Computer climate simulations just crashed 

Posted: September 18, 2018 by oldbrew in Analysis, climate, Critique, modelling, predictions

Not the actual simulations, but the already fading credibility thereof. What scientific reason is there to rely on their results?

Ross McKitrick and John Christy have an important new paper out in Earth and Space Science, writes Andrew Montford for The GWPF.

This is the latest fusillade in the long battle over whether the climate simulations that lie behind demands for decarbonisation and other political action actually amount to nothing but a hill of beans (as they say on the other side of the pond).

Computer climate simulations predict that manmade global warming will cause the troposphere over the tropics to warm much faster than the surface, and there have been a series of scientific papers arguing whether these predictions are being borne out in practice.

In a blog post published yesterday, McKitrick relates some of the back story, including attempts by one mainstream scientist to withhold his data, and the subsequent revelation that he had truncated it in a way that fundamentally altered the conclusions that would be drawn.

McKitrick also outlines a series of subsequent papers that have concluded that real-world warming in the troposphere is much less than predicted:

[W]hether we test the tropospheric trend magnitudes, or the ratio of tropospheric to surface trends, across all kinds of data sets, and across all major trend intervals, models have been shown to exaggerate the amplification rate and the warming rate, globally and in the tropics.

Continued here.

Paper: Ross McKitrick and John Christy (2018) – A Test of the Tropical 200-300MB Warming Rate in Climate Models

  1. Graeme No.3 says:

    But the amplification factor is crucial. The bigger the scare the more money the alarmists get.

  2. p.g.sharrow says:

    Yes, They have a busted Flush showing and are still bluffing loudly that they are holding a winner.
    True religious believers or just midway carnys?
    Hey! guys, this con is over, you are exposed ! …pg

  3. Bitter@twisted says:

    The climate astrologists and crooks have been exposed many times, but still the charade ploughs on.
    Far too much political capital and money at stake to be derailed by facts.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Arctic ice not co-operating with model simulations…

    Mid September we can see the long predicted collapse of Arctic ice is postponed for yet another year. The graph shows MASIE reporting ice extents above 4.5M km2 for the month of September. A dip on day 252 to 4.43M km2 will likely be the daily minimum for the year, since 200k km2 of ice has been added in the last week. The graph also shows that 2018 is presently 96k km2 above the 11 year average ice extent, 350k km2 more than 2016, 472k km2 more than 2007, and 1.2M km2 (a full Wadham!) more than the record setting 2012.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Letter to Nature magazine – 12 SEPTEMBER 2018
    Attributing extreme weather to climate change is not a done deal

    Your claim that the connection between extreme weather and climate change is “now routine and reliable science” misrepresents the current state of climate-extreme attribution science (see Nature 560, 5; 2018).
    . . .
    Accurate simulation of such extremes remains a challenge for today’s models.

    Read more:

  6. tom0mason says:

    IMO …
    As this planet moves out of the LIA cooling period then global ice and mountain glacier should quite naturally recede, while the frozen tundras defrost. It should be quite natural and normal for oceans and defrosting land to vent CO2 under these conditions. Consequently CO2 levels should rise for a while, until nature resets to a new equilibrium for it to use. Is that not the natural outcome of leaving the LIA? Changing from dry and frozen to warm, wet and slight more CO2 rich.

    All the BS about atmospheric CO2 levels is just BS as Ross McKitrick and John Christy paper shows. The ‘computer modeled’ evidence for global warming is an imaginatively visualized mirage, a computer generated facsimile with as much ‘reality’ as CGI movie.

    If we are really out of the LIA, and it was not just the precursor for a more intense cooling, surely we should have polar and glacial ice decreasing? Increasing global ice does not (IMO) bode well for the future.
    Warm, wet, and more atmospheric CO2 would be an excellent outcome for life on this planet. Cold, dry, and low atmospheric CO2 spells hardship and death.

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    if these rent seekers and _true believers_ in the Church of Global Warming would spend as much time and money seeking the actual contributors to Earth’s climate as they do on this scam, we’d likely be miles ahead on modeling climate cycles.

    Instead we are lumbered with molested data and false pronouncements that muddy the waters to the point of uselessness. In point of fact, the Old Farmer’s Almanac is way better at it than these million dollar scholars.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s