Climate Models vs Observations: 2019 Update – by Ross McKitrick

Posted: November 13, 2019 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Critique, ENSO, Forecasting, modelling
Tags:

Earth and climate – an ongoing controversy


Below are a few quotes from the GWPF article. More discussion with graphics via the link. Is the handbrake about to be re-applied to so-called human-caused warming of the planet, in contradiction of alarmist ‘projections’?

Back around 2014 many people, me included, were commenting on the discrepancy between climate models and observations [writes Ross McKitrick].
. . .
The IPCC itself in the 5th Assessment Report (2013) noted that out of 114 model runs, 111 had overstated observed warming since the late 1990s.

That same year, Hans von Storch told Der Spiegel that

If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

But before 2018 came along, the modelers were saved by the El.

El Niño, that is. The powerful 2015-16 El Niño caused temperatures to surge, apparently erasing the discrepancy. It was just in the nick of time.
. . .
Well it’s a couple of years later and the El Niño heat has mostly gone from the climate system. What does the model-observational comparison look like now?
. . .
The El Niño disguised the model-observational discrepancy for a few years, but it’s coming back.
– – –
Source here.

Comments
  1. tom0mason says:

    Maybe the UN blessed ‘Climate Models™’ should be added to the extinction clock list — https://www.extinctionclock.org/
    ‘Climate Models™’ proven to be crap by the evidence of observations by 2020? 2030?, 2050?

  2. oldbrew says:

    Roy W. Spencer comment: With the new CMIP6 models coming out suggesting even more warming than the CMIP5 models did, I fear we will see continuing “adjustments” of the instrumental temperature record to produce even more warming. This is the only way that the models can retain credibility in the face of real-world evidence that warming has been modest, at best.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/comments-by-ross-mckitrick-on-the-continuation-of-climate-model-failure/
    – – –
    Sounds like earthlings are doomed…to a few more years of being bombarded by yet more fake data and phoney climate claims :/

    The whole climate alarm industry depends on these dodgy models for its spurious credibility.

  3. ivan says:

    I was taught way back in the dim and distant past that models produced on the primitive analog computers of the time were useless unless their output was validated by real world experiments and data. The only difference between then and now is that computers have got faster and the operators, programmers, don’t have to think about what they are doing as much as we did back then. BUT the output of the models still need to be validated against real world experiments and data because if the are not their output is still useless and always will be.

  4. Alasdair Fairbairn says:

    Looks like 97% of scientists have got it WRONG.

    What is frustrating for me is that I think I know why. -: They assume that water provides a POSITIVE feedback to GHE when in fact it is net NEGATIVE.
    The Joker in the pack is that the evaporation process in water occurs at CONSTANT temperature, giving a Planck sensitivity coefficient of zero.
    It seems that this has been ignored.

  5. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Temporarily saved by an El Niño, you do get the feeling as pointed out by Dr Spencer that Thermageddon is only round the corner as that data is tortured and twisted into conformity as we freeze our a**** off.

  6. JB says:

    Yeah, Ivan. I was fortunate enough also to have intellectually honest professors who taught the same principle about models and a number of other ideas now horribly distorted and rampantly embraced. We were told when introduced to Kirchoff, Thevenin and others, that their principles were rules, not laws, and only useful until some bright fellow came along and proved them false.

    Before us was Karl Popper who also attempted to set a few things straight about science and though like anyone else had a few screwy notions himself, he made a number of valid points:

    “…the models of ‘the language of science’ which these philosophers construct have nothing to do with the language of modern science. This may be seen from the following remarks which apply to
    the three most widely known model languages. (They are referred to in notes 13 and 15 to appendix *vii, and in note *2 to section 38.) The first of these model languages lacks even the means of expressing identity. As a consequence, it cannot express an equation: it does not contain
    even the most primitive arithmetic. The second model language works only as long as we do not add to it the means of proving the usual theorems of arithmetic—for example, Euclid’s theorem
    that there is no greatest prime number, or even the principle that every number has a successor. In the third model language—the most elaborate and famous of all—mathematics can again not be formulated; and, what is still more interesting, there are no measurable properties expressible in it. For these reasons, and for many others, the three model languages are too poor to be of use to any science. They are also, of course, essentially poorer than ordinary languages, including even
    the most primitive ones.” 1959 preface, xxiv The Logic of Scientific Discovery

    “Some philosophers have made a virtue of talking to themselves; perhaps because they felt that there was nobody else worth talking to. I fear that the practice of philosophizing on this somewhat exalted plane may be a symptom of the decline of rational discussion. No doubt God talks mainly to Himself because He has no one worth talking to. But a philosopher should know that he is no more godlike than any other man.” 1959 preface, xx The Logic of Scientific Discovery

    I take his reference to philosophers to be old-school, they were what used to be called natural philosophers rather than “scientists”, a word that did not appear until 1840, according to B.G. Wallace, when it became a profession of pay.

    Models are only guides, not proof, for no man yet created a model statement for a computer to crunch that was comprehensive of Nature in all its permutations. Even so, if they could they would still not be proof. Testing is “proof” which is often woefully lacking in modern scientific literature.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Snow storms on the rise in New York. Above average winter for NY snow expected.

    https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Storm-Team-4-Winter-Weather-Forecast-Snow-Cold-564752151.html [see video]
    = = =
    Arctic blast: US temperatures plummet to record lows
    13 November 2019

    Rare snowfall was even seen in the Texas town of Brownsville, on the US-Mexico border.

    NWS meteorologist Kevin Birk said the air mass was “more typical for the middle of January than mid-November.”

    “It is pretty much about the coldest we can be this time of year [and] it could break records all over the region,” he added, according to AP news agency.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50399637
    – – –
    The ‘rapidly melting’ ever-warming Arctic – or so the alarmist claims go – still has some tricks up its sleeve, it seems.

  8. stpaulchuck says:

    until the models can predict the past they are totally useless. Of course they never will be able to do that with a stochastic data set. For those who haven’t, I strongly recommend reading Chaos Theory. Relating to it, I give you the 411 from the horse’s mouth (or other end depending on your opinion of the IPCC, ha ha)
    ———-
    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

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 )

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