Scenarios - If this happens in these circumstances then in response to the (very limited) information input, that will happen.
The CO2 values input into the model programs speculatively fill a supposed hole for a driver of warming. It could equally be the effects of any one of dozens or more of other actors, solar, clouds, water vapour, ocean moods, or a combination (most likely) of several that fits the hole. Or the model programs may be poorly designed. Models are programmed to achieve what the programmer speculates is the likely outcome. As the ongoing climate stabilization exhibits, they got it wrong at least by using CO2 as the filler and no amount of tweaking and changing accepted laws will fix the problem as long as the idiocy that CO2 drives warming is maintained. That the climate is chaotic and unpredictable with current knowledge beyond the short term is repeatedly proven, not least by UN IPCC assessments as each successive product proves fallacious. Cooling is predicted for the next 6-50 years both by AGW advocates and sceptics. That is the range of prediction and both could be very wrong. Yet governments make us pay and pay for a pie in the sky warming disaster.
***What follows is a small sample of current views that model scenarios are far from adequate mechanisms neither for prediction nor policy based on that.
Excerpt: "At the second International Conference on Climate Change in New York, Australian climatologist William Kininmonth explained that: The computer models on which the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change bases its projections significantly underestimate the rate of increase of evaporation with increasing temperature. As a consequence, Mr Kininmonth explained they grossly exaggerate the surface temperature increase from carbon dioxide. It follows that the suggestion that global temperature might pass a ‘tipping point’ and even go into a phase of ‘runaway global warming’ are not realistic because the oceans and the hydrological cycle are a natural constraint on anthropogenic global warming."
Html version and comments including the above at Jennifer Marohasy's blog - Link
Full paper "Redefining the Limits of Global Warming" (pdf) Link
And the Powerpoint pesentation: Link
In two previous posts, AGW Proponents Are Two-Faced When It Comes To Solar Irradiance As A Climate Forcing and Climate Modelers Reproduce Early 20th Century Warming With The Help Of Outdated Solar Forcings, I illustrated the basic errors that arise when GCMs use outdated TSI reconstructions while simulating 20th Century surface air temperatures. The problem results because the obsolete TSI reconstructions assumed that solar cycle minimums varied significantly, but the current understanding is that solar cycle minimums are, in fact, relatively flat. That is, minimum TSI level during the Dalton Minimum is no lower than the minimum TSI levels during late part of the 20th Century. This can be seen in the comparison chart available from Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University, Figure 1. The current understanding of TSI variability is identified as Svalgaard. Note in Figure 1 that the Preminger TSI dataset also does not have the large variation in solar cycle minimums.
From IPCC 20th Century Simulations Get a Boost from Outdated Solar Forcings
***1- I will be impressed with a survey when the scientists put their name down in support of an unequivocal statement. When they record their name, in public, to that unequivocal statement in support of catastrophic man made global warming, please let me know.
The people on Senator Inhofe's list are not anonymous. They are prominent scientists putting their name down on the public record with unequivocal statements against the current propaganda of catastrophic man made global warming.
2- At the recent conference on global warming in Poznan, Poland, some 650 scientists from around the globe challenged the man-made global warming claims. The dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of United Nations scientists (52) who authored the media hyped Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Additionally, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…”
3- The problem is that the computer models are flawed and hence future temperatures, impacts on the global environment, and mitigating methods are all predicated on faulty computer output.
The IPCC models all correctly model the greenhouse gas effect whereby any increase in the earth’s surface temperature must be accompanied by a corresponding increase in the temperature in the troposphere of two to three times that on the earth’s surface. Satellite temperature data however, show that the temperature change in the troposphere is nearly the same as on the earth's surface which indicates the IPCC models are off by 200 to 300 percent.
The reason. The IPCC models do not know how to take into account an important negative feedback mechanism that is almost completely cancelling out the greenhouse gas effect and the positive feedbacks that the models include.
