Leading German climate science critic Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt has penned a commentary at Achgut.de titled: “How climate models inflate climate sensitivity.”
CO2 climate overblown
Vahrenholt cites Lewis/Curry 2018, who concluded “1.3°C for a doubling of the CO2 content of the atmosphere by about the end of this century (transient climate response), 1.7°C for a long-term equilibrium (ECS) in the period 2150 to 2200.
The German professor added: “Papers which examined historical periods (last glacial maximum to pre-industrial) do not contradict these low figures.”
Overheated models a threat to movements
“If models and reality do not fit together, scientists should rather question their models,” says Vahrenholt. “This would mean that the much more dramatic sensitivity estimates of the last IPCC model observations – 1.86°C for TCR and 3°C for ECS – would have to be thrown overboard.” This of course would result in undermining the current Fridays for Future movement and plans by governments to tax CO2.
Activists currently blame the mismatch between models and observations on temporary “internal variability” events and that the warming will become “much stronger on a global scale in accordance to the models,” says Vahrenholt. But the IPCC’s and activists’ claims are being severely challenged by studies, such as Dong et al (2019), Vahrenholt comments.
Once again models fail
In Dong et al, which looks at the Tropical Pacific, it is shown how “once again the models fail because of the clouds!”
“It is therefore a clear physical mechanism that leads to the observed stronger warming of the tropical West Pacific leading to lower global sensitivities (= stronger negative global feedback),” the German professor of chemistry writes. “Climate models have such large deficits in the depiction of events in the tropical Pacific that they wrongly determine the global response to drivers and systematically overestimate the sensitivity to CO2 as a driver, a second paper by Seager et al of Columbia University in the respected scientific journal “Nature” (!) from July 2019 shows.”
“The failure of state-of-the-art models to capture the correct response introduces critical error into their projections of climate change,” Seager et al concluded.
But Germany’s leading climate science critic does not expect the IPCC to take all the errors into account when it puts out its forthcoming progress report. That would be a heck of a huge mess for the IPCC and an embarrassment to climate science and overzealous climate policymakers.
IPCC will go on pretending
“Then hundreds of pages dealing with model projections would have to be critically revised,” comments Vahrenholt. So for the IPCC, it’s best to just simply ignore all the inconvenient science and to go on pretending.
Vahrenholt concludes: “Politics is hot because the models are too hot. Which scientists have the courage and are ready to accept their responsibility to enlighten FFF and policymaking?”
Complete comment here in German at Achgut.de.