here. New research on the accuracy of climate models regarding the modeling of the Southern Ocean region reveals major issues.
The Weijer et al. team identified the following concerns:
"The nine researchers state that "the CCSM4 has varying degrees of accuracy in the simulation of the climate of the Southern Ocean when compared with observations," some of which we list as follows: (1) "the seasonally ice-covered regions are mildly colder (ΔSST > -2°C) than observations," (2) "sea ice extent is significantly larger than observed," (3) "north of the seasonal ice edge, there is a strong (-4°C < ΔSST < -1°C) cold bias in the entire Pacific sector south of 50°S and in the western Australian-Antarctic Basin," (4) "positive biases (1° < ΔSST < 4°C) are found in the Indian and Atlantic sectors of the Southern Ocean," (5) "significant differences are found in the Indian and Pacific sectors north of the ACC, with the CCSM4 model being too cold (< -2°C) and fresh (<-0.3 psu)," (6) "AABW adjacent to the Antarctic continent is too dense," (7) "North Atlantic Deep Water is too salty (>0.2 psu)," (8) "in the Indian and Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean, north of 50°S and below 3000 meters, the too-salty AABW penetrates northward, resulting in a denser-than-observed abyssal ocean in CCSM4," (9) "the model underestimates the depth of the deep winter mixed layers in the Indian and eastern Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean north of the ACC," (10) "in the southern Tasman Sea and along the eastern Indian Ocean boundary ... the model mixed layer depth is deeper than observed by more than 400 meters," (11) "in all sectors of the Southern Ocean, Model CFC-11 concentrations in the lower thermocline and intermediate waters are lower than observed," (12) "model CFC-11 concentrations in the deep ocean (below 2000 meters) are lower than observed in the basins adjacent to the Antarctic continent," (13) "model surface CFC-11 concentrations are higher than observed," (14) "the production of overflow waters in the Ross Sea is too low by about a factor of 2 relative to the limited observations," (15) "the depth at which the product water settles was also shown to be too shallow by about a factor of 2," (16) "the subtropical gyre of the South Atlantic is too strong by almost a factor of 2, associated with a strong bias in the wind stress," (17) the mean position of the BMC is too far south in the CCSM4," and (18) "the model variability in the position of the BMC is significantly less than observations."
[Wilbert Weijer, Bernadette M. Sloyan, Mathew E. Maltrud, Nicole Jeffery, Matthew W. Hecht, Corinne A. Hartin, Erik van Sebille, Ilana Wainer, Laura Landrum 2012: Journal of Climate]
Conclusions: The IPCC climate models can't simulate the reality of observed climate conditions. Climate models and computer simulations are incapable of producing credible climate predictions and forecasts due to the lack of understanding that scientists have about all the interactions within the climate system.
The IPCC's (and NASA's) CO2-centric climate models are completely unable to predict global temperatures with any degree of accuracy - scientists now confirm that increases in atmospheric CO2 actually follow increases in global temperatures, which is opposite of what climate models assume
Read here. It is common knowledge that global temperatures have not increased over the last 15 years despite massive new amounts of human CO2 emissions. And it is well known that the IPCC climate "experts" have been massively befuddled by this.
The current global climate models are dominated by the the greenhouse gas CO2 input. As the IPCC explains, their models can't accurately predict temperatures without knowing the atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course, recent experience clearly demonstrates the lack of models' temperature predictive skill even when the levels of CO2 are known.
It is now obvious that the climate models' assumption that CO2 levels dictate global warming/cooling is seriously amiss.
The European team of Humlum et al. has examined both the CO2 and temperature datasets and has determined that temperature changes actually occur before the corresponding CO2 level change. This is depicted in the adjacent chart of dataset plots.
"An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures." [Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim 2012: Global and Planetary Change] Scientist Ole Humlum's climate web site
Conclusions: The lack of predictive skill of the IPCC's climate models is likely due to their being dominated by atmospheric CO2 level inputs (CO2-centric). The actual empirical evidence indicates that changing CO2 levels are more a result of global temperature changes than changes in human CO2 emissions.
The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
IPCC climate doomsday advocates predict all sorts of calamitous, extreme climate change events from human CO2 emissions that seemingly fail to materialize - the lack of increased heavy precipitation events across the U.S. is another one of those failed predictions
Read here. Climate scientists again reviewed the empirical weather evidence to determine if there has been a surge of heavy precipitation events, as predicted by the IPCC and its climate models.
Per the IPCC and its climate doomsday acolytes, human CO2 emissions causes increased warming that causes greater water evaporation, which in turn will increase the frequency and volume of rainfall incidents. Obviously, the increase in heavy rainfall would then likely lead to an increase in flooding disaster incidents. The IPCC's climate models have been programmed to follow that assumption.
Yet when researchers actually check the climate model predictions against weather reality, the IPCC models are rarely correct. Mahajan et al. just determined that to be the case for the IPCC's heavy rainfall prediction.
"Noting that "extreme events of precipitation have a potential for impacting our social and economic activities,"...state that it is "essential to determine if there has been a systematic change in the extremes over the past years and what awaits us in the future owing to global warming," especially in light of the fact that "climate model projection studies suggest that intense precipitation would be on the rise as global temperatures increase due to increased greenhouse gas forcings in the future..."trends in monthly heavy precipitation, defined by a return period of one year, are assessed for statistical significance in observations and Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations over the contiguous United States...report that trends estimated from the two data sources they employed "straddle the margin of statistical significance, and hence a definitive answer to the question of increasing trend of heavy precipitation over the US cannot be arrived at by looking at observational data." And with nearly half (9 out of 20) of the GCMs employed in their study predicting trends that are "significantly different from the observations," they are forced to conclude that "the GCMs are not yet fully capable of simulating extremes of precipitation at a regional level,"" [Salil Mahajan, Gerald R. North, R. Saravanan, Marc G. Genton 2012: Climate Dynamics]
Conclusion: Human CO2 emissions, and the supposed global warming, are not causing an increase in heavy precipitation events across the U.S. as predicted. The IPCC's climate models again fail a crucial test when their output is compared to actual weather reality.
A new study by climate doomsday scientists came to the conclusion that the penguins would become extinct because climate models predicted warmer temperatures and less ice in Antarctica - however, the actual empirical evidence finds climate models to be wrong
Read here and here. The IPCC's global and regional climate models are based on a high climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels. As a result, the models predict a warmer Antarctica with a loss of sea ice.
