Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models

Climate models leave out clouds, those white things that float about above us, that drop snow, hailstones, rain, shield the earth from sun rays, and generally mess us about, so the rain, snow, hailstones and cooling effect is not included, and climatologists tell us that the earth is cooling/warming/ staying the same?? really? This information came from Judith Curry's blog climate etc., that lady is a climatologist.
From other news sites, sea ice in general is at its highest since 1988, there has been no mean average global temperature rise in 16 years, European summers have been crap for the last five years, last three years snow in most unusual places, very low hurricane count last year, California drought finally broken, two awefull north American winters, N.o A.ctual S.cience A.loud has admitted last year might not have been the hottest, as the difference is hundredths of a degree C' .

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: PeterMcFly
There does seem to be some politics going on at the IPCC, though I don't really follow all the logic. The part I do follow is that people like Al Gore who have a carbon credit business stand to gain from the carbon credit market and can't be seen as unbiased for that reason.

a reply to: stormbringer1701
I'm used to looking at more pure science, or relatively unbiased engineering, but there does seem to be some politics going on in this field, in addition to the science, doesn't there?

a reply to: Kali74
Thanks for the link! That one worked.

And the authors of this paper are paid by right wing think tanks and the fossil fuel industries. Willie Soon is up about 2 mil off them. Al gore is a politician/advocate, not a scientist... so what if he invested in the carbon market?

Of course there's politics involved in the IPCC (Inter-government). The massive body of scientists working within it are still scientists, their job is to advise governments on expectations of impact and courses of action to take to avoid the problem reaching crisis levels. Much the same way I knew that the history of the authors of the paper and their ties to oil couldn't debunk their science... so should you realize the same of IPCC. The science is either correct or it isn't.

You're welcome for the link sorry for the broken one before, I take it that link never came back up... I think you'll agree after reading the paper that it's quite a clusterfk. I should have warned you to take aspirin 1st lol.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Climate models leave out clouds, those white things that float about above us, that drop snow, hailstones, rain, shield the earth from sun rays, and generally mess us about, so the rain, snow, hailstones and cooling effect is not included, and climatologists tell us that the earth is cooling/warming/ staying the same?? really? This information came from Judith Curry's blog climate etc., that lady is a climatologist.

If she said that, she's lying.

Let's take the latest GISS NASA model.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

Here is, for example, a technical note about how some parts of clouds are implemented:

www.giss.nasa.gov...

See for yourself if that is "ignoring clouds". Took me 2 minutes of googling to find evidence.

From other news sites, sea ice in general is at its highest since 1988, there has been no mean average global temperature rise in 16 years,

This is false.

European summers have been crap for the last five years, last three years snow in most unusual places, very low hurricane count last year, California drought finally broken, two awefull north American winters, N.o A.ctual S.cience

This doesn't relate to global warming, point being?

A.loud has admitted last year might not have been the hottest, as the difference is hundredths of a degree C' .

So a hundreds of a degree from the record on one side or another means, "No warming in 16 years"?

Back the original subject of the article: whether the mainstream climate models are wrong.

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

Here's a significant area where they are not fully sufficient, and known to be so: modeling increased transport of extra heat into the oceans. Do you call that a climate "feedback" which reduces surface warming? Yes, but only temporarily. It is just moving heat from place to place---a real 'negative feedback' which makes a fundamental difference would be increased albedo so extra energy is radiated back into space to counteract increased greenhouse forcing. (And even with a total net zero warming, the change in forcing and re-radiation in this case would still induce global climate change, because increased albedo doesn't happen in the same way and places as increased greenhouse forcing).

Thais phenomenon, ocean heat sequestration has been happening observationally: once you account for El Nino Southern Oscillation effects & other ocean circulation, the match to observation is strong.

www.theguardian.com...

Look at total ocean heat content, for example: www.nodc.noaa.gov...

The atmosphere (and crust) is only a small fraction of the heat capacity of the oceans, the vast majority of heat predicted is going into the ocean and there is not a large concern that there is a fundamental mistake in the atmospheric models & response to increased greenhouse forcing.

I have no idea about the other authors but Lord Monckton is a repeated crank and bad scientist, always attempting to push the idea that mainstream estimates of sensitivity are wrong. He's been trying to throw up BS of a similar nature for a while now.

www.realclimate.org...


www.realclimate.org...

originally posted by: ketsuko
And when someone tells me they believe in Global Warming based on the models ... I can't quite take them seriously since the models themselves can't really be taken all that seriously.

