Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski held an interview with climate modeling scientist Edouard Zorita of the GKSS Research Center in Geestacht near Hamburg, Germany.
Eduardo Zorita, paleoclimatologist, GKSS Research Centre Germany tells Spiegel climate models have a long way to go, much remains poorly understood and that they are hardly trustworthy. Photo: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/; CC BY-SA 3.0.
The interview focused on the reliability of climate models, particularly their ability to forecast precipitation trends in response to warming. Earlier models have suggested that arid regions would simply become drier, while wet regions would get wetter. Other models suggested some regions would see more of both. The result: lots of confusion and uncertainty.
“Hardly trustworthy”
The interview focusses on a new study authored by Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist of Stockholm University, which was recently published in Nature. The paper’s result now casts lots of doubt over the models and their ability to project the future. In the study the scientists examined the past 1200 years of precipitation across the northern hemisphere and they found that the models do very poorly, and that they are still at a very embryonic stage in their development – far from being mature enough to be of much use for future prognoses. Hence the title and photo caption of the Spiegel article:
Faults in the climate models: “Drought prognoses are hardly trustworthy”
A consequence of global warming is supposed to be drought. However an analysis shows: climate models can barely calculate precipitation.”
Obviously the climate system is far more complex than what some scientists, policymakers and media would like to have us to believe. The models are in fact more uncertain than ever.
Bojanowski writes:
In the case of precipitation the data contradict the model results, the scientists report.”
Mismatch between models and observations
When asked about the reliability of projections for more drought, Zorita, a scientist who has co-authored numerous publications, tells the German Spiegel news weekly that the prognoses are “hardly trustworthy” and that their new study shows that “the climate model results clearly deviated from the climate data on precipitation“.
The scientists based their findings on 1200 years of climate data from the northern hemisphere, much of it from proxy records. The mismatch between the models and observations are in fact profound, it turns out.
No 20th century precipitation signal
When asked if a man-made signal could be found in the precipitation over the 20th century, Zorita replied:
In our data we do not see anything unusual. There was nothing special concerning precipitation. It was similarly arid from the 9th to the 11th century, and back then there was no man-made climate change. Also harsh droughts such as the recent ones in Western USA were put into real perspective. Precipitation amounts actually fluctuate more greatly than previously assumed – that’s what the data show for the past 1200 years.”
When you boil it down: droughts are no worse today than they have ever been in the past 1200 years back when CO2 was some 30% less. Zorita adds:
But for the past 1200 years we were not able to find a relationship between global warming and changes in precipitation. That’s something that raises concern.”
“Hardly able to model the water cycle”
Zorita then tells Spiegel that the results of the study should be seen as a “warning signal“, elaborating:
It shows that we need to do a better job testing the climate models. They have been hardly able to model the water cycle, the crux of the climate phenomenon.”
That’s black on white. The models thus cannot be relied on to come anywhere close to forecasting the future as they cannot even properly simulate crucial precipitation cycles. The modelers of course cannot be blamed here as the system is indeed enormously complex. They are doing a good job getting the task started, but it has to be acknowledged that it is only a start and that there is in fact a very very long way to go before they produce useful long-term forecasts.
Large knowledge gaps in other areas
In the interview Zorita also brings up the knowledge gaps in other crucial areas. He tells Spiegel there’s still much to learn about clouds and aerosols, and that much more research is required here. Moreover much remains poorly understood in yet more areas:
Also our understanbding of how moisture between the ground and air is exchanged is insufficient. That is really something to think about because these factors determine the climate of the future.”
The results of this paper really ought to be embarrassing for policymakers who insist the science is settled and that we need to heed what the current (embryonic) models are telling us.
Zorita here is telling us that the models are lacking on many fronts and that the climate system is still poorly understood. Moreover, the only thing the models have been able to tell us is that the CO2 will act to warm a bit. How much? Here also the models are all over the place, with a huge range when it comes to CO2 climate sensitivity, and so are the impacts by the natural factors. Zorita is only confirming what we’ve all suspected all along. How policymakers can take the models as gold is truly beyond comprehension.
“How policymakers can take the models as gold is truly beyond comprehension.”
It’s easy. Pretending the models are valid predictions allows them to ramp up economic distortion beyond what they can do with taxes (German high court prohibited them from ramping up the tax take beyond 50% of GDP – so they had to find other ways. The 28 bn EUR per year subsidy redistribution in Germany via the renewables law does not count as a tax.)
