Skip to content

Overheating Climate Models

May 2, 2019
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

 

There is often debate about the accuracy of climate models, which predict temperature changes.

It is worthwhile then reviewing what IPCC AR5 had to say in 2013:

 

 

image

image

 

It is the top row of graphs which is relevant.

Essentially HADCRUT4 showed virtually no warming between 1998 and 2012, whilst models projected over 0.1C per decade. Bear in mind that these are historical simulations, effectively retro projections, rather than forecasts made in 1998.

Clearly something had badly gone wrong with the climate models, which even the IPCC could not explain away. It is true that the rate of warming between 1984 and 1998 was greater than the models suggested, but we also know that this period coincided with the warm phases of both the PDO and AMO.

And what has happened since 2013?

We have of course experienced two years of record El Nino activity, but global temperatures last year were back down to the levels of the early 2000s. In other words, the models are still drastically overstating actual warming.

 image

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html#regional_series

The IPCC guessed that this discrepancy was partly due to incorrect modelling and partly due to internal variability (ie natural factors).

Given that we are still in the warm phase of the AMO, that internal variability still has many more years to go, it seems.

13 Comments
  1. JimW permalink
    May 2, 2019 12:36 pm

    There has been no ‘hot spot’ in the atmosphere near the tropics that was supposed to be the first sign that the excited CO2 molecules had ‘forced’ water vapour molecules to also reradiate.
    All models used by the IPCC with the exception of the Russian one, have this forcing as a component. Without it they would be more like the Russian one and not over 100% incorrect with their projections.
    The small issue of the 1800s scientist who postulated this forcing, later withdrew it, is conveniently ignored by the IPCC and all warmists.
    But you know all this so I am preaching to the converted.
    It looks like its too late to stop the ’emergency’ being called and the western world industrial capabilities and generally the way of life we have known for 80 years being swept away on a tide of ’emotion’.
    Little did we know what would happen with the ‘modernisation’ of our education system in the 60s.

  2. Adrian permalink
    May 2, 2019 1:09 pm

    I am afraid you are preaching to no-one really, the doors to the asylum have been well and truly opened, and the windows, oh and the walls knocked-down too just to make sure in case any of the inmates were too stupid to find a way out. The latter point was probably a required one considering…………..

    Don’t believe me ? Make a cuppa – sit back – and watch this

    http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1d841fd9-7ad6-42ba-ad72-f6588d370c95

    then open the whiskey, swig deeply, watch some more………………

  3. The Man at the Back permalink
    May 2, 2019 1:17 pm

    “The IPCC guessed that this discrepancy was partly due to incorrect modelling “.

    Paul – that is becoming the understatement of the age we live in.

    • May 2, 2019 1:57 pm

      Many countries now base their energy policies on IPCC guesses, even though everyone can see the complete lack of accuracy.

  4. ThinkingScientist permalink
    May 2, 2019 1:24 pm

    Note also that the model analysis in AR5 shows the maximum period analysed is from 1951-present. The reason is of course the IPCC accepts that Anthropogenic forcing prior to the 1950s is not significant and also only claims it very likely that > 50% post-1950 is anthropogenic.

    Contrast that with the BBC/Attenborough/ExtinctionRebellion meme that 1 degC warming since pre-industrial is Anthropogenic.

    The reason that the IPCC doesn’t compare models versus actual temps prior to 1950 is that the models are obviously wrong. Also, more useful than plots of averages or trends is to look at the residuals as a function of time. I have done a lot of work on this and it clearly shows that prior to the 1950s the models fail to predict about 0.35 degC of warming at the start of the C20th. That warming can only be natural and derive from some process not captured by the models. There is also clear evidence of a periodic behaviour in the residuals with a period of circa 60 yrs that is unexplained. Interestingly the (formerly) cooling 1950s-1970s and the current temperature plateau (ignoring natural El Nino spikes) are also on the same 60 yr period.

    I think the models are conflating a 60 yr period with enhanced CO2 effects. It is why they need a cooling function 1950s – 1970s and why they are overcooking the current plateau. The good news is that the efforts to increase the temperature trend in the C20th by cooling the past through adjustments will make the C21st temperature data even more difficult to match.

    I think the current plateau will last out to around 2035, based on the periodic behaviour I see in the residuals.

  5. rah permalink
    May 2, 2019 4:29 pm

    Climate Models, or at least the ones we see hyped are best described as GIGO. Garbage in Garbage out.

    Weather models serve a very useful purpose but their accuracy more than 14 days out is always questionable. I watch the weather models or at least the major ones. Less than a week before the dreaded “polar vortex” descended upon us in the US this winter every single one of them (US, European, Japanese, Canadian) were showing the vast majority of the northern US to have a warm anomaly. The Canadian was the first to catch a whiff of what was coming at about 3 weeks out. The rest followed suit later that week but really didn’t start to get close until we were a week out from that blast of ultra cold air arriving.

    October last year NOAA predicted last winter to be warmer for the US and be dryer than normal for the west. October through April has turned out the be the coldest in on record of the lower 48 and there is virtually no drought anywhere in the US with the SW US getting pummeled with snow and rain. California had it’s 4th highest winter snow level on record this winter and several ski resorts, like Squaw Valley promising to be open through the 4th of July.
    https://realclimatescience.com/2019/05/coldest-october-april-on-record-in-the-us/

    Currently we are very wet here in central Indiana. As of last week we were 5 1/2″ over for the year on precip and if the weather models are correct May is also going to be far wetter than the average. This year like last, many farmers are going to planting late. That results in crop selection being biased away from corn and more towards soybeans.

    • Broadlands permalink
      May 2, 2019 5:33 pm

      rah… What you are revealing is the inability of models to predict what the natural variations will do…the jet streams, the ENSOs, the NAOs, volcanic activity. Nobody can model the unpredictable except in hind-cast mode where “adjustments” to the data are needed. Why these forecasts are so readily accepted is a puzzle. Doom-and-gloom sells and requires more funding, even when the “science is settled”?

    • rah permalink
      May 2, 2019 5:47 pm

      I need to correct the following. I wrote “Less than a week before the dreaded “polar vortex” descended upon us in the US this winter every single one of them (US, European, Japanese, Canadian) were showing the vast majority of the northern US to have a warm anomaly.”

      Should have been: Less than three weeks before the dreaded “polar vortex” descended upon us in the US this winter every single one of them (US, European, Japanese, Canadian) were showing the vast majority of the northern US to have a warm anomaly.

    • Sean permalink
      May 2, 2019 7:19 pm

      “Climate Models, or at least the ones we see hyped are best described as GIGO. Garbage in Garbage out.”

      While you have the acronym correct, the expansion is wrong; it’s “Garbage in, Gospel out”.

  6. May 2, 2019 8:45 pm

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

  7. Gamecock permalink
    May 2, 2019 10:06 pm

    We don’t know enough about the atmosphere to model what it will do.

    The end.

    • May 3, 2019 12:38 pm

      Thank you.

      In the early 1980’s, I was speaking with an “atmospheric chemical engineer” at WVU. He said that the chemical reactions took place so rapidly in the atmosphere that they could not be identified or measured.

      It would seem that it is still the case.

      I have a big problem with all the “modelling” which now supplants reality. How handy is it to project, based on who knows what, rather than the reality of what is actually occurring? While not enough is known to produce accurate models, reality reflects the real world.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: