Image credit: livescience.com
It’s not as hot as we thought, they could say. That’s been obvious for a long time, but the defensive bluster of modellers has finally dried up, it seems. Time to dump the pointless and ‘implausible’ extreme scenarios and think seriously about some of the assumptions, such as greenhouse gas theory and its supposed climate consequences, and other suggested shortcomings.
– – –
Leading climate scientists conceded that models used to estimate how much the world will warm with rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are running too hot, reports The Australian (via The GWPF).
“It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Science magazine.
The admission is seen as a significant development by scientists who argue that not enough attention has been paid to natural cycles in the earth’s climate.
It puts another question mark over the use of the most extreme scenarios generated by models, RCP8.5, to estimate what could be expected in a warming world.
The concession has been made on the eve of this month’s release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on the science of climate change.
That report, delayed a year because of Covid-19, is due to be released on August 9 and will outline what can be expected with different levels of warming.
It will play a major role in preparations for the upcoming climate change summit in Glasgow, Scotland, in November.
A Science article published this week said climate scientists faced the alarming reality that “climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist”.
“Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the model makers themselves, believe are implausibly fast”, the article said.
“In advance of the UN report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers.”
Continued here.
If all else fails, consider reality!
Science magazine: So the IPCC team will probably use reality—the actual warming of the world over the past few decades—to constrain the CMIP projections. Several papers have shown how doing so can reduce the uncertainty of the model projections by half, and lower their most extreme projections.
Schmidt says. “You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary—and wrong.”
Oh dear! No climate emergency? No panic to do anything?
Scientists could correlate recent rise in COVID infection rates with CO2 increases.
Rename the COP26 meeting COVID21.
Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.
“In advance of the UN report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers.”
Denial. Anger is next.
Does it never occur to them to use reality to *make* the projections, rather than just to constrain their excesses?
– – –
Science mag: Ahead of each major IPCC report, the world’s climate modeling centers run a set of scenarios for the future, calculating how different global emissions paths will alter the climate.
Which is exactly the problem — assumptions about supposed effects of ’emissions’.
Reblogged this on muunyayo .
Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, please buy this Book called ‘Spurious Correlations’ by Tyler Vigen. Maybe the IPCC could be in the next volume! 🙂
See https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations for more.
Yes, why not have a close look at natural variability, see what’s happened in the past, try and work out why it has happened. Good idea. Well done fella’s.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Hmm. Do we hear the sound of worried Alarmists in a world that might be starting to cool?
These issues were known two years ago.
New climate models forecast a warming surge
Paul Voosen
Science 19 Apr 2019
But in at least eight of the next-generation models, produced by leading centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” has come in at 5°C or warmer. Many scientists, including the model developers, are doubtful this increased warming is likely to be real.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6437/222
– – –
They love their “equilibrium climate sensitivity” but belief in it only ever seems to cause problems.
It will be amusing to watch how the scientific community deals with the Cognitive Dissonance Syndrome attached to this problem of Hot Models.
Inevitably everybody will be blaming everyone else; scared stiff of being picked out as the scapegoat.
This appears to be a good summation of climate science models.
Every now and again, I feel Gavin Schmidt says something honest by accident.
“They love their “equilibrium climate sensitivity” but belief in it only ever seems to cause problems.”
Indeed. That’s probably because it doesn’t exist. (Or at least, “not yet”, as Obi Wan Kenobi might say upon hearing that he may have reached equilibrium).
I also have my doubts about a steady-state climate sensitivity.
A new crisis for climate science?
Date: 03/08/21 Steven Hayward, Power Line
Last week Science published a remarkable article — remarkable for implicitly ratifying what climate “skeptics” have been saying about climate models for at least a decade, namely, that they are running “too hot.”
https://www.thegwpf.com/a-new-crisis-for-climate-science/