Climate Alarmist Rahmstorf Quietly Concedes Models Are Crap, Running Way Too Hot

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

Stefan Rahmstorf on the IPCC modelling breakdown: Reason to breathe a sigh of relief, new climate models are far too sensitive.

By Die kalte Sonne
(Translated by P. Gosselin)

DER SPIEGEL provides a regular platform for the controversial climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf. On 12 May 2020 he was allowed to:

Stronger temperature rise: Why the climate models are running hot

A guest article by Stefan Rahmstorf

New calculations have alarmed the scientific community – they suggest the earth could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases. Will global warming be stronger than previously thought?

Here the quick reader will suspect one of the usual Rahmstorf climate alarm pieces. And this is exactly how the beginning of the article reads. However, it deals with a tricky topic that will certainly hit the Potsdam scientists quite hard to the stomach.

Huge mishap

In the course of the preparation of the 6th Climate Status Report, the IPCC has again run a large number of climate models. This time, however, a huge mishap has occurred. Several of the models have delivered far too much warming, which is not compatible with the measured data of the last decades. This fundamentally casts the models into question. They suggest that the warming effect of CO2 is far too high. A scandal that should actually cast everything into question.

Rahmstorf plays it dumb at the beginning of the article, luring his readers into the alarm trap. Will everything get much worse than expected? This is the typical Rahmstorf narrative.

“Models are crap”

But if you can make it to the end of the article, you will be surprised. Rahmstorf actually admits quietly that the models are crap, running way too hot.

In reality it’s all not so bad. Rahmstorf writes literally in his article:

The comparative study by researchers from the University of Exeter now shows that in particular the warming since 1975 – i.e. most of the modern global warming – is clearly too strong in the sensitive models. More recent analyses by ETH Zurich, for which more models have already been evaluated, confirm this conclusion. This is a reason to breathe a sigh of relief: there is currently some evidence that these models are not better than the old ones, but are simply too sensitive.

Did SPIEGEL force its guest author to write this article? Was this a prerequisite for him to continue writing there? A balanced presentation with a fair evaluation of all opinions represented in science has never really been Rahmstorf’s strength.

Obvious failure

Or was it a flight to the front because the modelling failure was all too obvious and Rahmstorf feared complete professional isolation? It’s hard to say.

Stefan Rahmstorf must have struggled for several months before deigning to admit this mishap. This certainly could not have been easy for him.

By the way, here in the blog we have already reported on the topic several times: “The sun in February 2020, science against doom and gloom” and “The sun in November 2019 , when models exaggerate” and “The sun in December 2019, advances in climate science“.




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

10 responses to “Climate Alarmist Rahmstorf Quietly Concedes Models Are Crap, Running Way Too Hot”

  1. Climate Alarmist Rahmstorf Quietly Concedes Models Are Crap, Running Way Too Hot — NoTricksZone | Climate- Science.press

    […] über Climate Alarmist Rahmstorf Quietly Concedes Models Are Crap, Running Way Too Hot — NoTricksZone […]

  2. Gerard

    The original CMIP6 data included much more solar impact information. When the models were run with this information included the modellers found that there was no role for CO2. They then asked for the data to be changed to remove the solar impact information and now find that, with CO2, the models run too hot.

    The lesson here is that all of the climate change can be explained by the behaviour of the sun, which IPCC still chooses to ignore.

    1. Stewart Pid

      Gerard maybe they run the models at night after the sun sets 😉

  3. tom0mason

    Wow!
    Maybe Rahmstorf et al. will figure out that nature controls the climate not humans.

    With the Chinese (and arguably manmade) virus wrecking the economies of the world and people cowed into hiding in their homes, there is little political requirement for ‘climate change’ or ‘climate catastrophe’ any more. However this will not prevent the UN-IPCC from propagandizing to control the ignorant.
    China, the WHO, and Western governments ineptitude, — and with help from people likes of Bill Gates (advocating dodgy vaccines and arguing for digital tacking for all, and more M$ profit), along with all the rest of the greedy profiteers — have done the elitists task in just months instead of decades.
    2030 is the date they want to install the ‘One World Government’, a date when the technocracy will have taking over every aspect of your life. A date when the UN will demand that the 2030 Agenda will be imposed across all nations.

  4. aryne

    Thank you very much for posting an informative and helpful post

  5. Ron Clutz

    For those interested in why CMIP6 models run too hot (hint: it involves clouds) and how one model outperforms the others.
    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/01/26/climate-models-good-bad-and-ugly/

  6. DocSiders

    Averaging model projections to arrive at some truth is ridiculous. The various modeks use different super-sensitive starting conditions and almost none of them agree with each other on regional trends…and none are in agreement with reality regionally. In short, they are a hot mess.

    We may never be able to model the Climate well enough to have predictive skill. It is a chaotic system that obviously has some controlling regulators…like 60 W/m -1 cooling storms that emerge when ocean temperatures reach a “kick” point. See:

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/area-adjusted-cloud-feedback-65ns6.jpg?resize=640%2C715

    The plot referenced above clearly shows ocean temperature regulation that has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. None of the models incorporate this regulatory phenomenon and it obviously exists.

  7. Dr Roger Higgs
  8. patrick healy

    Did you say models may not be accurate?
    Aw come on Pierre. The next thing you will be telling us is that that clown Ferguson from a London Polytechnic got his model wrong.

  9. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #409 | Watts Up With That?

    […] Climate Alarmist Rahmstorf Quietly Concedes Models Are Crap, Running Way Too Hot […]

Leave a Reply

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