You shouldn't believe in global warming based on the models. You should because of the laws of physics and observations first.

The computer models have a tough enough time predicting weather a week out.

Those who attack these so called 'climate models' as if debunking them somehow debunks climate change and the notion of global warming are truly living in the dark ages of science.

originally posted by: jrod
The computer models have a tough enough time predicting weather a week out.

Well, weather can now go to two weeks with some reasonable skill, but yes the climate models are not the same as weather models, and the desired outputs to predict are entirely different, statistical averages vs specific point predictions.

Weather models need to predict what the atmospheric pressure in London at 2000 meters will be on 8pm in a week and measure their success based on that metric, which is entirely different from climate.

Those who attack these so called 'climate models' as if debunking them somehow debunks climate change and the notion of global warming are truly living in the dark ages of science.

It's more complicated than that, but the basis of global warming from humans comes from fundamental physics and direct observation and confirmation of the physical mechanisms.

Models may suggest more or less likely outcomes. And generally the mainstream climate models have not been too bad.

Besides, if you think the models are wrong and flawed, why assume that the outcome is necessarily going to be better than the model prediction? What if it's worse? We're stuck with only one planet and only one civilization. Do you feel lucky, punk?

a reply to: mbkennel

The long term weather models still need some work, even though (in)accuweather can give a 2 week forecast, it is seldom accurate 2 weeks or often just 1 week out. I look at several global models and interpret them for surf forecasts so I am a lot more familiar with the weather models that the average guy. They have gotten a lot better.

The CO2 trend is a start, it is pretty obvious to anyone with open eyes that we are indeed changing the climate of this planet.

a reply to: jrod

The long term weather models still need some work, even though (in)accuweather can give a 2 week forecast, it is seldom accurate 2 weeks or often just 1 week out.

Yes - and did you read the other part of his post? That part that said weather models and climate models have DIFFERENT inputs and different output criteria. They are different.

Here is a simplistic analogy:

a Weather weather model is like trying to predict a the creation of a steam bubble at the northeast edge of the bottom of a boiling saucepan of water based on the actual temperature of the local bit of water and the metal of the saucepan.

A Climate model is like trying to predict how much heat the saucepan of water needs to absorb before bubbles can form based on air pressure and the temperature of the stove.

The analogy needs work, but the point is they do two different things.

a reply to: rnaa

Yes....i read it and understand....I was a student of meteorology once upon a time and believe that too many meteorologist rely too much on the models and forget the first rule of meteorology.

No need to break it down for me, however it maybe helpful to others. That said meteorology and climatology are 2 different studies.

One of the smoking guns is the CO2 trends. We are at ~400ppm now, about a half century ago we were at 280ppm, yet there are some will argue until their keypad fails that us humans are not responsible for the increase of CO2.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Who knows if climate change is man made or not. What we do know is the stakes are high and it's not a risk worth taking.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Who knows if climate change is man made or not.

Scientists who study this know. And existence of natural climate change does nothing to abrogate mechanisms of human induced climate chagne.

What we do know is the stakes are high and it's not a risk worth taking.

It's more than a risk, it's a future.

Anyway, back to the original subject of the article. They were wrong, as I expected.

Here's an article in Nature, the top science journal in the world.

www.nature.com...

Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus. It is unclear to what extent this mismatch is caused by incorrect model forcing, by incorrect model response to forcing or by random factors. Here we analyse simulations and observations of GMST from 1900 to 2012, and show that the distribution of simulated 15-year trends shows no systematic bias against the observations. Using a multiple regression approach that is physically motivated by surface energy balance, we isolate the impact of radiative forcing, climate feedback and ocean heat uptake on GMST—with the regression residual interpreted as internal variability—and assess all possible 15- and 62-year trends. The differences between simulated and observed trends are dominated by random internal variability over the shorter timescale and by variations in the radiative forcings used to drive models over the longer timescale. For either trend length, spread in simulated climate feedback leaves no traceable imprint on GMST trends or, consequently, on the difference between simulations and observations. The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded.

As I expected from Lord Monckton, the original paper was spurious cherry picking and a lack of honest self-checking, because it was meant to come up with a particular result.