Shock News : Climate Models Are Extremely Wrong

I was shocked to learn that the entire basis of climate alarmism, is models which extremely over-predict warming in the tropical troposphere.

Thoughts and plots about the tropical tropospheric hot spot.  Carl Mears, Remote Sensing Systems

it is obvious that the observed trends in both temperature datasets (HadCRUT and RSS) are at the extreme low end of the model predictions

ScreenHunter_1794 Aug. 09 05.57 The (missing) tropical hot spot « Climate Dialogue

ScreenHunter_1795 Aug. 09 06.01

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Shock News : Climate Models Are Extremely Wrong

  1. emsnews says:

    And we have another below 50 degrees F cold night here in NY as ‘summer’ ceased some time ago.

  2. Andy DC says:

    We need a new generation of huge super duper exponential adjustments, after the extreme cold of this year, And besides that, the computer forecast models have to allow for a much colder present and a much warmer past, all of which was discovered by peer reviewed cliimate science within the last five minutes.

    So current new developements and the advent of a new generation of, young climate scientists all point to the fact that that only now do peopke have the slightest idea of what is going on, even if none of it makes the least bit of sense..

    • Gail Combs says:

      The Climastrologists are running out of room.

      They have cooled the past until even lay people, especially those with families who lived through the Dust Bowl are getting suspicious.

      They have warmed the present to the point it is snowing and the bird baths are frozen sold yet the temperatures never reach below freezing.

      Worse both the RSS and UAH are showing no warming for 15 years or more.

      So now they are claiming Global Warming causes cooling….. and people even believe them AMAZING!

      • Hugh K says:

        Hi Gail – Wanted to make sure you were aware of this upcoming talk at UNC Chapel Hill –

        Sept 8, 2014

        “Why has there been no global warming for the past decade?”

        William Happer, Princeton University

        The temperature of the Earth’s surface has not changed by more than 0.1C since the year 2000, and it may even have cooled slightly. Most computer models predicted that the increase of CO2, from about 370 to 400ppm during that period, should have caused a warming of around 0.3C. There are many possible reasons for the failure of the models, but one may be insufficient careful attention to important and often neglected details of how CO2 molecules really absorb and emit radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. Some of the physics in question is related to early work by Princeton’s Robert Dicke on collisional line narrowing.

        Please Note: Location change to 215 Phillips Hall

        http://physics.unc.edu/seminars/colloquia/

        Parking across the street at Carolina Inn is $7. Even though Dr. Happer is returning to his alma mater at the UNC Physics Department, I understand the ‘transparent/tolerant’ left is already trying to have Dr. Happer disinvited. Dr. Happer is a bit nervous about trouble-makers showing up and asking for our support. Thanks for your help and hope to see you there.

  3. ralphcramdo says:

    I’m sure the logical train of thought would be “but they’re scientists, the models must be correct”.
    Oops almost forget “we’re all going to die!”.

    • nielszoo says:

      That’s why they just had to fix the US temp records. Those ignorant instruments just refused to read the temps our vaunted climate priests scientists had calculated. I mean really, who are you going to believe; multimillion dollar government sponsored studies employing lots of people with letters after their names running millions of lines of sophisticated computer code or those lying thermometers and thermocouples?

  4. QV says:

    Why do they concentrate of the tropical troposphere?
    The models are wrong over the entire globe.

    • Gail Combs says:

      One of the predictions (Trenbreth?) was that increased CO2 would create a tropical troposphere “Hot Spot” It is another failed prediction.

      There have been so many failed prediction that the CAGW conjecture should be dead and buried. The only thing keeping it ‘alive’ is the expectation of all that MONEY to be harvested from the poor and middle class.

  5. _Jim says:

    re: Shock News : Climate Models Are Extremely Wrong

    This is so shockingly simple, the new mediots ought to get it by making use of Johnny Cochran’s famous line:

    . . . “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit“.

    .

  6. D. Self says:

    The AGW clowns aren’t working that hard for their money. Their Sophisticated models are actually excel spreadsheets.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yes and Phil Jones admitted he had to get a Grad Student to run it for him.

      Over at Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre writes:

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Phil Jones spends much of his time looking down his nose at the heathen, but then confesses to Bob Ward that he is unable to calculate a trend on his own, as in this hilarious exchange at Bishop Hill:

      I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.

      Nor it seems in Matlab, R, ODL, Fortran or any other language. No wonder that he regarded someone who could calculate principal components (like Mann) as a sort of computational prodigy.

      Last year, Phil was ranked one of England’s top 100 scientists. Just imagine the ranking that he could have achieved if he knew how to calculate a trend by himself.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      This is from FOIA2011 email 1885.txt
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/crus-dr-phil-jones-world-renowned-climatologist-cant-even-plot-a-trend-in-excel/

      {:>D

      • nielszoo says:

        Wow. Considering that I took Statistics many decades ago (before the advent of even Lotus 123) even I can manage that “feat.” Step 1, Import data. Step 2, click “help” and type in “trend.” Step 3, Follow the instructions and if you can’t do that then watch the videos in the Help section or the hundreds technical web sites devoted to Excel. Now you do have to actually pick out the colors along with the type and order of the trendline… maybe there are too many colors for Phil to choose from?