Using the IPCC models' output as input, another computer model thus predicted the extinction of Antarctica's penguins. Essentially, to be blunt, this is crappy science based on the familiar data processing concept known as 'GIGO'.
To the surprise of no one, with the exception of most lame stream science reporters, the GIGO penguin study has now been harpooned by actual empirical evidence and Antarctica climate reality.
"Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all..."Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place,"...The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...
"According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research: "It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception...that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass."
Conclusions: Incredibly crappy penguin study based solely on GIGO computer simulations dies on the harpoon of actual empirical evidence. Antarctica and the surrounding seas are not appreciably warming from human CO2 emissions as predicted by the IPCC's climate models.
The IPCC's climate models are likely overestimating the temperature impact of a doubling of CO2 - a new analysis finds that a key peer reviewed artilce used by the IPCC was in error in regards to climate sensitivity
Read here. As can be seen here, the IPCC's climate models have been notoriously bad at predicting global temperatures. The bad predictions output has suggested to experts that the models have been programmed to be overly sensitive to CO2 levels.
A new analysis is confirming what the experts have long suspected. But amazingly, the original author of study that IPCC relied on has now "lost" the raw data his study was based on.
"Nic Lewis, a coauthor of O’Donnell et al 2010, has been parsing climate sensitivity calculations for some time and with considerable frustration...One of the seminal sensitivity estimates is Forest et al 2006...has concluded that the calculations in Forest et al 2006 were done erroneously:
"If I am right, then correct processing of the data used in Forest 2006 would lead to the conclusion that equilibrium climate sensitivity (to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is close to 1°C, not 3°C, implying that likely future warming has been grossly overestimated by the IPCC."
...Forest et al is an important paper and Nic’s conclusions are damning. It’s frustrating that, after all the controversy, climate journals don’t require authors to archive data and that IPCC authors continue to “lose” data."
The climate doomsday global warming science "facts" that the IPCC promulgates is built on the house-of-cards of computer simulations - professional analysis of the climate models continue to reveal them as being entirely worthless
(click on image to enlarge)
Read here. At 'C3' we have written abundantly about climate models and their spectacular lack of success. The UN's IPCC, and climate research agencies, such as NASA, publish the results of these models as if they were the holy grail of future climate predictions.
Yet any layperson who even spends a modest amount of time reading about global warming and climate change quickly realizes that something is terribly amiss. The IPCC climate predictions appear to have no basis in reality - these predictions do not match the observed trends and conditions of global, regional and/or local climates.
Now recent research by scientists confirms what the average layperson perceived, that the climate models are essentially worthless.
"...a team of hydrologists...published a pair of studies comparing long-term (100-year) temperature and precipitation trends in a total of 55 locations around the world to model projections. The models performed quite poorly at the annual level...They also did no better over larger and larger regional scales. The authors concluded that there is no basis for the claim that climate models are well-suited for long-term predictions over large regions."
"A 2011 study in the Journal of Forecasting took the same data set and compared model predictions against a “random walk” alternative...The climate models, by contrast, got scores ranging from 2.4 to 3.7, indicating a total failure to provide valid forecast information at the regional level, even on long time scales. The authors commented: “This implies that the current [climate] models are ill-suited to localized decadal predictions, even though they are used as inputs for policymaking.”"
Conclusions: Per different statistical assessments comparing climate models versus climate reality, the climate models were found to be worthless if their success is measured by prediction accuracy. Inconveniently for the IPCC and NASA, those are the global warming science facts.
The IPCC "consensus" on climate change causes has not stood well, either by the test of empirical observations nor by the newer science research - essentially, the original "consensus" has proven to be a very weak gruel
(click image to enlarge)
Read here. Among scientists, it has become common knowledge that the IPCC's climate models continue to be divorced from reality (see chart left). The models are the foundation of "consensus" that the IPCC and climate doomsday scientists fabricated in an attempt to stifle debate.
As the adjacent updated IPCC chart shows, the recent years of non-warming, despite a massive increase in human CO2 emissions, is an empirical evidence consensus of a scientifically lame AGW hypothesis promulgated by the IPCC.
While the empirical evidence continues to corroborate the failure of the IPCC "consensus" and its climate models, scientists push on with their research to better understand what are the real climate change causes that would drive global temperature change, be it warming or cooling.
Indeed, a lot of new effort has been focused on atmospheric aerosols and their impact on global temperatures, which everyone agreed the IPCC was woefully ignorant of. The most recent scientific efforts have proven conclusively that aerosols are a major influence on temperatures and climate change - unfortunately, there is no "consensus" as to direction and degree of influence.
"New papers are constantly popping up in scientific journals discovering some amazing new impact of dirty air...“Researchers have yet to fully analyse the new results,”...“these are just the first wave of a deluge in modelling data.”...“This is fundamentally new science,”...“The new generation of models is changing the kinds of questions we face as scientists.”...It seems that climate modelers are finding surprises galore with their new play toys—warming and cooling, drying and increased precipitation—all linked to aerosols...Inundated by a wave of new results, confusion reigns. “What we need now is to really understand what the models are doing, and why they differ,”..."
Adding to the major aerosol confusion that climate science now has, is the remaining huge and original unsolved mystery of CO2. Yes, CO2 and its associated 'carbon cycle' still remains a significant mystery beyond scientists grasp.
The newest research confirms there is a 'Carbon [CO2] Puzzle' that scientists just can't explain. This remains a bold admission that historical climate change (in terms of CO2's impact) remains beyond the comprehension of the IPCC and its computers; and, likewise, climate change of the future science is still unable to solve the basic CO2 riddle due to a very fundamental lack of knowledge - "where the heck does CO2 go?".
Conclusions: The IPCC "consensus" on climate change causes (ie, human CO2 emissions) has become a non-consensus over recent years, as both the global temperature empirical evidence and new research on other climate impacts have substantially confirmed. While the IPCC and the doomsday client scientists cling bitterly to their one-dimensional, almost delusional CO2 fanaticism about climate change, the public and policymakers remain unconvinced.
The EPA, the IPCC and the USGCRP bureaucrats have erroneously predicted, per their global climate models, that southwest U.S. would become drier with more droughts - the latest research finds that these predictions are result of climate modeling failure
Read here. Climate alarmist scientists and multi-agency bureaucrats continue to produce erroneous assessments and misguided advice for policymakers based on global climate models. Computer models, and especially the global climate variety, have been a fountain of bogus predictions for years.
