Austria’s ZAMG Meteorology And Geodynamics Institute Concedes Climate Models Not Reliable

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Austrian ZAMG Meteorology Institute Says Drivers In Climate Models Still Not Correctly Understood

By Die kalte Sonne

In climate science, as is generally known, there is a 97% consensus on all topics. The remaining 3% are just crazy. This is so because anyone who openly contradicts the “consensus” can forget about his career, and gets marginalized and excluded from project funding opportunities. So it’s best to keep quiet.

Thus, it’s all the more surprising that the Austrian Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG) has taken a critical look at the topic of climate change.

On the ZAMG’s website, the Vienna-Austria-based scientists discuss important criticisms:

Future natural climate drivers not accounted for

If the share of individual climatic drivers in the development of global temperature are misjudged by climate models, and even if they delivered a realistic result thus far, future simulations will be wrong. In addition, beside the anthropogenic one, other climate drivers in future scenarios are not even accounted for. They just cannot be predicted.

One problem with the global climate models is the model quality’s focus on the reproduction of the measured global mean temperature. Although this is relatively well simulated, there are concerns as to whether the models’ sensitivity to the different climate drivers (solar activity, volcanic aerosols, greenhouse gases, etc.) corresponds to reality.

In addition, the drivers are not understood properly even with their warming or cooling effect. So it is possible that a climate model correctly simulates the mean global temperature – even with an incorrect sensitivities with respect to its drivers.

Anthropogenic climate driver overrated?

The 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC (Solomon et al. 2007) notes that warming in the second half of the 20th century was “very likely” caused by the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This statement is based on the simulations from a variety of global climate models. Critics, however, say that the models have too high a sensitivity for CO2 as a driver and, for example, underestimate the influence of the sun.

Strengths-weaknesses analysis helpful

It is going to take some development time to properly reflect the balance among the drivers in the climate models. However, fundamental criticism of the performance of the climate models gets equated as denial of reality. It is crucial to clearly distinguish which results climate models can provide with certainty (see articles on strengths) and which ones that cannot (see article on weaknesses).

The article in German can be found at the website of the ZAMG.

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

12 responses to “Austria’s ZAMG Meteorology And Geodynamics Institute Concedes Climate Models Not Reliable”

  1. Thomas Robbins

    No s***

  2. Thomas Robbins

    Also in this months “DUH” magazine….

  3. CO2isLife

    Blog Readers and P Gosselin. Scott Adams has put out a challenge for the best 5 arguments Pro and Con regarding Climate Change. Would you muster your resources and take on the challenge? Here is an example and please challenge other bloggers to do the same.

    Response to Scott Adams; The CO2isLife Top 5 Skeptical Arguments
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/response-to-scott-adams-the-co2islife-top-5-skeptical-arguments/

    We can then create a top 5 of the top 5 list

  4. Curious George

    “Future natural climate drivers not accounted for.” The future has been notoriously difficult to account for.

  5. Paul Aubrin

    “Anthropogenic climate driver overrated?”
    This is the IPCC’s attribution problem. For this the IPCC relies on computer simulations and expert judgment. Another approach, dynamical systems identification, has been explored by Philippe de Larminat in a scientific paper Earth climate identification vs. anthropic global warming attribution. Annual Reviews in Control, 42, 114-125 [doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2016.09.018] (accessible free of charge).
    Using this identification technique, de Larminat detects some natural drivers in empirical climate data.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367578816300931

  6. pochas94

    “still not correctly understood.”
    because it is hard to make someone understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

    1. pochas94

      Should have credited Upton Sinclair

  7. sasquatch

    Gettin’ to be one brutal winter, it never warms up. A good winter for inclement weather.

    China will mandate another ten percent increase in coal consumption, making China’s share of coal consumption at 55 percent, not just 50 percent. We need global warming and we need it now says China. har

    The icicles on the roof indicate how cold the winter has been. Cold is not a strong enough word to describe the winter weather conditions thus far.

    Extreme cold, maybe not, but frigid temps are happening these days. Warm spells haven’t been there this winter, it stays cold, not much sunshine.

    If you want global warming, rely upon the sun, not so much carbon dioxide levels at 400 ppm.

    Helps the greening of the earth’s ecosystems, but it doesn’t do much for warming during the winter months.

    The evidence is overwhelming. lol

    I have seen days in January at 54 degrees, you’re standing outside in comfortable working conditions. I have seen days in June where the temp holds at 49 degrees F and you’re cold all day long. You never get warm.

    When the sun is not shining, you know how cold it can be.

    The ineluctable conclusion would be that the sun is the prime climate driver, all others come in second, and second would be the atmosphere and its contents. Some oxygen, plenty of nitrogen, a little carbon dioxide, doesn’t matter from where.

    Some water vapor, voila, weather. No atmosphere, the earth’s weather will be something other than what it is now.

    The exosphere extends all the way out to the moon, might as well go whole hog all the way to the lunatic fringe. lol

    Without the moon’s gravitational influences, the earth’s weather would be far different than what is experienced now.

    The hydrological cycle has the greatest influence on the atmospheric conditions.

    Arctic Sea Ice Extent Nothing much changes, looks that way.

    The more things change, the more they remain the same.

  8. Response to Scott Adams; The CO2isLife Top 5 Skeptical Arguments – CO2 is Life

    […] Austria’s ZAMG Meteorology And Geodynamics Institute Concedes Climate Models Not Reliable (Source) […]

  9. Climat : la météo autrichienne sceptique sur le consensus | Contrepoints

    […] Traduction par Charles Boyer de « Austria’s ZAMG Meteorology And Geodynamics Institute Concedes Climate Models Not Reliable » […]

  10. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #349 | Watts Up With That?
  11. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #349 - Sciencetells

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close