IPCC Climate Models Keep Failing Because They Don’t Respect Physics – The Daily Sceptic

Posted: November 19, 2021 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Clouds, COP26, Critique, IPCC, modelling, opinion, physics
Tags:

Credit: NASA

H/T Tallbloke
– – –
By Dr. Rudolph Kalveks — As the media, politicians and climate activists continue to circulate hysterical hot air from the Cop26 conference, the topic of climate change or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has become an emotional one, increasingly detached from the thoughtful and meticulous process of theory development, calculation and observation that is supposed to characterise scientific endeavour.

It may come as a surprise to some that “The Science”, as expounded in the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers that inform conference participants, is not uncritically accepted by all scientists in the field, and that widely different views are held by a substantial cadre of experienced and eminent researchers.

Moreover, a multitude of peer-reviewed papers contradict many aspects of the IPCC’s alarmist narrative.

Furthermore, a coherent theory about the impact of changes in greenhouse gases (GHGs) is starting to emerge, one that is built up from the underlying physics, rather than extracted from fanciful computer simulations.

My aim here is to highlight some of the relevant papers and to inform any motivated layman who wishes to explore outside the dogmatic strictures of the mainstream narrative.

Let us start with an irrefutable example of the inability of climate models (general circulation models, GCMs) to provide meaningful projections.

Continued here.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    If you don’t buy the IPCC view of climate 100%, you’re likely to be branded a conspiracy theorist…

    Foreign Wikipedia pages ‘have climate change conspiracy theories’
    Friday 19 November 2021

    Many pages on the site that are not written in English show questioning of the science behind climate change and theories that are commonly dispelled in the West

    https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/11/19/foreign-wikipedia-pages-promote-climate-change-conspiracy-theories/
    – – –
    ‘Many pages’ 😃

    The English pages have usually been ‘sanitised’ by the believers in climate religion.

  2. Phoenix44 says:

    Climate science is so basic in its understanding of the climate its embarrassing. Its wasted 30 years pursuing the CO2 fantasy and it seems possible, if not probable, that’s all going to fail horribly at some point when we get a cooling phase.

  3. Paul Vaughan says:

    Diurnal Amplitude Map May Pull

    mega11owe moonlock
    mole tee poll lure
    DOno.witch-capital rule
    $base diss$worder?

    T(win$) try UN II
    DCode what$ meanT
    buy “the physics”

    $set up apparatus
    ignore rant$0Bond
    spatiotemporal 7#
    primorial CO[SST] 210 = 7*5*3*2 (MSM special tease)
    utmost fear-roc river fuss sea call

    awware?inTropiCO[II]phase”down”well$wordIT“out”

  4. Owen Peter Rogers says:

    Excuse me for putting it more simply, I hope, but if you design a model specifically to tell you that the temperature will go crazy and you ask it what is going to happen to the temperature, then what do you think the answer must be?

    If the press was not totalitarian about the Anthropogenic theory of Global Warming it would simply report that “As instructed by the scientists the Climate Modellers are telling them what they were told to tell them!”

  5. oldbrew says:

    Several of the shortcomings of IPCC reports lead back to clouds, which many climate scientists admit are poorly understood. Key issues include the difference between clear-sky and cloudy-sky radiative forcing, and the response of clouds to solar activity, neither of which appear to have been satisfactorily incorporated into climate models. Are there cloudy skies ahead for dogmatic climate alarmism?
    – – –
    They’re already here.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Published: 20 November 2018
    Global-scale multidecadal variability missing in state-of-the-art climate models
    S. Kravtsov, C. Grimm & S. Gu

    Here we show that the discrepancies between the observed and simulated climate variability on decadal and longer timescale have a coherent structure suggestive of a pronounced Global Multidecadal Oscillation.
    . . .
    These results highlight a substantial degree of uncertainty in our interpretation of the observed climate change using current generation of climate models.
    [bold added]

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

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