In a new study, experts documented another case of failed of global computer simulations that confirms why these hugely expensive 'big picture' models are pretty much worthless. Counter to the EPA and IPCC's predictions, the southwest USA is actually less likely to suffer from droughts, water shortages, forest fires, agriculture crop failure or insect infestations based on new research.
Why were the tax-payer sucking, big government agencies, soooo wrong? The global climate modelers forgot to tell the bureaucrats that the models did not include the impact of mountains on the climate and the bureaucrats were too stupid and/or lazy to ask - doh!
"A research team...[Gao et al.]...investigated that the differences between how large-scale global climate models and finer-scale regional climate models handled the characteristics of moisture flow in the atmosphere over the southwestern U.S...The regional climate models (RCMs) include much finer scale processes than are included in the global climate models (GCMs). In the Southwest, this includes a finer representation of the complex, mountainous terrain which plays a key role in the regional precipitation processes...compared how the RCMs handled the processes that lead to precipitation across the Southwest compared to how the processes were simulated in GCMs. They generally found that the better representation of the terrain by the RCMs allowed them to generate more future rainfall...result from Gao et al. showing that RCMs generated more future precipitation than GCMs in the Southwestern U.S...RCMs allowed them to better simulate the snow accumulation and ablation at high elevations and consequently “runoff in the Colorado River Basin is less susceptible to a warming climate in RCMs than in GCMs.”" [Yanhong Gao, L. Ruby Leung, Eric P. Salathé Jr., Francina Dominguez, Bart Nijssen, Dennis P. Lettenmaier 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
Conclusion: Global climate modeling failure is the rule rather than the exception in regards to the computer simulations that EPA & IPCC bureaucrats and policymakers rely on. New research regarding a regional climate in the U.S. substantiates the failed predictive capability of global climate models. As a result, these global climate models guarantee massive amounts of government investments being wasted on erroneous climate change impacts, such as more droughts in the southwest U.S..
It's another connect the dots moment - climate model failure is standard operating procedure for NASA's James Hansen as empirical evidence confirms his abysmal failure at global warming predictions
(click on images to enlarge)
This first chart establishes that the actual growth of CO2 emissions has not only continued as 'business as usual' since 1988, it in fact has exceeded the BAU growth rate handsomely during recent years.
This second chart plots the actual observed annual temperatures (NASA/GISS & HadCRUT) versus the climate model predictions of global warming made by James Hansen of NASA. Even to the casual observer, the abysmal failure of climate model predictions is staggering.
The green curve is the 'business as usual' NASA global warming prediction if 1988 levels of CO2 emission growth continued (Scenario 'A'). The green dots represent actual NASA annual global temperatures. The red dot is what Hansen predicted for 2011 temperatures - the gap between the green and red 2011 dots represent the huge prediction error.
The aqua curve represents Hansen's Scenario 'C' for global temperatures if the world had completely restricted CO2 emission growth by year 2000 - that never happened as CO2 growth went beyond BAU growth since 1988.
This third chart is a plot of the HadCRUT global temperatures over the last 15 years through March 2012. The HadCRUT dataset is the IPCC's 'gold standard.' Clearly, global temperatures over the last 180 months have not warmed as predicted by NASA's climate model (nor as predicted by any other "consensus" climate model). Huge global warming prediction errors will continue as long as computer models that are primarily based on levels of CO2 emissions are utilized.
Conclusion: Connect the dots climate model failure is not a 'roll of the dice' - it is a known, glaring global warming prediction bias that is significantly robust. Since this is a 'known known,' as a precautionary principle decision, James Hansen et al. should be retired from NASA's climate modeling research unit. Why?
When known failed climate scientist(s) begets known bad climate science that then leads to known bad economic and energy policies, then a humane precautionary principle is required to remove the failed scientist(s) prior to a tipping point of economic damage to society being reached. Or, in other words, fire the hysterical idiot - he's responsible for an incredible misallocation of science research resources since the 80's, and more recently, the incredibly crippling regulation/energy policies of the Obama administration.
Since Bill McKibben urges everyone to connect-the-dots, share the link to this 'C3' article with all your Facebook, Twitter, email and LinkedIn friends and contacts.
The liberal media's James Fallows has confirmed he's far from being the brightest bulb on the planet - Hansen's disciples at 'Real Climate' convinced Fallows that Hansen's 1981 climate model is the holy grail, not his later models, nor the more recent IPCC models
(click on images to enlarge)
Read here. The 'Real Climate' scientists are basically playing a shell game with James Fallow, where apparently the pea is Fallow's brain - guess where your brain is James?
These scientists found an old 1981 paper that James Hansen authored containing computer model predictions about global warming. They then pulled an ancient chart from the paper and doctored it up, which the Atlanic Monthly's Fallows obviously didn't look too closely at (the leftmost chart above), nor did he bother to compare with more recent climate model output.
The first problem with that chart is that the actual observed temperatures that Hansen plotted (black dots) are not the same as the red line temperature values that the "Real" Climate scientists used. For good subterfuge reasons, these "scientists" covered up (replaced?) Hansen's actual temps with fabricated temps - jeeez...somehow they forgot to point that out to the liberal media and Fallows. Hmmm...I wonder why?
The middle chart highlights the temp trough (1966, denoted by gold circle, gold arrow and red dotted line) of the observed temperatures that Hansen used in 1981. Soooo...the actual temperatures were covered up with replacements to make Hansen predictions look better - doh!
The second major issue with this chart is that alarmists claim that human CO2 has impacted the climate and global temperatures prior to 1980. The "Real" Climate scientists are using an old Hansen chart that shows no differing impact until 1990 - not even climate skeptics would produce something this egregiously wrong.
The rightmost chart represents the Hansen models as of 1988, which he used for his famous 1988 Congressional performancetestimony. Reviewing the 1988 model output of that same chart, it is clear Hansen felt that CO2 was impacting climate well before 1990.
Also, the predictions of Hansen's 1981 chart are not in sync with the output from the later models. Year 1980 is a prime example of this disconnect.
Going back to the middle chart, the old model prediction for 1980 (gold circle, gold arrow and blue dotted line) is significantly below the prediction of the 1988 computer model output (the blue circle and blue arrow).
Finally, the chart that they used to dupe Fallows with does not reflect the current reality of observed temperatures versus James Hansen's famous 1988 model predictions. (And most certainly, that old 1981 chart is at severe odds with the 2007 IPCC model output.)