Why would politicians want to increase their damaging influence ever more? Obvious reason is, they want to RULE. They want to impact society. Doesn’t matter whether it’s giant wind turbines in Nature Reserves or third restrooms for imaginary genders.
“Moreover, the only thing the models have been able to tell us is that the CO2 will act to warm a bit.”
No, that is an assumption built into the models.
The models don’t tell us that CO2 will warm a bit, the modellers do.
Exactly what I thought andygg/55
OK Andy, I am your student and you administer to me an exam of one hundred multiple choice items. I made 97 wrong. Even with two-choice items and the assumption that I do not know anything of the subject, the Binomial tells that the probability of this result can be rounded to zero. The best explanation is that I did know something but tried to fool you. The temperature forecasts of the models are not even wrong but probably deliberate deception.
You forget that climate is brown noise i.e. it has inertia / a low-passed spectrum. Independent guesses would be a high-passed version, i.e. the first derivative of the “Global Average Temperature” or similar.
=======================
“Moreover, the only thing the models have been able to tell us is that the CO2 will act to warm a bit. How much? Here also the models are all over the place, with a huge range when it comes to CO2 climate sensitivity…”
==========================
Yes, they are all over the place, nevertheless they are highly informative. They all run way to warm, and the only constant in them is CO2 forcing, thus it is highly likely that they greatly over predict the C.S. to CO2. Strangely, considering the consistent error n ONE direction, they promote the knowingly wrong model mean, as the likely scenario. Science this is not.
Exactly. In a scientific context the computer people would have run each model with and without the CO2 factor. What they did, is just a bad experiment with an assumption considered settled science. Why those model runs at all? If you want to show the world scare stories, you do not need a computer, because you can just plot your fake results in five minutes and send them next to Hollywood.
It would seem that any compressible fluid dynamic ‘model’ of something the scale of Earth’s atmosphere must first from measurements, be capable of determining the amount of Earth’s atmosphere, in kilograms or moles, and the current distribution of that atmosphere about the sphere with respect to the direction of insolation. Is this being done? Is it possible to even do that much with current capabilities? Does anyone have a clue as to what kind of a world the current, very spendy models, are modeling? -will-
“How policymakers can take the models as gold is truly beyond comprehension.”
I share your judgment completely when I think of honest politicians who are not opportunistic and cowardly. Since those are a very small minority the following applies:
Where there is a will there is a way.
Central phrase of th einterview:
“: Naja, die Prognose, dass sich Luft und Ozeane im Gefolge des menschengemachten Treibhausgasausstoßes weiter erwärmen werden, stellen wir nicht in Frage. Mit Temperaturen scheinen die Modelle gut arbeiten zu können.”
Concerning temperature, the models seem to work well.
No, it’s not the central phrase. The central phrase of the interview is that the models are not trustworthy and still so much remains misunderstood. Zorita only said that to appease the funders and Spiegel.
“Concerning temperature, the models seem to work well.”
Hansen 1988.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hansen_1988.gif
That’s WELL? Scenario C assumed drastic CO2 cuts – not CO2 emissions surpassing scenario A.
Thanks sod for pointing out this crackpottery from Zorita.
As to whether Zoritas current model works WELL for TODAY we will only know in 15 years. Because everything below 30 years average is weather.
That’s the great thing about choosing climate modeller as your job. Job security for a minimum of 15 years.
“Concerning temperature, the models seem to work well.”
ROFLMAO !!!!! Did he seriously say that??
“Well, the forecast that air and oceans will continue to warm up in the aftermath of man-made greenhouse gases, we do not question.”
Well he SHOULD question it.
Because its almost certainly WRONG.
Its is good to see a modeller actually confessing that they are building unproven assumptions into their models.
DOH !!
No wonder they can’t get even the temperatures anywhere near right.
When you can adjust the result to affect the cause you will always get the result you want. A lot harder to adjust precipitation.
Clown Nye should take the first flight to Germany and perform a citizen’s arrest on Eduardo Zorita … His research is hurting ‘settled science’ and destroying Nye’s quality of life!
If the science is settled why do we need a mr. Nye?
The modellers claim that is is because the start conditions are not good enough.
Think about it. What does the start conditions mean in 50 or 100 years.
It is hard to make a weather prediction of one week, so how can the state 50 years ago mean anything.
[…] Climate Models are “Hardly Trustworthy” […]