The IPCC AR5 Report included this 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.
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
The Climate Models are only as good as t hose who design them and since this whole Global Warming/Climate Change is based upon Politics,Money and new age enviromental philosephies their totaly unrelible
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
GCM General Circulation Model (many, based on IPCC CO2 assertions)
These six links from five authors are all you really need to understand global warming.
My speculation: As the temperature went down into the Little Ice Age, limestone was deposited around the edges of bodies of water. As the temperature has recovered since, the limestone dissolved and added CO2 to the oceans, with a delay of 300-400 years. It was just an accident that this added CO2 coincided with our industrial revolution. Temperature creates CO2, not the other way around. There is proof of that. Read on.
Pangburn
Shows that temperature change over the last 170 years is due to 3 things: 1) cycling of the ocean temperature, 2) sun variations and 3) moisture in the air. There is no significant dependence of temperature on CO2.
https://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com/
Connolly father & son
Shows the vertical temperature profile follows the ideal gas laws and is not caused by CO2. Millions of weather balloon scans and trillions of data points have been analyzed to come to these conclusions. One important conclusion is that there is no green house gas effect.
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
utube:
Pat Frank
Shows that GCM results cannot be extrapolated a few years, let alone 50 or 100.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/15/why-roy-spencers-criticism-is-wrong/
Joe Postma
Shows that the “flat earth model”of the IPCC is too simple. Their real models are built into the GCMs which don’t fit the real data.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/10/19/the-thing-without-the-thing/
Good theory Philf, but all we need to follow is Henry’s Law – known since 1803. See https://bosmin.com//HenrysLaw.pdf The slight increase in CO2 is entirely due to slightly warmer sea, which is due to a slight increase in core activity, and nothing to do with human activity. QED.
I’ve got it. What we need to do is throw more money at the monkeys putting these models together so that they can rig the past temperature data more effectively to match the crappy models they developed.
“scoffing at the paper’s claims” = https://twitter.com/jamesannan/status/1191666356183326720
This twitter responder accidentally or otherwise has unwittingly pointed out exactly why the models are so ffffed up.
STOP BREXIT NOW 🔶 🌹 💚 🇪🇺 @jamesannan Nov 5 More Of course they are used for a wide range of purposes, “but what would you say their primary function is, if not the prediction of global climate change under anthropogenic forcing?”
The assumption is a supposed belief of anthropogenic forcing of global climate “change” based on elevated CO2 levels from increased fossil fuel use. Pretty obvious from model results that whatever VALUE of anthropogenic forcing they have assigned to mimic assumed anthropogenic global climate “change” forcing based on rising CO2 levels has no basis in reality… regardless of what model is used… unless the data is manipulated.
“but what would you say their (models) primary function is”? Nothing more than keeping the progressive agenda alive.
As long a the models’ primary function is to support the climate change agenda, they will deviate from reality.
I’ll repeat what I have said in the past about the hazard of believing one’s own propaganda. The Japanese Zero was an excellent war plane. Japan produced a lot of propaganda on how good it was. As a result, they saw no reason to improve it as the US was making constant improvements in our war planes.
Providing to the fact that back in the 1970’s that same liberal rag TIME was going on about Global Cooling and New Ice Age was coming and Newsweek did about the same
Apart from the actual impact of CO2 on temperature versus other factors, I would like to see ongoing isotopic measurement of the proportion of CO2 from combustion by humans versus natural CO2 (as in Prosenjit Ghosh and Willi Brand’s research, reported 2003 – Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research). Why we don’t get monthly reports of such figures flashed up on the Internet in big neon numbers is a mystery to me. That is if you really wanted to make a valid point.