Look closely at that chart on the right again. The green curve is James Hansen's prediction of global temperatures if the world did not agree to strict CO2 emission reductions. In fact, the world has thumbed its collective noses at the CO2 restrictions and Hansen. End result? Real world global temperatures are well below the infamous Hansen predictions that are his typical alarmist hysteria. BTW, the prediction for 2011 is highlighted with a blue circle, and the real NASA/GISS and HadCRUT 2011 temperatures are represented by those much lower black and red dots, respectively.
As the above articulates, the 1981 predictions by Hansen were later supplanted by Hansen's newer model predictions from his 1988 Congressional testimony. In essence, Hansen turned his back on the old predictions (but just recently resurrected by others, not Hansen).
Since the late-1980's, Hansen's global warming predictions, associated with 'business as usual' CO2 emissions (the green curve on rightmost chart above), have done poorly versus the climate reality.
The fact that James Fallow fell for such an obvious con game by the climate "scientists" is of no real surprise - the liberal / left old school media are really at a near loss challenging this level of bogus science.
Conclusion: Reading Fallows' anti-science, liberal media spin can't make one feel good about the current state of the media press; nor good about our taxpayer funded scientists putting out Fakegate-style fraud. It's a sad state of affairs, which Fallows et al. makes worse.
The IPCC often claims its climate models are infallible and all knowing when it comes to the climate - new study reveals major climate modeling failure as they are unable to accurately simulate Greenland's past climate accurately
Read here. Greenland's current climate is heavily influenced by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which has a lengthy periodicity. The AMO is a natural climate variability phenomenon having a strong impact on North Atlantic's regional temperatures.
Recent analysis of the Greenland ice cores, by Chylek et al., has proven that the powerful AMO variability has been part and parcel of the Greenland climate for thousands of years, pushing temperatures higher and lower depending on the cycle point.
This natural, internal variability has no connection to external factors (forcings) such as the CO2 greenhouse gas.
In addition, the scientists determined that the climate models, favored by the IPCC and other non-empirical based scientists, are unable to faithfully mimic the ancient past AMO variability due to geographic differences (location differences) - a major climate modeling failure.
"...examine evidence of the AMO that is contained in several ice core records distributed across Greenland. The researchers were looking to see whether there were changes in the character of the AMO over different climatological periods in the past, such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period—periods that long preceded large-scale human aerosol emissions. And indeed they found some. The AMO during the Little Ice Age was characterized by a quasi-periodicity of about 20 years, while the during the Medieval Warm Period the AMO oscillated with a period of about 45 to 65 years...The observed intermittency of these modes over the last 4000 years supports the view that these are internal ocean-atmosphere modes, with little or no external forcing...However, the geographic variability of these periodicities indicated by ice core data is not captured in model simulations." [Petr Chylek, Chris Kenneth Folland, Leela Mary Frankcombe, Henk A. Dijkstra, Glen Lesins, Manvendra K Dubey 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
Conclusion: The climate (ie, temperatures) of Greenland and other northern latitude areas has principally been driven by the periodicity of the Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation. The non-accurate simulation of this variability is another climate modeling failure that needs to be addressed.
Climate modeling failure remains a major embarrassment for the UN's IPPC's "climate science" efforts - this time their models failed at predicting the 'Siberian Highs' that dominate Northern Hemisphere weather
Read here. The 'Siberian High' (SH) is a major winter condition that drives much of the weather conditions throughout the Northern Hemisphere. It is a natural high pressure atmospheric climate phenomenon that varies from year to year, located principally across the Eurasian land mass.
The IPCC's climate modeling systems predicted that global warming would cause a significant reduction in the intensity of the SH. However, new peer reviewed research proves that the climate models were wrong - over the last two decades the SH intensity increased.
"In a study designed to determine to what degree the temporal SH intensity simulations of these models mimic reality, Jeong et al. employed two observational gridded sea level pressure (SLP) data sets...the seven scientists revealed "a pronounced declining trend of the SH intensity from the late 1960s to the early 1990s," which would appear to mesh well with GCM simulations presented in the IPCC AR4...However, they report that in the real world, the declining SH intensity trend "was sharply replaced by a fast recovery over the last two decades." And they thus make a strong point of noting that "this feature has not been successfully captured by the GCM simulations..."an improvement in predicting the future climate change in regional scale is desirable."" [Jee-Hoon Jeong, Tinghai Ou, Hans W. Linderholm, Baek-Min Kim, Seong-Joong Kim, Jong-Seong Kug, Deliang Chen 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Conclusion: Climate modeling failure is the standard operating procedure for the immensely expensive virtual simulations that the IPCC and associated climate agencies have poured billions into. They remain unable to provide accurate predictions that policymakers can rely on.
Climate modeling failure by the IPCC's past climate models is huge and well documented - the newest climate models are no better
(click on image to enlarge)
Read here. Expert analyst Bob Tisdale performs a close scrutiny of the new IPCC climate models and discovers they still do an abysmal job at predicting the past ('hindcast' of) global temperatures.
Despite billions of dollars of climate modeling expenditures and millions of person-hours of software efforts by model programmers since 2007, the latest and greatest computer simulations still cannot accurately portray the known past.
Adding misery to an already abysmal failure, the newest models' predictive outputs are barely different than the older models. Just as a reminder of the worthlessness of IPCC computer simulations, there is not a single past climate model that predicted this massive change in climate.
Conclusion: Climate modeling failure will always be significant and will never provide accurate climate predictions until they are finally cleansed of the CO2-biased parameters imposed/dictated by the UN's own IPCC's political-agenda.
For years the public wondered "Is global warming happening?" as the IPCC climate models predicted - instead the HadCRUT temperature dataset clearly shows global temps cooling off
(click on image to enlarge)
The adjacent chart documents the facts on the ground, so-to-speak, and easily answers the question: Is global warming happening?
The simple answer from the empirical observations is 'No.'
The IPCC climate models, using the business-as-usual CO2 emissions scenario A1F1 predicted a best estimate of global temperature increase of +4.0 degrees by year 2100. That prediction was based on year 2000 being the starting point.
Thus, per the IPCC model(s), by February 2012 the global temperatures should have already increased to 14.75 degrees C (pink dotted line) based on a 12-month moving average. Instead, since 2000, the HadCRUT global temperature has only slightly increased (red dotted line).
