New Climate Models: Even More Wrong

Written by Paul Matthews

 

fig 11.25

The IPCC AR5 Report included the above diagram, showing that climate models exaggerate recent warming: If you want to find it, it’s figure 11.25, also repeated in the Technical Summary as figure TS-14.

The issue is also discussed in box TS3:

“However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade).

“This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error.”

Well, now there is a new generation of climate models, imaginatively known as CMIP6. By a remarkable coincidence, two new papers have just appeared, from independent teams, giving very similar results and published on the same day in the same journal.

One is UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model, with a long list of authors mostly from the Met Office, also announced as a “New flagship climate model” on the Met Office website. 

The other is the Structure and Performance of GFDL’s CM4.0 Climate Model, by a team from GFDL and Princeton. Both papers are open-access.

Now you might think that the new models would be better than the old ones. This is mathematical modeling 101: if a model doesn’t fit well with the data, you improve the model to make it fit better.

But such elementary logic doesn’t apply in the field of climate science.

dilbert cartoon climate models

The main “feature” (bug?) of the new models is their high climate sensitivity. Recall that the IPCC says that equilibrium sensitivity is 1.5 – 4.5C, a range that hasn’t changed in 30 years.

The Met Office paper comes up with a figure of 5.4C, and the GFDL group says about 5C, so they are both way outside the IPCC range.

Of course, the useful idiots in the media are lapping this up and saying that the earth is warming more quickly than thought, which of course isn’t even what the papers are claiming.

Given that the previous models were running too hot, as shown in the IPCC graph above, and the new ones have a much higher sensitivity, the obvious question is how well do the new models do at reproducing the 20th century?

Well, you have to wade through the UKESM1 paper to find the answer to the question, but you eventually get to this in figure 29, showing the new model compared with HadCRUT4 from 1850 – present:

(The GFDL paper has a very similar graph in fig 12). The model shows recent warming that is vastly greater than the observations.

Clearly the model is far too sensitive. So what do the authors of the paper say about this? Believe it or not, they claim this, right at the top of the paper in the “key points” section:

* UKESM1 performs well, having a stable pre-industrial state and showing good agreement with observations in a wide variety of contexts.

They then repeat this falsehood in the abstract, claiming good agreement exactly where the agreement is particularly bad:

Overall the model performs well, with a stable pre-industrial state, and good agreement with observations in the latter period of its historical simulations

…and then repeat it yet again in the “plain language summary” below that. Presumably, this lie is designed to be regurgitated by the clueless media.

Even alarmist climate scientist and BDS-sufferer James Annan is scoffing at the paper’s claims, suggesting that it should say: “UKESM1 does a great job at everything other than its primary function.”

Are these Met Office climate muddlers really so self-deluding that they think it shows good agreement? Yet again, Feynman deserves the last words:

Read more at CliScep


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.

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Andy Rowlands

    |

    John Christy gave a presentation to the GWPF in June this year about the climate models, in which he described how the ‘old’ CMIP5 models all had climate sensitivity too high, except for the Russian INM CM4, which had low climate sensitivity, and matched the observations. He described how the ‘new’ CMIP6 models, instead of having climate sensitivity reduced to correct the error, had it even higher, thus compounding the errors!
    His presentation can be seen here – https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/?fbclid=IwAR0trPdQnoeBoDYLhLciQbtgDR0c-SY2WQGm0wGm8-l8Y-LhR5R8cjgrj5c

  • Avatar

    flow in

    |

    it would be good to see that first graph updated to include observed temperatures up to 2019

  • Avatar

    Chris Marcil

    |

    These papers only need to make sense to drug addicts and those who are already suffering from fears of global warming.

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    In a world where the climate is acknowledged as being made from myriads of elements, many having loosely coupled feedback paths, all within a chaotic system of unknown number quasi-stable loci. Who in their right mind could possibly believe these simplistic computer models, running with very approximate data could project anything about the future?
    The results of these ‘Climate Models™’ prove the GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) principle.

    As the sun is the ultimate supplier of the energy that powers our climate maybe far more research should be done on how the sun operates, and how it affects our weather patterns and climate.
    All else is just cover supplying ‘jobs for the boys’, so that they manufacture fake evidence, evidence that gives an (fake) excuse to the UN and world leaders to tax and restrict us all the more.

    As the sun’s output reduces the planet will cool — how much cooler can only be judged by past events — are world leaders and governments preparing for the cooler times ahead? Or are they only watching this nonsense from ‘Climate Models™’ and reading what the UN propaganda publishing shop is putting out?

  • Avatar

    Bevan Dockery

    |

    The problem with climate models is obvious once you read :
    https://ronanconnollyscience.com/

    The research by the Connolly Family of scientists analysed thousands of meteorological balloon records to arrive at a new hypothesis for the structure of the atmosphere that is completely at odds with the hypothetical basis for the current climate models. The latter are based on propositions made in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries but never tested by the UN IPCC.

Comments are closed