Climate models do not represent reality. They sre running too hot.
Climate modeling has been awarded the Nobel Prize. But two German researchers prove that observations are more important than calculations in climate research.
By Alex Reichmuth (Switzerland)
(Translated, edited by P. Gosselin)
There was great satisfaction among protagonists of man-made climate change when the Nobel Prize Committee awarded at least half of this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics to American Syukuro Manabe and German Klaus Hasselmann. The two researchers are pioneers of what is known as climate modeling – that is, the attempt to trace and predict climatic developments with the help of mathematical models.
The prize recognizes “that our knowledge of the climate rests on a solid foundation, based on rigorous analysis of observations,” praised Thors Hans Hansson of the Nobel Committee as he announced the winners. Of “balm for the beleaguered souls of climate researchers,” wrote the “Tages-Anzeiger.” It will now be “even more difficult to ignore and discredit climate research.” Climate models were based on “solid physics,” it said.
Climate models have failed
With so much applause, it was lost how big the scientific problems are that go hand in hand with climate modeling. This was evident again just recently with the models called CMIP6, which form the basis of the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report issued in early August. The CMIP6 models are not able to correctly reproduce the real temperature development of the past decades and simulate a warming that is much stronger than the real data show. Thus, there can be no confidence in these models to correctly predict future warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has nevertheless relied on them.
Nobel laureate Klaus Hasselmann
Critics of climate modeling include, in particular, Steven Koonin, a highly accomplished American physicist and climate scientist who once served U.S. President Barack Obama and recently published a “climate skeptic” book. He notes that climate models have failed time and again because they fail to prove human influence on global warming. Discrepancies among individual climate models showed “that the science is far from settled”.
.
Almost all models are running too warm. Nobody knows why. Image: Legate’s presentation Heartland 14th Climate Conference Las Vegas 15 October 2021
Data from NASA’s Ceres project used
In general, real-world data repeatedly calls into question the results of climate models and thus the tone-setting climate science. This is also the case with a study by German researchers Fritz Vahrenholt and Hans-Rolf Dübal, which has just been published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Atmosphere.
Vahrenholt and Dübal are originally chemists, but have worked extensively on climate science in recent decades. The study is based on data from NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (Ceres). Ceres has been using satellites to record the radiation that reaches, and is emitted by, the Earth since 1998. The project’s goals include a better understanding of the role of clouds and the Earth’s radiation balance with respect to global warming.
Cloud cover has decreased by two percent
And it is precisely these data from Ceres that throw a wrench into the thesis of man-made climate change. Vahrenholt and Dübal conclude that it is not man-made enhancement of the greenhouse effect that is the main cause of warming over the past 20 years, but a two percent decrease in cloud cover during that period. According to Vahrenholt and Dübal, the weaker cloud cover has resulted in more shortwave radiation from the sun reaching Earth. This increase in solar radiation has been a major driver of global warming.
NASA researchers led by Norman Loeb, as well as Finnish researcher Antero Ollila, have each pointed out in a study that shortwave solar radiation increased from 2005 to 2019 due to a decrease in low clouds. Dübal and Vahrenholt have now studied radiation fluxes for the entire period from 2001 to 2020 – both near the ground and at an altitude of 20 kilometers – and related them to changes in cloud cover.
Greenhouse effect had only a small impact
In fact, the satellite data from Ceres show that the shortwave radiation emitted into space by the clouds has decreased by about two percent in both the northern hemisphere (NH) and the southern hemisphere (SH). With solar radiation remaining nearly constant, this means that more shortwave radiation has reached the Earth’s surface and contributed to warming. At the same time, the fraction of longwave radiation that is reflected back to Earth from the atmosphere has only warmed the planet to a lesser extent. This radiation back to the earth is the greenhouse effect, which has been intensified by the emission of climate gases. According to Fritz Vahrenholt and Hans-Rolf Dübal, this enhanced greenhouse effect has even been largely compensated by the aforementioned decrease in cloud cover: The decrease in clouds has resulted in more longwave radiation reaching space from the earth.