Below is a synopsis of linear trends of the model prediction and actual observations:
IPCC predicted: +4.0°C increase by year 2100
Since 1/1/1990 actual: +1.3°C increase by year 2100
Since 1/1/2000 actual: +0.4°C increase by year 2100
Since 1/1/2002 actual: -0.7°C decrease by year 2100
Despite human CO2 emissions continuing to grow in a 'business-as-usual' manner (grey curve, black dots), global warming has stopped and is currently declining, as the blue columns of the chart indicate. The blue fitted trend curve reveals the current direction of global temperatures - 'global cooling' would be the more accurate description for the last 10 years.
Conclusion: Is global warming happening?
Global warming has monotonously creeped to a point of global cooling since the 1998 peak temperatures. CO2 levels appear to have little, if any, direct impact on direction or magnitude of changes in global temperatures.
Why has global warming turned to cooling or, as some prefer, "stalled"? For the confusion that reigns over that issue read here.
[Note: To calculate rolling 12-month average of HadCRUT absolute temperatures, 'C3' used the HadCRUT global monthly anomalies plus the monthly absolutes found here. 'By year 2100' increases/decrease calculated using the 12-mth moving average absolutes. Although the A1F1 scenario starts in year 2000, the above Excel chart includes data back to 1990 to provide a visual context. Additional info on emission scenarios.]
The failed climate models of the IPCC and NASA have revealed the terminal weakness of the AGW hypothesis - but new research and models are coming online that better explain global warming and climate change
(click on images to enlarge)
Read here and here. The impressive success of the harmonic astronomical climate model (left chart) is in the realm of spectacular when compared to the robust, abysmal performance of the IPCC's (middle chart) and NASA's (right chart) traditional CO2-based climate models. The failure of the CO2-centric models is due in large part to their inability to reproduce the known decadal and multi-decadal oscillations that are part and parcel to the world's climate.
The significant failure of the IPCC / NASA climate models, and the AGW hypothesis they are derived from, is captured in its entire absurdity here. Literally, the avid proponents of the failed CO2-driven AGW hypothesis first admit to there being essentially zero warming over the last 10 years, and then try to rationalize the disappearance of warming with a diversity of speculations other than the obvious - that the current IPCC and NASA climate theory is bankrupt.
Below are excerpts that reveal the collective, "consensus" befuddlement of Climategate scientists towards global warming (or lack thereof):
John Barnes, climate scientist: “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”.
Robert Kaufman, climate scientist: "...released a modeling study suggesting that the hiatus in warming could be due entirely to El Niño and increased sulfates from China’s coal burning."
Martin Wild, climate scientist: "During the 1980s and ’90s, the rapid decline of air pollution in the United States and Europe dominated the world’s aerosol trends. While those emissions have continued to decline in the West, returns, from a brightening standpoint, ...“It’s not an obvious overall trend anymore,”..."
Susan Solomon, climate scientist: "“What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,” ...Solomon had shown that between 2000 and 2009, the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere declined by about 10 percent. This decline, caused either by natural variability — perhaps related to El Niño — or as a [negative] feedback to climate change, likely countered 25 percent of the warming that would have been caused by rising greenhouse gases..."
Kenneth Trenberth, climate scientist: "Until 2003, scientists had a reasonable understanding where the sun’s trapped heat was going; it was reflected in rising sea levels and temperatures. Since then, however, heat in the upper ocean has barely increased and the rate of sea level rise slowed,...they put forward a climate model showing that decade-long pauses in temperature rise, and its attendant missing energy, could arise by the heat sinking into the deep, frigid ocean waters, more than 2,000 feet down."
James Hansen, climate scientist: "All the climate models, compared to the Argo data and a tracer study soon to be released by several NASA peers, exaggerate how efficiently the ocean mixes heat into its recesses....that climate models have been overestimating the amount of energy in the climate,...“Less efficient mixing, other things being equal, would mean that there is less warming ‘in the pipeline,’” ....it also implies that the negative aerosol forcing is probably larger than most models assumed."
Graeme Stephens, climate scientist: "It suggests there isn’t a missing energy. Trenberth disagrees with this analysis, and it’s likely to be a question of ongoing debate."
Judith Lean, climate scientist: "The answer to the hiatus, according to Judith Lean, is all in the stars. Or rather, one star...Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and “that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player,” Lean said. “And that they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.” According to Lean, the combination of multiple La Niñas and the solar minimum, bottoming out for an unusually extended time in 2008 from its peak in 2001, are all that’s needed to cancel out the increased warming from rising greenhouse gases."
Ben Santer, climate scientist: “All of these things contribute to the relative muted warming,”..."The difficultly is figuring out the relative contribution of these things. You can’t do that without systematic modeling and experimentation. I would hope someone will do that.”...“Even if you have the hypothetical perfect model, if you leave out the wrong forcings, you will get the wrong answer.”
John Daniel, climate scientist: “We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.”
Conclusion: The failed climate models (that "scientists" from the IPCC and NASA livelihoods are dependent on) are based on a discredited CO2 hypothesis that is unable to explain the global climate's fluctuations. Newer models based on natural causations, be they of cosmic and/or earthly origin, are better able to explain global climate change, including decadal and multi-decadal temperature variation.
An empirical analysis of the latest CRUTEM4 dataset reveals that climate modeling, as used by the IPCC and other climate research agencies, have predictive capabilities measured as being worthless
(click image to enlarge) Read here. Bob Tisdale examines the new CRUTEM4 dataset (part of the new HadCRUT4 dataset) versus the predictions of the IPCC's climate modeling "science." As previous analyses have established, the major climate research climate models are incapable of providing accurate (or even adequate) predictions of future climate conditions.
Why is climate modeling worthless as a prediction tool?
There are multiple reasons, but in a nutshell:
1. Climate modelers, not being evidence-based scientists, constructed models per the IPCC politicized CO2-based agenda
2. Climate modelers, per the above #1 reason, constructed models to minimize the influence of natural climate oscillations and cycles
3. Climate modelers constantly tweak their models with numerous "adjustments" to force models to match observed temperature behavior over more recent decades
4. When, climate modelers perform their "tweaks" for modern era temperatures, the climate models are no longer able to accurately predict ('hindcast') past temperature behavior
5. If climate models were "adjusted" to perform better past temperature hindcasting, then the climate models would fail to match recent temperature behavior (it's the nature of the climate modle beast).
As the adjacent charts from Bob Tisdale's analysis shows, the state-of-the-art IPCC climate model predictions (red curves/lines) fail completely to match the observed historical dataset (blue curves/lines).