        I’m curious… what can theses people do other than fill out grant requests, write press releases and get face time with politicians, bureaucrats and left wing reporters?

        • _Jim says:

          Work of that ‘nature’ requires, begs for, an understudy or graduate student. There is a hierarchy in the world of academia, too, just as in business, when it’s not your business anyway (thinking about ‘corporate’ Amurica now).

  7. Perhaps a principal reason the that the climate forecast models that the AGW crowd hold up as sacrosanct is that none validly recognize the role of water vapor (the overwhelmingly dominant atmospheric greenhouse gas) in affecting climate temperature. Its absence, for all practical purposes, in the models is (a) due to the fact its role, if any, and what affected it, was not all that well understood back when the models were constructed, and thus there was no way to quantify its presence in a model; and (b) unlike CO2, even if it did have a role there was no way for governments to link it to human activities that could be regulated and taxed. Rescent science (disavowed by the settled science crowd, of course) shows a correlation between solar activity, cosmic rays, water vapor (clouds) and global temperatures, a correlation independent of atmospheric CO2.

  8. gator69 says:

    Did someone say there is a problem with the models?

  9. James Strom says:

    The 17 year halt in warming is big, especially rhetorically. It enables the skeptic to say that, with multi-million dollar climate models and decades of work, the warmers have not even been able to get the sign of the trend right. That’s got to have a big impact on people who aren’t committed.

    And I love being able to point out this gross failure. However, it could well happen that some warming is measured in coming years, meaning that this slam dunk argument will have to be abandoned. But even in that case it is worth remembering that the models are way off from observations. Some warming, but warming that falls far short of the models’ predictions/projections, invalidates the models just as much as a flat line. It might be useful to remember that going forward.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Dr. Evans model again:

      New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling.
      There are three big drops in solar radiation in the 400 years of records. The first, in the 1600s, led to the Maunder Minimum, the coldest time in the last 400 years. The second in Napoleon’s time, led to the Dalton Minimum, the second coldest time in the last 400 years. The third started in 2004, but hasn’t led to cooling…yet. The notch-delay theory says that the fall in TSI signals a fall in force X which acts after a delay, which seems to be 11 years. So the fall will occur in 2004 + 11 = 2015. But the delay is tied to the solar cycle length, currently 13 years, so the cooling is more likely to start in 2004 + 13 = 2017. The cooling will be at least 0.2°C, maybe 0.5°C, enough to undo global warming back to the 1950s. The carbon dioxide and ND solar theories have been in agreement over the least century due to generally rising carbon dioxide and solar radiation, but now they sharply diverge. Only one of them can be correct, and soon we’ll know which one. Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade. If the criterion does not occur then the ND solar theory is rubbish and should be thrown away. If it does occur then the carbon dioxide theory is rubbish, and should be thrown away.
      http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html

      Now that is the way science SHOULD be done.

      Seems some at WUWT have their panties in a twist over this theory (see rebuttal notes at link) Gee no sooner do they finish savaging and then throwing Tallbloke under the bus than THIS appears….

      • Shazaam says:

        Even better. He provides his data, and his model for download here: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/big-news-ix-the-model/

        You can drop a whole lot of visual basic code into an Excel spreadsheet, thus that model could be quite complex. I haven’t looked at it (yet).

        Odd that the high priests of CAGW are unwilling to let anyone examine their climate “models”?

      • tom0mason says:

        He has build his model from analysis of many parameters of climate data and formularizing them. No attempts are made to determine what drives them.
        Dr. Evan acknowledges that the energy out today is a composite of some of todays energy input mixed with some delayed energy from days and..week..and…months and..years….past. Thus the energy balance of the planet is a variable whose long term average is near static but in the short term it varies. This should be a better reflection of climate reality.
        All data and methods are open, can be downloaded, inspected, run, or even changed.
        Open review not peer review.
        The model should have proven itself within 5 years.

  10. Brad says:

    There are people who believe the models are spot on and will argue a nauseam in the defense of how accurate they are. It’s remarkable. It matters not if one shows them the actual data which is posted on sites like this or others because sites like this are run by hacks and shills and Tony is not a scientist and paid by the Koch brothers and blah blah blah…

  11. RMB says:

    The models are bound to be wrong because they ignore the role of surface tension in blocking heat transfer from the atmosphere into the ocean. heat can not pass through the surface of the ocean by the process of convection because surface tension blocks it. For this reason you can not add to the heat put there by the sun’s radiation. you can not store extra heat and the ocean’s surface even rejects heat so you cannot increase evaporation. A 10 yr old could demonstrate this. AGW is utter nonsense

    • Gail Combs says:

      Wind/wave breaks up the surface so that kills the surface tension blocking heat transfer theory. (It is the first argument the Alarmists will trot out. BTW)

      But the CO2 IR energy can not penetrate more than a few molecules in depth. It is the sun that heats the oceans. GRAPH: Solar wavelength vs ocean penetration depth And the ratio of wavelengths within TSI changes so the depth of penetration ratio will change as well.