IPCC relies on model calculations instead of real data
The study results of the two German researchers contradict the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), according to which the observed warming occurred solely because the proportion of long-wave radiation reflected back to Earth from the atmosphere increased (due to the stronger greenhouse effect). The IPCC attributes 100 percent of the warming to this enhanced greenhouse effect – but justifies it with model calculations rather than real data.
“The warming of the last 20 years has been caused more by changes in clouds than by the classical greenhouse effect,” say study authors Fritz Vahrenholt and Hans-Rolf Dübal
In their study, Vahrenholt and Dübal also looked into the background of the observed stronger heat absorption by the Earth. The corresponding explanations can quickly exceed the understanding of laymen: Based on observations of the so-called enthalpy of the climate system and oceanic heat uptake, it was shown that there have been two warming periods on Earth since 1850, each lasting 20 to 30 years. A third warming period began in 1990 and continues to this day.
The onset of each of these three warming episodes was accompanied by changes in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a natural periodic ocean current in the Atlantic that significantly determines the climate…
End of the warming period could mean end of global warming
The third warming period coincides with the observed decrease in cloud cover. Whether this warming period, like its two predecessors, will end soon must be clarified by measurement data in the coming years. If the warming period ends soon, global warming should decrease and the announced “climate catastrophe” will largely fail to materialize.
To date, it is unclear what is causing the observed cloud thinning. According to the study authors, changes in ocean currents are cited in the literature as possible causes Study authors are cited in the literature as possible causes, but also a decrease in aerosols in the air and warming due to more CO₂ in the atmosphere. However, Vahrenholt and Dübal emphasize: “The warming of the last 20 years was caused more by changes in clouds than by the classical greenhouse effect.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is thus challenged to review its findings.
Hat-tip: EIKE
[…] Swiss Analysis: Climate Models Running Too Warm, Falsely Calibrated…IPCC Needs “To Review Its Fi… […]
The IPCC and climate activists believe that when reality doesn’t agree with the model(s) output, reality must be wrong.
This UAH doesn’t look like the one in the article…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2021_v6.jpg
…the scales are different, but the shapes should be the same, shouldn’t they?
IMO, the shapes are the same. which periods (years, months) would look different ?
Yeah, they’re closer than I thought when I posted that. Possibly seeing the smoothed avg w/o the monthly points made them look different to me.
Also, not sure how that got to be a response to John, with whom I agree.
[…] From the NoTricksZone […]
[…] From the NoTricksZone […]
The climate models have NOT failed.
They have helped support the coming
climate crisis narrative for about 40 years.
That is what they were intended to do.
And that is exactly what they did.
We don’t need a study of the model accuracy.
One chart of predictions versus reality is enough.
Models have never been accurate (group average).
That is 40 year old news.
Models have never been revised to be more accurate.
Merely using a fudge factor to cut the projected warming rate in half
would have made the models appear to be somewhat accurate.
I guess that was too much work?
It appears the CMIP6 models will be less accurate than CMIP5 models.
The one model that consistently over predicts global warming the least
(which in climate computer game world is considered the most accurate model) is the Russian INM model. Yet it gets no special attention.
Computers project whatever they are programmed to predict.
They have been programmed to predict rapid, possible dangerous global warming in the future that bears no relation to actual mild harmless global warming in the past 45 years.
When i read a serious article about model accuracy, I burst out laughing.
After 40 years, it’s so obvious accurate global average temperature predictions were NEVER a goal.
Here is a Newsflash. These Climate Models are basically modified Financial Models. Boil them down and they are just multiple Y = mX + b models run simultaneously. Basically they are Y = m1X1 + m2X2 + m3X3….+ Error. Because the climate has an infinite number of X (dependent variables) of which most have absolutely no data sets measuring them, the Climate Experts assume the climate is constant, except for the changes due to Man, largely CO2 because that is where all the money is.
A real modeler would look at CO2, look at its concentration of 400 ppm, or 1 out of every 2,500 molecules and at the 13 to 18 Micron LWIR Spectrum and see that the possibility of vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules with the energy consistent with a black body of temperature -80C has zero chance of making a material change on the aggregate climate.