"...compares the models to the global CRUTEM4 data during the early warming period of 1917 to 1938. The observed rate at which global land surface temperatures warmed is almost 5 times faster than simulated by the IPCC’s climate models. 5 times faster....According to the CMIP3 multi-model mean, land surface temperatures should have warmed at a rate of 0.043 deg C per decade from 1938 to 1976, but according to the CRUTEM4 data, global land surface temperature anomalies cooled at a rate of -0.05 deg C per decade..."
Conclusion: After billions of dollars expended on climate modeling (and the ungodly huge amount of wasted science man-hours), the latest evidence sadly confirms that IPCC climate models' predictions remain worthless.
To get an idea of the immense expenditures of money and time spent on climate modelers play toys, watch this NASA video:
Skeptics' views regarding catastrophic global warming have been proven correct - experts now believe that climate models have overestimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels
Read here. Climate skeptics (luke warmers and others) have long contended that the supercomputer climate models used by the IPCC and NASA have significantly overestimated the potential global warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The majority of skeptics believe that any warming due to increased CO2 emissions will result in temperature increases of 2°C or less by year 2100. Recently, new peer reviewed studies by the experts have been published that reveals a new consensus being reached that confirms the skeptics' point of view: catastrophic global warming isn't in the cards.
New research on current climate models
"A collection of research results have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in recent months that buoys my hopes for a low-end climate sensitivity"..."there has been substantial research into the probability distribution which contains the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity and the emerging bulk of evidence suggests that the IPCC’s “likely” range for the equilibrium climate sensitivity is much too large and that the possibility that the equilibrium climate sensitivity lies above 6°C is vanishingly small—if not entirely ruled out. Even the chance that it exceeds 4.5°C has been markedly reduced to being no more than about 5% (if not even less)."..."Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.3–1.8°C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming..."For uncertainty assumptions best supported by global surface temperature data up to the present time, this paper finds a most likely present-day estimate of the transient climate sensitivity to be 1.6 K..."
Conclusion: The alarmist predictions of catastrophic global warming have been incorrectly based on the exaggerated climate sensitivity programmed into the climate models of major climate research agencies, including those that the IPCC relies on.
The NAS has issued a report that confirms the obvious climate science disaster: billions wasted on climate models - they still can't predict squat
(click image to enlarge)
Willis Eschenbach reviews a recent National Academy of Science report on climate change and reveals nothing new has been learned - the depressing outcome remains unchanged: billions wasted on climate models.
After decades of of government bureaucrat scientists' effort, and billions invested on massive hardware and software improvements, the IPCC, NASA and NOAA climate models still predict that a doubling of CO2 levels will produce a 1.5°C to a 3.0°C global temperature change.
That's the same prediction that the climate models and ancient computer technology produced back in the 80's and here's how bad that "expert" prediction is looking now.
"And after the millions of hours of human effort, after the millions and millions of dollars gone into research, after all of those million-fold increases in computer speed and size, and after the phenomenal increase in model sophistication and detail … the guesstimated range of climate sensitivity hasn’t narrowed in any significant fashion. It’s still right around 3 ± 1.5°C per double of CO2, just like it was in 1979."
Conclusion:Climate models are worthless as climate change prediction tools. Literally, billions wasted on climate models without any noteworthy prognostication benefit.
The runaway global warming scenarios of the IPCC climate models are based exclusively on a hypothesized positive climate feedback - satellite data reveal a powerful negative cloud feedback instead
Read here. The IPCC claims of a positive feedback mechanism that would cause runaway global warming, and a climate change tipping point, have never been validated as being climate science reality. Yet the IPCC's climate models all employ this phantom positive feedback, resulting in their infamous predictions of catastrophic climate events.
Unfortunately for the IPCC, its "consensus" climate models are all wrong regarding positive feedbacks. Instead, the latest satellite empirical evidence points to a significant negative cloud feedback that is the likely cause of the lack of global warming over the last 15 years.
"A new paper just published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roger Davies and Mathew Molloy of the University of Auckland finds that over the past decade the global average effective cloud height has declined and that “If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming.”...The average global cloud height is linked to the average global temperature—generally, the higher the average cloud height, the higher the average surface temperature, and vice versa...A point well-recognized by Davies and Molloy when they write “Changes in cloud properties in response to rising surface temperatures represent some of the strongest, yet least understood, feedback processes in the climate system.“..."If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming, as lower cloud heights reduce the effective altitude of emission of radiation to space with a corresponding cooling effect on equilibrium surface temperature."...According to the calculations of Davies and Molloy, the negative climate forcing from a decrease in the average global cloud amount during the past 10 years has more than offset the positive forcing from an increase in greenhouse gases from human activities." [Roger Davies, Mathew Molloy 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
James Hansen has provided proof over the last few decades that climate models are worthless as climate prediction tools - will NASA & the IPCC admit failure?
(click on images to enlarge)
Using the December-end temperature anomalies (chart on left), it is readily apparent that NASA's James Hansen is entirely incapable of producing accurate global temperature predictions over the long-term. His predictions have been so bad that even the mainstream press is finally coming around to the realization that the alarmist global warming scenarios are truly without merit.
The second chart (on the right) exhibits the non-predicted deceleration of global temperatures over the last 15 years using the IPCC's gold-standard HadCRUT dataset.
Whether it is long or short-term, Hansen/NASA models are no better than a Ouija board as a tool to predict global temperatures. This massive failure by Hansen et al can also be seen in his model's prediction of ocean heat content and sea level rise.
Often climate models are utilized for specific regional climate forecasts - scientists determine that for regional snowfalls, the models are worthless
Read here. It is well established that climate models have been atrocious at predicting global warming and other climate attributes. This lack of predictive skill globally is compounded when these models attempt to make regional predictions such as snowfall in a specific region.
EU scientists, Soncini and Bocchiola, analyzed snowfall predictions by two major climate models for the Italian Alps region. The models did not perform as advertised.
