A new paper has been published by the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics, authored by Nicola Scafetta, 2012: Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation models. Entire paper available here.
Solar system (public domain graphic -NASA)
It’s not a secret that the IPCC models are all rigged to make CO2 look like the culprit for the last 150 years of warming. We say this because we now know their models completely ignore, or selectively distort, the potency of an array of drivers and amplification mechanisms.
In the paper, according to the abstract, Scafetta compares the performance of a recently proposed empirical climate model based on astronomical harmonics against all CMIP3 available general circulation climate models (GCM) used by the IPCC (2007) and finds that the climate appears to be resonating with, or is synchronized to, a set of natural harmonics that have been associated to the solar system planetary motion.
According to the abstract:
…the GCMs fail to reproduce the major decadal and multidecadal oscillations found in the global surface temperature record from 1850 to 2011. On the contrary, the proposed harmonic model (which herein uses cycles with 9.1, 10–10.5, 20–21, 60–62 year periods) is found to well reconstruct the observed climate oscillations from 1850 to 2011, and it is shown to be able to forecast the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2011 using the data covering the period 1850–1950, and vice versa.”
What does Scafetta conclude from this (emphasis added)?
We show that the IPCC GCM’s claim that all warming observed from 1970 to 2000 has been anthropogenically induced is erroneous because of the GCM failure in reconstructing the quasi 20-year and 60-year climatic cycles.”
In the conclusion of the paper, Scafetta also writes:
Consequently, the IPCC projections for the 21st century cannot be trusted.”
In light of this new information and all the new findings we’ve seen since 2007, the IPCC has no choice but to recognize and admit that their models are totally inadequate and in need of a complete overhaul.
Should the IPCC continue to ignore new findings and claim their models are accurate and correct (when they know they are not), then it will be de facto entering the territory of scientific fraud. The next assessment report, due in 2013 or 2014, must include the new scientific findings. Anything else would be willful fraud. That’s what it is when there’s intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.
There’s no way the IPCC will be able stick to its current climate models in its next report without opening themselves up to lawsuits for scientific fraud. No more excuses.
There’s something to be said about the IPCC and the graphic of the Solar System. We are the Sun, the IPCC doesn’t even show up given the scale of the picture, nor does the UN. Want to change the way an irrelavent international entity does business, stop the source of light (money). In politics, money is life and light. Vote for someone who will cut the flow of money to the IPCC and those at the national level that they must associate with to continue. Start at the bottom. All politics IS local.
It seems rather common to refer to IPCC climate or general circulation models but is that not a bit misleading? Are the IPCC publications a collection of reports from other, mostly government or university, sources? Not that I want to make much of this. Wrong is wrong but the folks doing the work are slowly making more feature rich models. Soon they might even demote CO2 to a minor role. The unconditional use of the models by the IPCC to justify redesigning the world is the stupendously stupid part.
Are there any GCM’s that are not IPCC consensus models? No – it’s too expensive to develop one to do it without the CAGW funding. ALL the institutes who dabble with climate models are gravy train riders. In the EU, you get your money from the “Research Framework Program”; you HAVE to agree with the EU Kommissariat or you’re out.
Not one of the climate modelers is a seeker for truth; they are all 100% apparatchiks.
There may be some models out there that show only modest or no warming, but we don’t hear anything about them.
Even those use false physics and rigged aerosol forcings for the past to arrive at a correct hindcasting, assume CO2-water vapor feedback etc etc etc. They are all basically the same FORTRAN source code, with an ocean module added in institute X and a cloud module added in institute Y. Often these modules don’t even work in parallel but are run as separate simulations, with the output of one of them fed into the run of the other. It’s all extremely shoddy work, with a student or postdoc doing the programming (not a computer scientist, mind you), and a professor doing the publishing and travelling and the junkets. Just look at the MSc thesis offers at von Storch’s institute. In the end you get a wiggle in a curve and can publish 20 alarming papers about that terrible wiggle. No Q&A and a gazillion global variables. I’d like to see all of these madhouses shut down.
Ah, that should be QA as in Quality Assurance; not Q&A as in Question&Answers…
“It’s all extremely shoddy work, with a student or postdoc doing the programming (not a computer scientist, mind you), and a professor doing the publishing and travelling and the junkets.”
Wait a minute! “Shoddy work!” That sounds like my graduate school days. The department’s work room had a bunch of Friden Electro-Mechanical Calculators but the Dept. Head knew the world was changing and ask two first year students (Nancy and me) to lead the existing faculty and the students into the world of computing. Across campus there was an IBM-1620 (card input – card output) and we learned FORTRAN II-D (and later IV). Nancy was given an office next to the IBM and mine was in the department’s Friden lab. When we left with our master’s degrees two years later the calculators were gone and there was a courier service to a new IBM mainframe in the university’s medical complex. Two final points: We had to do the programming for the department (geography) because we were the first to learn all that hard stuff like Do Loops and Go Tos. And it was a bit shoddy. Second point: Nancy and I have now been married for 43 years.
I wouldn’t rearrange the world’s economy on my nested Do Loops and If Then statements!
[…] Scafetta: IPCC Warming Claim Is “Erroneous…IPCC Projections For The 21st Century Cannot Be Trust… […]
Gerhard Gerlich an expert in thermodynamics and the modeling of thermodynamic systems said it all in this paper:
REPLY TO “COMMENT ON ‘FALSIFICATION OF
THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS
WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS’
available here
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/gerlich-reply-to-halpern.pdf
said it all very simply:
“Thus, global climate models are nothing but a very expensive form of computer
game entertainment.”