From comments to the Washington Post article "Are Scientists Overselling Climate Models?"
***"The problem was precisely that they had such credibility. In particular, their output was treated as empirical evidence: as telling people about the state of their risk exposure.
They did nothing of the kind. All they did—all computer models can ever do—is tell you the consequences of your premises, both empirical and analytical/causal. They do not tell you about how the world is. They tell you about how you think the world is. One can then test your thinking about the world by comparing what your model(s) churn out to how the world turns out to be."
From "Computer Models And CognitiveFailure"
***For the most part, the reasons for their ongoing failure have everything to do with climate complexity. The climate is such an extraordinarily difficult dynamic system to be approximated by mathematical equations. There are literally thousands of components, all interacting in ways that we don't fully understand. Added to the cacophony of being terrifically circuitous, and involving reciprocating feedback loops with a multitude of leveraged factors nested within interdependent systems of energy exchange, some of these energy systems are not just confined to earth. Therefore, in changing the profile or weightiness of just one variable, the model's ability to forecast results can shift critically, and indeed, can mistakenly and regularly portend catastrophes.
As Professor Ian Clark, Department of Sciences, University of Ottawa tells it: "If you haven't understood the climate system, if you haven't understood all the components -- the cosmic rays, the solar, the CO2, the water vapor, the clouds, and put it all together -- if you haven't got all that, then your model isn't worth anything." As in most computer models, the adage of "junk in -- junk out" remains true for climate models.
From "It's the Climate Warming Models"
***Climate models are out of sync with observational data. The last chapter of the latest IPCC report even discusses a couple of examples of this. For example, the temperature through the atmosphere modelled shows a steady rise, which would conform to a hypothesis of man-made global warming; but observational data show that there are several different inversion layers of temperature. In some spots, the tropospheric (ground level) atmosphere is a lot lower in temperature than the stratosphere (the next layer up), which is the opposite of the model results.
Another example is the model of global warming guru James Hansen, now at Goddard Institute of Space Studies.
This was the first dynamic three-dimensional picture of climate, which came out in 1981. The model showed a steady increase in temperature through the 1980s into the 1990s. But observational data from Hansen’s temperature data set showed no trend at all, just peaks and valleys.
At the time, today’s leading global warming scientists said, in looking at the observational data, that this data showed no anthropogenic warming. But mysteriously, in 1990, these same scientists concluded that it was man-made CO2 that caused the model trend. When questioned on this discrepancy, Tom Wigley, former director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia in Britain, said: “The climate record is irrelevant. What
is important is the greenhouse effect."
From "GW Voodoo" (pdf)
***[...] results that appear to contradict the models either can not get published…or (like in this study) the contradiction can not be explicitly stated without upsetting one or more of the peer reviewers.
For instance, a paper I recently submitted to Geophysical Research Letters was very rapidly rejected based upon only one reviewer who was asked to review that paper. (I have never heard of a paper’s fate being left up to a single reviewer, unless no other reviewers could be found, which clearly was not the case in my situation). That reviewer was quite hostile to our satellite-based results, which implied the climate models were wrong in their cloud feedbacks.
From "New Study Doesn’t Support Climate Models"
***"I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests," writes Dyson.
From "Freeman Dyson Climate Heresies"
***Here is a list of eight major modeling faults for which IPCC should be held to account.
[...] "I have written extensively about IPCC's manipulation of data and the giant errors of these climate models.
[...] "Internal modeling mistakes by IPCC are sufficient to reject its anthropogenic global warming conjecture.
Albedo regulates climate, not the greenhouse effect.
co2 has no measurable effect on climate."
From "From Fatal Errors in IPCC’S Global Climate Models"
(Vincent Gray's opinion in the comments are interesting.)
***108 years to gain 0.7 deg C and 2 years to lose it. AGW by CO2 is expensive, destructive, dishonest nonsense.
"Warmer summer nights and winters was what the broken hypothesis promised. Don't hold your breath waiting."