"The authors write that "General Circulation Models (GCMs) are widely adopted tools to achieve future climate projections." They note, however, that "one needs to assess their accuracy, which is only possible by comparison of GCMs' control runs against past observed data,"...investigated the accuracy of simulations of snowfall throughout the Italian Alps that were provided by two GCMs...included within the family of models employed by the IPCC. This was done by comparing the models' output with a set of comprehensive ground data obtained from some 400 snow-gauging stations located within the region of interest for the period 1990-2009...determined that "the investigated GCMs provide poor depiction of the snowfall timing and amount upon the Italian Alps," noting, in fact, that the HadCM3 model actually "displays considerable snowfall during summer," which they indicate "is clearly not supported by ground data"..."given the poor depiction of snowfall by the GCMs here tested, we suggest that care should be taken when using their outputs for predictive purposes."" [A. Soncini, D. Bocchiola 2011: Cold Regions Science and Technology]
The NASA climate model developed by James Hansen has been atrocious at predicting global warming over the last 15 years and the evidence mounts it is even worse at predicting ocean heat content
Read here. The oceans represent some 70% of the globe's surface and is a giant reservoir of energy, with an immense effect on the climate. Being able to accurately predict the heat content is absolutely essential if climate models are ever to be trusted.
As the adjacent chart by expert Bob Tisdale reveals, the NASA climate model prediction for ocean heat content (OHC) is robustly higher than actual measurements of OHC since 2003. The model doesn't work as advertised, like most climate models' predictions.
"The reality is, the flattening of the Global OHC anomaly data was not anticipated by those who created the models. This of course raises many questions, one of which is, if the models did not predict the flattening of the OHC data in recent years, much of which is based on the drop in North Atlantic OHC, did the models hindcast the rise properly from 1955 to 2003? Apparently not."
The NASA model was developed by Hansen. He had it programmed to predict a rapid increase in OHC based on the questionable CO2-based AGW hypothesis. Because of a major weakness in the AGW hypothesis (the never realized positive feedback loops) NASA's model is unable to predict OHC correctly, let alone the world's climate.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions found to be less of a climate forcing than the UN's IPCC climate models assume
Read here. The IPCC's climate modelers purposefully designed the computer models to implicate human CO2 emissions as the major culprit for global warming and climate change. As the climatic empirical evidence kept growing though, it became obvious these models were atrocious at climate prediction, specifically due to their myopic reliance on CO2 as the principal global warming forcing.
As the majority of scientists are now coming to believe, new research from Humlum et al. determines that indeed human CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases are not the primary cause of global warming. The peer-reviewed research clearly implicates the climate's natural variability as the driving force of global warming.
"...we demonstrate how such persistent natural variations can be used for hindcasting and forecasting climate. Our main focus is on identifying the character (timing, period, amplitude) of such recurrent natural climate variations, but we also comment on the likely physical explanations for some of the identified cyclic climate variations. The causes of millennial climate changes remain poorly understood, and this issue remains important for understanding causes for natural climate variability over decadal- and decennial time scales...►We identified persistent cyclic variations in records from Svalbard and Greenland. ► Some identified cycles correspond to variations in the Moons' orbit around Earth. ► Some identified cycles correspond to solar variations. ► Warming since 1850 is mainly the result of natural climatic variations." [Ole Humlum, Jan-Erik Solheimc, Kjell Stordahld 2011: Global and Planetary Change]
The UN's IPCC climate models found, by scientists, to be abject failures at global warming and/or climate change predictions
Read here. It is now believed by over 97% of all physical science scientists that the IPCC's climate models have failed to accurately predict recent changes in global temperatures and associated climate change. The inconvenient facts of climate model prediction failure have become well known and are no longer denied by the world's science community.
(Note to readers: Try to find a single PhD in physical sciences whom actually believes, and will state in writing, that the climate computer simulations have been accurate over the last 15 years....good luck with that.)
The latest peer-reviewed research by Chinese scientists, Fu et al., substantiates what the vast majority of scientists have concluded: IPCC computer climate models are presently incapable of producing accurate climate predictions and will continue to be unable to do so for the foreseeable future.
"In setting the stage for their study, the authors note that the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that climate projections based on models that consider both human and natural factors provide "credible quantitative estimates of future climate change." However, as they continue, mismatches between IPCC AR4 model ensembles and observations, especially the multi-decadal variability (MDV), "have cast shadows on the confidence of the model-based decadal projections of future climate,"...evaluated "many individual runs of AR4 models in the simulation of past global mean temperature," focusing on the performance of individual runs of models included in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase three (CMIP3) in simulating the multi-decadal variability of the past global mean temperature...they determined that "most of the individual model runs fail to reproduce the MDV of past climate, which may have led to the overestimation of the projection of global warming for the next 40 years or so."" [CongBin Fu, Cheng Qian, ZhaoHua Wu 2011: Science China Earth Sciences]
Read here. It is well documented that the IPCC's climate "experts" (software programmers) inserted a very high (unproven) CO2 climate sensitivity into the computer climate models. For PR propaganda purposes, the IPCC's climate simulations then foretold a future climate of potentially high temperatures due to the mysterious "tipping point."
As this typical climate model prediction chart reveals though, there is an obvious real-time problem with the IPCC programmers' assumption that the climate is highly sensitive to high levels of atmospheric CO2.
New peer-reviewed research has found that the IPCC's climate models are wrong, and the prediction of "accelerating" global warming due high climate sensitivity is wrong. The research confirms previousstudiesthat the projected future tipping point climate conditions were falsehoods. The actual science again proves global warming skeptics to be correct and, more robustly, that anti-science global warming alarmists, such as Chris Mooney, to be...well...er...pathological liars, exaggerators hysteria-loving alarmists who ignore climate reality.
Much to the major chagrin of climate alarmists everywhere, the Schmittner et al. team conclude that an approximate global temperature increase of 2.5 degrees is a much more likely outcome than the over-inflated 5.0 degrees publicized by the IPCC. This new finding makes the upcoming IPCC's the-world-is-melting convention in Durban, South Africa the penultimate farce.
"There is word circulating that a paper soon to appear in Science magazine concludes that the climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide—likely (that is, with a 66% probability) lies in the range 1.7°C to 2.6°C, with a median value of 2.3°C....In the new paper, the authors find only “vanishing probabilities” for a climate sensitivity value greater than 3.2°C and that values greater than 6.0°C are “implausible.”...results join a growing number of papers published in recent years which, by employing investigations of the earth’s paleoclimate behavior (that is, how the earth’s temperature changes in the past when subject to changing climate forcings) have come to somewhat similar conclusions..." [Schmittner, A., et al., 2011: Science]
Read here. As scientific study after study has determined, climate models have about zero skill in predicting future climate scenarios. These computer simulations suffer from many shortcomings that automatically prevent them from predicting accurate global warming (or cooling) and associated climate change characteristics.
