A new study published in Geophysical Research Letters highlights the abysmal model performance manifested in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (AR6). The 38 CMIP6 general circulation models (GCMs) fail to adequately simulate even the most recent (1980-2021) warming patterns over 60 to 81% of the Earth’s surface.
Dr. Scafetta places particular emphasis on the poor performance of the highly uncertain estimates (somewhere between 1.83 and 5.67°C) of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and their data-model agreement relative to 1980-2021 global warming patterns.
The worst-performing ECS estimates are the ones projecting 3-4.5°C and 4.5-6°C warming in response to doubled CO2 concentrations (to 560 ppm) plus feedbacks, as the 1980-2021 temperature trends are nowhere close to aligning with these trajectories.
Instead, the projected global warming by 2050 (~2°C relative to 1750) associated with the lowest ECS estimates and implied by the warming observed over the last 40+ years is characterized as “unalarming” even with the most extreme greenhouse gas emissions (no mitigation efforts undertaken) growth rate.
In addition to the conclusion that “no model group succeeds reproducing observed surface warming patterns,” poor modeling of heat transfer physics, ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, polar sea ice processes…is also evident in the latest IPCC report.
“Accurately reproducing regional temperature differences over the past 40+ years is beyond the capability of climate model simulations, and even fails for major ocean basins and continents.”
The fundamental modeling failures in simulating responses to sharply rising greenhouse gas emissions over the last 40+ years “calls into question model-based attribution of climate responses to anthropogenic forcing.”
[…] AR6 Model Failure Affirmed: ‘No Model Group Succeeds Reproducing Observed Surface Warming Patt… […]
ha ha ha
The author does not understand “climate models”
They are not intended to make accurate predictions.
They are intended to make scary predictions.
That’s why accuracy is WORSE
after 40 years of “refinement”
That’s why the least inaccurate Russian IMN model
gets no special attention.
Th author has no clue that the models are doing EXACTLY
what they are intended for. They are political computer games.
Computers 101:
Computers predict whatever they are programmed to predict.
The government bureaucrats involved were predicting a coming global warming crisis before GCM models existed. Does anyone think the same people would have programmed their models to contradict their previous predictions of climate doom? Of course not.
It amazes me that real scientists are so inept at politics that they still believe the climate computer games are intended for accurate predictions. They should learn this formula:
Politics + Science = Politics
After 40 years of inaccurate predictions, it should be obvious that inaccurate predictions DO NOT MATTER to the people programming the models. They could have made their models APPEAR to be accurate with a fudge factor — 10 minutes of programming — but they could not care less.
Can’t we adjust the Earth so that it fits the models?
A lot of global cooling in the 1940 to 1975 period HAS been adjusted away! If you cherry pick the hottest and coldest month in that period (not January 1940 to December 1975), the peak to trough was -0.6 degrees C.
as reported by NCAR in 1975. That global cooling period has since “disappeared”.
After about 20 years of observing climate debates a growing sense dawns on me that few skeptics appreciate the magnitude of the task. Alarmists have had perhaps 70 years to conceive and fabricate an entire alternative “world” to displace the old reality (an appropriately classic science fiction theme). It is a world that must be accepted in order to criticize and, if possible, refute it. But refutation must be in terms consensus owns. That is why piecemeal skeptical harassment is futile. Where house rules prevail the house shrugs off attack and wins. Overturning this edifice may now be impossible because it has become massively stable, as intended.
I recently tried to explain to friends a few simple – and to many of us familiar – climatic principles. They, lacking any background aside from the official version, could not grasp the words much less their meaning. It did not even rise to the level of words falling on deaf ears.
This vast alternative “climate” edifice has grown up around us, and despite the best of efforts we may have failed to see the fortification for the masonry.
“Can’t we adjust the Earth so that it fits the models?”
That’s what they want us to do!
The truth of the matter is that climate computer models are reverse engineered.
Climate computer games, on average, predict about 2x faster global warming than happened in the cherry picked 1975 to 2020 period. Higher than 2x if you use the 1950 through 2022 period.
Climate models are not reverse engineered.
They are programmed to over redict global warming rates in the future because that is what leftists governments who finance / own them want predicted. The predictions are unrelated to any past ACTUAL global warming rates measured by UAH since 1979, or other sources before 1979.
[…] AR6 Model Failure Affirmed: ‘No Model Group Succeeds Reproducing Observed Surface Warming Patt… […]