Because the physics don’t support CO2 causing material warming above 300 ppm, which shows a log decay in marginal W/M^2, they have to find some way to make the climate models Y = mX + b, where Temp = m(CO2) + b. To do that they have to find a way to make Temperature, which is highly non-linear, relate to CO2, which is relatively linear. The two factors simply don’t correlate.
Because they don’t correllate, you have to adjust the data sets to make temperature more linear, and that is exactly what NASA and others have done, but they haven’t made the data set linear enough.
That however is a smoking gun. Temperature isn’t linearly related to CO2, the model isn’t Temp = f(CO2) the real model is Temp = Flog(CO2).
The linear adjustments prove scientific malfeasance or even fraud. If you plug in log(CO2) instead of CO2, my bet is those models will do a far better job. Problem is, that destroys the CO2 is the cause of warming myth.
Here is a comparison of the IPCC (RCP6) prediction versus some good oldfashioned Physics from NASA:
https://cw50b.github.io
The thermometer on the left (red) is RCP6, that on the right (green) is from data derived from the NASA Planetary Spectrum Generator (PSG).
Adjust the ‘CO2’ control knob to see how they differ.
How can a “settled science” have 2 different models?
A “settled science” can have an infinity of models so long as they all produce the same answer. This would give a settlement coefficient of 1.
The current raft of models give such varied results that the settlement coefficient is probably .001 or less.
Time to throw out the models and go back to basic Physics, which always has a coefficient of 1, or else it isn’t basic Physics.
Not sure I agree with that. I’ve never heard of a “settled” science. If you have multiple models that can explain the same observation, that pretty much proves it isn’t fully understood. Light is a great example. It can be explained as a wave or a particle. Facts are, we really don’t know, and in reality is most likely isn’t a wave or particle. A particle should have mass, and mass can’t travel at the speed of light. Facts are, the “settled” science of climate science has multiple model, none of which model the intended observation. That is as far from settled as you can get.
Pursuant to what some have said above, a few weeks back an IEEE e-mail newsletter included a reprise of a three-year-old article called “The Case Against Quantum Computing” – and the highlight excerpt in that newsletter is telling:
“The proposed strategy relies on manipulating with high precision an unimaginably huge number of variables.”
https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-case-against-quantum-computing
It’s the same thing with the so-called “climate models” (sic) – a huge number of variables (many of them unknown), and a need for a very high precision on many (or most) of them that goes beyond the ability to deliver that precision.
As someone told me some years ago, “People don’t know what they’re doing, but they have a big computer at their disposal. This is getting to be a real disease.” It still is.
The models are the tool of deception. That’s how the lie is being fabricated, then spread. They’re coded with premeditation to produce alarmist scenarios.
What’s really behind this monumental fraud? After all, everybody knows the models are fake science. The answer is simple. The major EU economies have no fossil fuels. Their energy systems depend on supplies from Russia and the Middle East. To switch to windmills and solar cell panels would make them uncompetitive, unless… they force everybody else into the same quagmire, and punish those who don’t toe the line with “trade tax on carbon.” It’s already there.
OK, why then do Russia and China talk the talk? This is obvious too. First, Russia and China welcome companies relocating manufacturing away from the EU. The companies are the real “climate change” refugees. Second, China exports windmills and solar cells to the EU, while Russia exports gas. There’s money to be made on the EU’s mad “Energiewende.”
But why do Biden and the Democrats support it? The US is awash in oil, gas, and coal. First, because they want to be seen as EU’s friends, and second, they want to step on the US energy industry, because its money supports Republicans.
Cui bono… It always works.
[…] change, upon which the most recent research continues to cast doubt. Solar activity enhanced by certain meteorological patterns point to having a much larger role than emissions. That means you can spend all the money in the […]
[…] change, upon which the most recent research continues to cast doubt. Solar activity enhanced by certain meteorological patterns point to having a much larger role than emissions. That means you can spend all the money in the […]
[…] med at forudsige den globale temperatur ind til nu. Denne figur er gengivet i god kvalitet i vedlagte oplæg, og den skal Klimarealismes læsere naturligvis have […]