Even the most incompetent of the Climategate scientists, Kevin ("it's a travesty") Trenberth admits the following about the stupendously expensive climate models:
“None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models...Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.”
Obviously, the "experts" concur with the laypersons' conclusion: models are worthless regarding future climate predictions. But can climate models at least accurately predict the past (hindcasts), though? Nope.
Bob Tisdale did some extreme number crunching and found that the climate models can't even accurately hindcast the past despite knowing what exactly happened with the past climate.
Soooo, what did he find when he compared the real data of the past versus the simulated past data?
The simulated climate model average determined NINO3 sea area temperatures must have increased at a rate of 10.4C degrees per century.
And what was reality?
NINO3 sea temperatures actually increased at a per century rate of 0.7C degrees.
Summary: Policymakers should completely ignore any scientists who rely on climate models as a basis for future global warming or climate change predictions.
Read here. The IPCC's merry band of Climategate scientists claim that their computer models predict a specific amount of Arctic warming. One big problem though: the models' simulations produce incorrect Arctic warming, per the latest research.
Scientists Chung and Räisänen analyzed the Arctic summer temperature output of two major models: the CAM3 and ECHAM5. The analysis of simulated results versus reality found that the models overestimated warming. The scientists concluded that the failed Arctic predictions are due to very significant, robust problem: models don't accurately represent climate forcings.....ooops!
"Compared with the June-August 3D temperature trend in ERA Interim reanalysis, the CMIP3 models simulate warming at higher levels, suggesting that the models over-simulate the role of poleward energy transport in Arctic warming...If the models simulate climate feedbacks correctly, the indication is that models have significantly incorrect climate forcing. Since GHG forcing is well established, the problem is likely in how the models treat aerosol effects. In this scenario, the real aerosol forcing might be significantly positive in the Arctic and significantly negative outside of the Arctic, while the models miss this feature entirely."
"This paper is yet another study that documents shortcomings in the global climate models that are used to make multi-decadal climate predictions."
Last week the BEST research team released their findings in regards to land surface temperatures. The BEST data matched up very closely with the IPCC's gold standard, the HadCRUT land temps sub-dataset. In summary, the Berkeley study had a few key points, including:
BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming
BEST determined that government maintained temperature-station quality is "awful"
BEST found that the urban impact on global land temperatures is minimal
BEST concluded that the human influence on land temperatures may be overestimated
BEST concluded that land temperatures may be driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - a decadal phenomenon
Since the BEST land surface results were so similar to the Hadley and CRU efforts, it is highly probable that the future BEST research will closely mimic the HadCRUT3 global temperature dataset as shown above in the chart on the left.
The latest HadCRUT dataset report (released today, 10/28/2011) through September 2011 reveals a very insignificant warming over the last 15 years, with zero correlation to increasing CO2 levels. The global HadCRUT linear trend if projected out means a total global temperature increase of +0.3 degrees by year 2100.
The chart on the right tracks the HadCRUT and GISS global temperature anomalies versus the NASA climate model prediction of global temperatures due to CO2 emissions. It is obvious, that the climate models are stupendously wrong in their estimate of the temperature impact of human CO2 emissions - if the models were correct, the HadCRUT and GISS temperature anomalies would resemble Hansen's 'green' curve. (Note: Climate predictions from the IPCC, its models and its experts are consistently wrong.)
Based on this most recent temperature and CO2 information, one can safely assume that the BEST researchers are no dummies.....that would explain their hedging comments that the human influence is 'overestimated' and that natural decadal oscillations may be driving temperatures instead of human CO2 emissions.
Read here. It is common knowledge that weather computer models are unreliable for accurate predictions that extend past a three day future. Climate models, which are closely related to weather models, suffer from the same non-reliable prediction issues as the longer than three day weather simulations.
In a state-of-the-art analysis, peer reviewed research by an IPCC climate expert has now confirmed that climate models are essentially worthless for predictions that stretch out a decade, which makes the models even worse than worthless for century-scale predictions.
Climate experts Latif and Keenlyside established the following:
1. "...examples of these internal [climate] variations are "the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Variability (PDV), and the Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV)," all of which "project on global or hemispheric surface air temperature (SAT)...special attention to the variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which they suggest is likely the origin of a considerable part of the decadal variability within the Atlantic Sector"
2. "...list numerous problems that hamper decadal climate predictability, among which is the fact that "the models suffer from large biases." In the cases of annual mean sea surface temperature (SST) and SAT over land, for example, they state that "typical errors can amount up to 10°C in certain regions,"..."
3. "...they add that several models also "fail to simulate a realistic El Niño/Southern Oscillation."..."
4. "...they indicate that "several assumptions have generally to be made about the process under consideration that cannot be rigorously justified, and this is a major source of uncertainty.""
5. "Another problem they discuss is the fact that "some components of the climate system are not well represented or not at all part of standard climate models," one example being the models' neglect of the stratosphere. This omission is quite serious, since Latif and Keenlyside say that "recent studies indicate that the mid-latitudinal response to both tropical and extra-tropical SST anomalies over the North Atlantic Sector may critically depend on stratospheric feedbacks,"..."
6. "An additional common model shortcoming, even in stand-alone integrations with models forced by observed SSTs, is that model simulations of rainfall in the Sahel "fail to reproduce the correct magnitude of the decadal precipitation anomalies.""
7. "Still another failure is the fact, as shown by Stroeve et al. (2007), that "virtually all climate models considerably underestimate the observed Arctic sea ice decline during the recent decades in the so-called 20th century integrations with prescribed (known natural and anthropogenic) observed forcing.""
8. "And added to these problems is the fact that "atmospheric chemistry and aerosol processes are still not well incorporated into current climate models.""
9. "...that "they [models] are incomplete and do not incorporate potentially important physics,""
10. "...that "the poor observational database does not allow a distinction between 'realistic' and 'unrealistic' simulations,"..."
11. "...state that "a sufficient understanding of the mechanisms of decadal-to-multidecadal variability is lacking," that "state-of-the-art climate models suffer from large biases,"..."
12. "...Therefore, they conclude that "it cannot be assumed that current climate models are well suited to realize the full decadal predictability potential,"..."
So, in summary, climate experts from the IPCC are conclusively stating that the IPCC and its climate experts have been wrong with their future climate predictions (scenarios) because the climate models are not "well suited" for doing so. This abysmal, comprehensive climate model failure thus applies to all past IPCC report predictions and will still be the case for future IPCC reports (AR5 and others).
Did we mention climate model predictions are worthless yet?