Computer modelling of future climate

Written by Andy Rowlands on September 17, 2019. Posted in Current News

Of the 102 current computer models used to predict what the climate will do in the future, 101 of them have what is known as ‘climate sensitivity’ far too high.

The previous CMIP5 models had sensitivity such that they were producing up to three times as much warming as is being observed.

The latest CMIP6 versions, which are just coming online this year, have sensitivity even higher, which is already producing up to six times the observed warming. There is only one model, from the Institute of Numerical Mathematics in Moscow (known as INM CM4), that has had low climate sensitivity since at least 2015, and that mirrors the observed temperatures.

We can therefore conclude that the modellers are fully aware their models are badly flawed, and they could have corrected the sensitivity in the version 6 models, but not a single one appears to have done so. In fact, they have done the opposite and made the errors worse, so again the public and policy-makers are being deliberately misled.

2018 study finds climate models exaggerate warming by 45{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}

A study published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2018 suggested that climate models exaggerate global warming by as much as 45{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. If these findings hold true, it’s huge news. No wonder the mainstream press is ignoring it.

In the study, authors Nic Lewis and Judith Curry looked at actual temperature records and compared them with climate change computer models. What they found is that the planet has shown itself to be far less sensitive to increases in CO₂ than the climate models say. As a result, they say, the planet will warm less than the models predict, even if we continue pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere. As Lewis explains:

“Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and highly unlikely to exceed that level.

How much lower? Lewis and Curry say that their findings show temperature increases will be 30{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}-45{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} lower than the climate models say. If they are right, then there’s little to worry about, even if we don’t drastically reduce CO2 emissions. The planet will warm from human activity, but not nearly enough to cause the sort of end-of-the-world calamities we keep hearing about. In fact, the resulting warming would be below the target set at the Paris agreement. This would be tremendously good news.

The fact that the Lewis and Curry study appears in the peer-reviewed American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate lends credibility to their findings. This is the same journal, after all, that recently published widely covered studies saying the Sahara has been growing and the climate boundary in central U.S. has shifted 140 miles to the east because of global warming.

The Lewis and Curry findings come after another study, published in the prestigious journal Nature, that found the long-held view that a doubling of CO2 would boost global temperatures as much as 4.5 degrees Celsius was wrong. It also follows a study published in Science, which found that rocks contain vast amounts of nitrogen that plants could use to grow and absorb more CO2, potentially offsetting at least some of the effects of CO2 emissions and reducing future temperature increases.

Given that environmentalists want the U.S., along with the rest of the world, to spend trillions of dollars trying to cut down on CO2 emissions — based entirely on doom-and-gloom climate model forecasts — these findings are profoundly important. But instead of taking Lewis and Curry’s findings seriously, environmentalists and others in the “settled science” community simply dismiss them — or anyone else who fails to tow the climate line — as “deniers.”

Lewis even has his own entry on a “Climate Denier List” web page, and Mother Jones labeled Curry a denier when she testified before Congress last year. (When IBD wrote about the nitrogen findings earlier this month, various climate scientists accused us of being misleading, not scientifically credible, and derogatory.)

Slapping a scarlet D on anyone who veers from environmentalist dogma is not science. It’s a strong-arm tactic meant to squelch debate and impose scientific conformity. The question now is: What will it take for the “settled science” crowd to stop trying to silence dissent and admit that maybe, just maybe, the science on global warming isn’t so settled after all?

The full article can be seen by copying this link:-

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-models-co2-emissions/?fbclid=IwAR0GG09juNAQ03mw54Dx8CrOMtzKUrOtO7kbHwEIUgrbmkCJXVZC0QQagnE

Quite why the modellers are making their products even more sensitive is anyone’s guess, but I rather suspect two possibilities; either they are all alarmists, or they have been pressured into making their models produce predictions that are in line with the UN-IPCC political climate agenda.

Following on from the above piece about climate models, in May 2019, John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville gave a presentation to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London, which debunked the entire human-caused climate change theory.