      The graph is from this site:
      (wwwDOT)klimaatfraude.info/oceaanopwarming-of-zeespiegelstijging-door-co2-is-niet-mogelijk_193094.html

      NASA says ” At wavelengths shorter than about 300 nm, there is a relatively large variation in the Sun’s extreme UV and x-ray output (greater than 1%), but the Earth’s atmosphere is nearly opaque at those wavelengths. “ The higher wavelengths are absorbed by oxygen and nitrogen and you get the formation/destruction of ozone which also effects the climate. link

      (I do love the weasel word “nearly”, it is so scientific.)

      • RMB says:

        Your reply deserves a reply. Firstly there is no proof whatsoever that wind wave action breaks up surface tension. If an object has enough weight it can penetrate surface tension. A paper clip does not have enough weight and cannot penetrate the surface, Heat has no weight that’s why a hot air balloon flies.
        I would strongly suggest that you get hold of a heat gun and try heating the surface of water. Despite the fact that the heat gun operates at about 600degs C the water remains cold and even the surface remains cold. Now here’s the proof that surface tension blocks heat. Float a metal dish on the surface of the water and fire the heat gun at the floating object and the water underneath the object warms because the floating object tells the surface that it is no longer the surface and it allows heat in.
        When I was taught about surface tension about 55yrs ago it was demonstrated that it would support the weight of a paper clip, it was a confrontational force albeit weak. Nowadays the put blobs of water on a 50p piece and invite the children to count how many there are. No longer a confrontational force. I don’t think this is a coincidence.
        Unless somebody can get heat into my bucket and prove me wrong AGW is utter and complete nonsense.

  12. gregole says:

    Back in the good-old days, last century, when there was still a shred of credibility in climate so-called science:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/projects/medalus/gcm.htm
    Uh huh.

    Does anybody know how a GCM is initialized? Seems to me it’s impossible. There’s not enough real data.

    So we dice up the atmosphere into manageable sized cubes, and use what, Navier-Stokes equations of fluid state for each parcel of atmosphere, and then start a timer and march a solution for surrounding parcels? Really? That’s what these guys are up to?

    For each cell, what values are entered? Doesn’t the model need data for each cube? There aren’t even surface data for over 70% of the land surface; few records of any length anywhere; so the models are built on virtually nothing. Do they average (parameterize) between points, and make up a bunch of data in order to initialize their model run? Hmmmm, sounds like standard climate-science.

    Back to our atmosphere diced into cubes; how much of the atmosphere? Just the troposphere? What about the discontinuity in the Tropopause and the Stratospheric-Tropospheric mixing? The Tropopause height varies with latitude and with temperature / seasons. The Troposphere height at the poles varies between 7 km in summer – at the Equator the range is 17 to 18 km. The difference in range is because of the difference in seasonal temperature range, the summer winter difference is greater at the poles. ref 1

    Truth is, the IPCC modelers don’t even attempt to include the Tropopause and Stratospheric-Tropospheric mixing.

    Ref 1 – “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” Tim Ball, PhD Climatology, Queen Mary College, University of London
    ISBN 978-0-9888777-4-0

  13. silverstratus says:

    I went on a tour of Lawrence Livermore Lab in Livermore California.
    They have a Discovery Center geared towards the public and schoolkids on field trips. The Center had computer screens showing output of climate models. The kids can see sophisticated 3D animations of a rotating Earth with scary red, yellow, and orange colors showing temperatures rising out of control. The animations made the Earth look like a hot ball of gas. The tour guide claimed that the Lab shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore.

    To check the long-term trend in Livermore’s temperatures, I went to the Lab’s own weather site:
    LLNL Weather

    And used the “Custom report tool” to make a monthly-average temperature plot at 10 meters from 1979-present:
    LLNL Monthly Average Temperature

    Livermore temperatures look pretty stable to me.

  14. Adrian O says:

    The AGW climate scientists are idiotic enough not to realize how wrong their models are.

    What really happens is that correcting the models (say, with the multidecadal periodicity,) which they could do, since they have a lot of fudge parameters, would be an admission that CO2 is not the main forcing of climate.

    They CHOOSE to be wrong, because they are PAID to be wrong.
    Paid about $10 million in grants a working day in the US, according to the official $2.7bn/year figure.

    *****

    If you pretend that your car runs on thin air, if your job is to pretend that, you would rather be stuck than put gas in the tank and move.

    Since you could try all kinds of excuses for being stuck.

    While putting gas in the tank would be an admission that your car does NOT run on thin air.

  15. Adrian O says:

    Read: The AGW climate scientists aren’t idiotic enough not to realize how wrong their models are.

  16. Adrian O says:

    If a system is linear, you can study its average and its forcings separate from the detailed fluctuations. For instance, quantum mechanics is linear, so you can study a pebble like its center of mass average in mechanics.

    The AGW people assumed that climate was linear. That is clearly not the case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s