Now that climate models have been around for quite some time, we can assess their performance and whether it is a wise idea to rely on them.
So far they appear to be much worse than random guessing. In fact it seems that climate models almost have a perfect record at making completely erroneous predictions. At least that’s the case with climate models of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPIM) in Hamburg.
Yesterday Germany’s number 1 (in circulation) daily Bild here reported on this year’s once again lousy summer weather in Germany. Bild asked meteorologist Dominik Jung about summertime trends as a whole. Here’s what Bild writes (my emphasis):
Jung has discovered a trend: ‘One could say that the summers over the last 10 years have continuously gotten wetter! In 2007 there was 40% more rain than the normal mean, 2010 there was 15% more.’ Jung says: ‘In 2011 there was even 35% more rain than normal.’
Also the current summer is well on its way to being too wet. June got 15% more rain than normal.”
But Max Planck Institute models predicted the exact opposite!
So according to observations, summers in Germany have gotten wetter over the last 10 years. What did the climate models predict? A little digging turned up some interesting results.
Here’s what Focus wrote in 2009:
Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg developed an especially high-resolution model. To the highest detail the model shows how climate change can impact Germany up to the year 2100. The MPIM climatologists summarized the results in a study published already in 2006. Their computer divided up the entire country into a 10 by 10 kilometer grid. Every 50 seconds it determines how the data inside them changes. Out comes values for temperature, pressure, wind and precipitation.
Clear climate trends are generated from the computer results. According to the model, winter months in all of Germany will become warmer. Depending on CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise regionally by up to 4°C, in the Alps even up to 5°C.
During the summertime, the rainfall amounts in the south, southwest and northeast of Germany can fall by up to one third, which will exacerbate droughts and increase forest fires. Along the North Sea and Baltic Sea coastlines, tourism will profit.”
When the models were made, The MPIM was under the direction of Prof. Hartmut Graßl, an alarmist who is now connected with the Münchener Re Reinsurer, which is making a bundle on the climate scare.
Now we suppose that the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) will have to correct the flawed Max Planck modelers. Germany’s recent cold and brutal winters led the PIK to slap together a “refined” model that suddenly projected global warming would lead to cold and snowy German winters instead. So I suppose we can soon expect the PIK to roll out another “refined” model calling for wetter summers.
Compensation for damages?
What about all the companies and investors who bankrolled on scorching hot, dry summers? Can they demand compensation for damages incurred from faulty forecasts? Earlier this year we installed a 12-kW solar system on our home, and we were looking forward to months of sunshine and a rapid ROI – based on MPIM computer forecasts, of course! Doesn’t look like that is going to happen, at least not this summer.
7-day forecast for Oldenburg Germany.
And I can forget getting any compensation for damages from the crystal-balling climate gypsies up in Hamburg. In fact, it looks like I’m going to have to turn on the furnace – in f—— July!
16 responses to “Max Planck Institute For Meteorology Climate Models Completely Miss The Barn – German Summers Getting Wetter”
Good enough for government work.
Unfortunately that proverb has no German equivalent.
This is hilarious…
Background: Overproduction of renewable electricity leads to dropping prices at the exchange. At the same time over the years the cross subsidy has risen.
Now get this:
“EEG-Börsen-Mechanismus muss überprüft werden
Weil die Strompreise aber so stark sinken, steigt gleichzeitig die EEG-Umlage, die nach Berechnungen des IWR in diesem Jahr allein wegen des aktuellen Strompreis-Senkungseffekts voraussichtlich um eine Milliarde Euro höher ausfallen wird. Allnoch: “Der eingeführte Mechanismus zur Vermarktung des EEG-Stroms an der Börse funktioniert nur in der Theorie. Das Ziel, dass sich fallende Einkaufs-Strompreise und die dadurch steigende EEG-Umlage unter dem Strich ausgleichen und damit für den Verbraucher eigentlich preisneutral wirken, lässt sich in der Praxis nicht beobachten.” Daher gehört der EEG-Vermarktungs-Mechanismus laut Allnoch dringend auf den Prüfstand, damit die Preissenkungen durch Erneuerbare Energien den Verbrauchern auch tatsächlich zugutekommen.
EEG price mechanism must be revisited
Because the build prices of electricity drop so much the difference to the guaranteed FIT rises, so that the EEG cross subsidy also has to rise. This effect alone adds 1 bn EUR to this years total cross subsidy. Allnoch says: “The market mechanism works only in theory. The goal that the dropping bulk prices neutralize the rising subsidy cost so that the Energiewende becomes price neutral for the consumer cannot be observed in reality. This means that the price finding mechanism must urgently be revisited so that the dropping bulk prices become beneficial for the customer.”
This is stupidity on such an extreme level that I wonder how that guy manages to breathe while walking. He really believes that the cost of building all the renewable energy contraptions can somehow magically disappear.
EEG price mechanism must be revisited
Because the bulk (instead of build) prices of electricity …
How about climate change caused by large windfarms?
Of course detractors are claiming the study was funded by the fossil fuel industry.
But if fruit orchards can be protected from frost by running large fans, then wind turbines must have the same effect.
I’m not sure about that. In the first case energy is being added to the air. With wind turbines, energy is being subtracted.
In the wake of the turbine more turbulence hits the surface. This leads to increased evaporation and local warming / drying.
While energy is extracted “somewehere up there” the turbulence can even lead to increased air flow right at the surface.
There isn’t much energy either added or subtracted. It’s the mixing and turbulence that is important.
Yeah, main purpose is the extraction of money, I forgot. Energy production is a second order effect.
The hyperbolic optimum is when you make an infinite amount of money by producing no energy at all.
Right on cue:
Vattenfall sues Germany over nuke power move
The spokeswoman stressed that the complaint was not against the decision to ditch nuclear power per se but against the requirement to shut down reactors early, which they say infringes their proprietary rights.
Vattenfall said it was seeking “appropriate compensation” from Germany for expected losses caused by the nuclear reversal.
Germany’s biggest power utility E.ON has said it wants at least €8.0 billion.
There you go …. No electricity at “infinite” cost.
It’s like making toasters out of chocolate, isn’t it?
From the quote:
“an especially high-resolution model”
“to the highest detail”
“10 by 10 kilometer grid”
“Every 50 seconds”
“out comes values”
“Clear climate trends are generated”
The last line includes the term “climate” but the thing seems to be a 3 to 5 day weather model. After 5 days this sucker will fall apart.
My guess is that in the first hour of its run the values output would be close. By hour 6 the output values might still be within one standard deviation. By the following day (24 hours) the output could still look close. At the end of 48 hours expect a resemblance. In another day don’t expect much correspondence. Then even the ghost disappears. An exception occurs when a blocking high is used to initialize the model. This is not climate.
Richard Feynman is quoted as saying “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
The very definition of chaos is this: When simulating a chaotic system with a model of finite resolution, the deviation of the state of the real system from the state of the simulated system will grow exponentially over time.
By saying that a system is chaotic, you have already admitted that you will not be able to simulate it arbitarily long into the future while staying under a defined error.
Most people think “chaotic” means something like “somewhat disorderly”. It does not. It has unavoidable implications.
So this model doesn’t work.
Inceasingly we are seeing evidence that climate models are not accurately predicting the climate trends.
I find this extremely alarming; our climate scientists cannot predict the climate. To assume that things will be better than they are predicting is very dangerous.
Committees of humans are conservative in their conclusions, so it is more likely that the future climate will be worse than predicted than that it will be better.
Summer down the Drain
July temperatures so far 4 degrees below average.
Nothing to do with climate change.
Everything to do with the quiet sun. Very stable jetstream position.