The part I want to draw attention to here is about the climate models. The illustration below is from John Christy’s presentation, and shows just how inaccurate the latest CMIP6 models are. The version 5 models had climate sensitivity too high, which is why they predicted much more warming than is being observed. Instead of reducing the sensitivity in the version 6 models to start to correct the error, they have all had the sensitivity increased, which compounds the error still further!

The worst models are the French one which has over four times too much warming, the UK one has five times too much warming, and the Canadian one fully six times too much warming.

There is currently only one model that mirrors observations, and ironically it is a Russian model, known as INM CM4, because it has low climate sensitivity. You can see it as the dotted line amongst the observations in the lower part of the chart below, which was prepared in 2017 by John Christy.

Christy’s presentation to the GWPF can be seen here:- https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/?fbclid=IwAR0trPdQnoeBoDYLhLciQbtgDR0c-SY2WQGm0wGm8-l8Y-LhR5R8cjgrj5c

To me it’s laughable that when we can’t even predict the weather a week in advance, these climate modellers expect us to believe they can accurately predict what will happen to the climate up to a century in the future.

I know there is significant debate within the climate community about people like Judith Curry and John Christy being referred to as ‘lukewarmers’, whereby they say increasing carbon dioxide will produce ‘some’ warming of the atmosphere, while others like Tim Ball say that as a change in carbon dioxide follows a change in temperature, with a time-lag of at least 800 years, carbon dioxide can therefore have no influence on temperature at all.

With the time-lag being well established in the scientific literature, I find myself agreeing with Tim Ball, as effect cannot precede cause. I have included below seven examples I saved to my pc of the temperature – CO₂ time-lag:-

https://principia-scientific.com/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/?fbclid=IwAR3zC468Ly0J_8jwuz8fqJo4N4Hd7gIAHLu1Z6_Vh7-QlUPryq07mql_YVo

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/?fbclid=IwAR1bpQhBXRlOiYtcICdlnoPW9ihwHdGOMAYJOWZn0rpmp3OW8Wr10pamnn8

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/?fbclid=IwAR27yff7bRDIlVzi2_FcvzrjK6QIUmcO0blwRb9jsLqVBbCNPeMI3v-KFYg

https://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-temperature-who-leads-and-who-follows/

http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-and-the-14000-year-co2-time-lag/

https://electroverse.net/25-simple-bullet-points-proving-co2-does-not-cause-global-warming-by-a-geologist-for-a-change-dr-roger-higgs/?fbclid=IwAR3peGGBJM83WDrScRyVXw1VOxUBXzf_BIkGMr8MAa80ar0iuQ6c_BCyNGE

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/cycles_not_carbon_dioxide_control_climate.html?fbclid=IwAR2XnrdDI9ElXw_kD3XL_kiNPAtySitkGzrL3oZX7fwETrWEoWzNLIEmOlo

I recently discussed the issue of CO₂-induced warming and lukewarmers at length with John O’Sullivan, and we are both of the opinion people like Curry and Christy are being very careful about what they say while they are still dependant on salaries and funding, and we suspect once they retire, they will emerge as much more skeptical.

This brings us to the big question; why is this deliberately-orchestrated deception still being perpetuated? Again, I find myself in agreement with Tim Ball.

I have been corresponding with Tim, and earlier this year he very graciously emailed me a lot of information that provided the answer.

Tim makes a very-compelling argument that it all began with Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome, and is now part of the long-term aim of the United Nations to frighten the public into accepting ever more government control of our lives and massively increased energy bills (as we in the UK have already seen since Ed Elasticband introduced the Climate Change Act in 2008), in the misguided belief we are ‘saving the planet’ from ‘catastrophic atmospheric warming and environmental collapse’, with the eventual aim of creating a single Socialist government to ‘run the world’.

Doing that would necessarily mean every aspect of our lives would be tightly-regulated, and would require permanent rationing of everything, including food, water, medicines and electricity. It would be something akin to George Orwell’s 1984, with almost total subjugation, and seems to also require a massive reduction (by 85{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} is the figure I’ve seen quoted) in the human population to make us easier to control.

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.