Category Archives: Climate Models

Credibility of Climate Scientists Called into Question

“One of the most popular alarmist arguments is likening the “consensus climate scientists”  to medical doctors.  For example, this essay on “climate denial” from Andrew Winston at medium.com took part in the bashing of recently hired climate skeptic Brett Stevens at the NYT.” click here for WUWT

Anthropogenic Global Warming Paradigm; Data Adjusted to Fit the Model

“In late 2015, Soon, Connolly, and Connolly (hereafter SCC15) published a  comprehensive (101 pages) analysis of how the modern anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm has been constructed.  The paper, published in  Earth Science Reviews, is entitled Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century.” click here

Climate Models Fail to Pass Reality Check

“20 years ago climate models were celebrated as a huge breakthrough. Finally we were able to reproduce reality in the computer, which had been becoming ever more powerful and faster. Everyone believed that only minor adjustments were necessary, and the target would be reached. But when the computer-crunched results were finally compared to reality, huge unexplained discrepancies appeared.” click here for Notrickszone. 

Perceived Scientists Consensus is No Substitute for Scientific Correctness

“In May of 2016, a survey by Nature revealed that over two thirds of researchers surveyed had tried and failed to reproduce the results of another scientist’s study. Over half of them had been unable to reproduce their own results. Fifty two percent of researchers polled said there was a “significant crisis” of reproducibility.” click here

The “End of Snow” is near in California.

“Climate scientists regularly embarrass themselves with “end of snow” predictions, because they are an inevitable consequence of the “projections” (don’t say predictions) of their runaway climate models.” click here

Climate models for the layman

From the Executive Summary (here):

There is considerable debate over the fidelity and utility of global climate models (GCMs). This debate occurs within the community of climate scientists, who disagree about the amount of weight to give to climate models relative to observational analyses. GCM outputs are also used by economists, regulatory agencies and policy makers, so GCMs have received considerable scrutiny from a broader community of scientists, engineers, software experts, and philosophers of science. This report attempts to describe the debate surrounding GCMs to an educated but nontechnical audience.

Key summary points

• GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.

• There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system.

• There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportion of the 20th century warming that was human-caused as opposed to natural.

• There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

• The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.

Climate models are useful tools for conducting scientific research to understand the climate system. However, the above points support the conclusion that current GCMs are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for predicting global or regional climate change on timescales of decades to centuries, with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy systems. It is this application of climate model results that fuels the vociferousness of the debate surrounding climate models.

IPCC Objectives and Methods Biased Against Sound Science

“Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer model projections are unfailingly wrong. Projections for three scenarios, High, Medium and Low, are consistently high compared to the actual temperature. There is something fundamentally wrong with their work and claims. They should not be the basis of any policy, public or private. The following statement from Assessment Report (AR4) is untenable given the projection results.” click here