Nobel Prize for World’s Worst Climate Model

Posted: October 28, 2021 by oldbrew in climate, Critique, modelling
Tags:

.
.
That’s how it works in these days of non-stop climate tedium.

Science Matters

Patrick J. Michaels reports at Real Clear Policy Nobel Prize Awarded for the Worst Climate Model.Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Given the persistent headlines about climate change over the years, it’s surprising how long it took the Nobel Committee to award the Physics prize to a climate modeler, which finally occurred earlier this month.

Indeed, Syukuro Manabe has been a pioneer in the development of so-called general circulation climate models (GCMs) and more comprehensive Earth System Models (ESMs). According to the Committee, Manabe was awarded the prize “For the physical modelling of the earth’s climate, quantifying variability, and reliably predicting global warming.”

What Manabe did was to modify early global weather forecasting models, adapting them to long-term increases in human emissions of carbon dioxide that alter the atmosphere’s internal energy balance, resulting in a general warming of surface temperatures, along with a much

View original post 632 more words

Comments
  1. Gamecock says:

    ‘According to the Committee, Manabe was awarded the prize “For predicting global warming.”’

    Fixed it.

    ‘Every six years or so, the U.S. Department of Energy collects all of these models, aggregating them into what they call Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects (CMIPs). These serve as the bases for the various “scientific assessments” of climate change produced by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the U.S. “National Assessments” of climate.’

    How many corrupt scientists does it take to accept the average of junk (many climate models all deemed individually to be wrong) is something of value?

    “I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” – Thomas Carlyle

  2. Phoenix44 says:

    And let’s not forget most of these models don’t model physical processes as they are “tuned” to be able to hindcast accurately which then makes them slightly more accurate in the near term.

    As far as I am aware the tuning is different for each model and each run, which would tell honest modellers that their models are missing key factors in the physical processes.

  3. Mack says:

    I bet the Russian sage, Evgeny Volodin, the lead author of the only climate model that bears any relation to reality, is absolutely gutted about this. Living in a vast country with huge climate swings, Russian meteorologists appear to value science and data, over activism and wishful thinking, in order to provide their government/population with an as accurate as possible forecast of future climate trends. Such grounded thinking, I seem to remember, upset our very own Sir David King, when he was Blair’s chief scientific czar right at the start of the ramping up of global warming alarm, when the Russkis had the temerity to actually question the evidence on which his alarmist claims were based. Cue lots of toys being thrown out of King’s pram. This is the man that earnestly told us that, due to global warming, Antarctica will be the only habitable planet [place? – mod] for humanity. How’s that prediction looking now Dave?

  4. ivan says:

    No matter how you look at it the old adage is still true – Garbage In always equals Garbage Out. They can play with their models until the sun burns out and that will still hold.

  5. Gamecock says:

    “Living in a vast country with huge climate swings, Russian meteorologists appear to value science and data, over activism and wishful thinking, in order to provide their government/population with an as accurate as possible forecast of future climate trends.”

    You use “climate” to describe weather.

    Climate doesn’t swing. Future climate trends are static. No climate on earth has changed in a hundred years. Weather changes. Climates don’t.

  6. Mack says:

    You misunderstood me Gamecock. Perhaps I should have phrased it better. By ‘swings’ I should have said ‘differences’, as in differences between the climate of the temperate grasslands of southern Russia and the tundra of the Arctic north with mountainous and coniferous biomes in between. I did not mean that there had been any actual change in the climates of any of these zones, well not in my lifetime anyway!

  7. tallbloke says:

    Jim. So simple, it’s wrong. Ned will be posting about this soon.

  8. Curious George says:

    It’s just a drumming up for COP26, Glasgow.

  9. stpaulchuck says:

    my favorite saw on computer models (again, *grin*)

    “Computer models are no different from fashion models. They’re seductive, unreliable, easily corrupted, and they lead sensible people to make fools of themselves” John in OK

  10. oldbrew says:

    Miskolczi: ‘The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the
    apparently observed global warming.’

    THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH’S
    GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED
    GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS [2010]
    Ferenc M. Miskolczi

    https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
    – – –
    Five Reasons Why Water Vapor Feedback Might Not Be Positive
    September 14th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/

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