Leading climate scientists conceded that models used to estimate how much the world will warm with rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are running too hot.
“It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Science magazine.
The admission is seen as a significant development by scientists who argue that not enough attention has been paid to natural cycles in the earth’s climate.
It puts another question mark over the use of the most extreme scenarios generated by models, RCP8.5, to estimate what could be expected in a warming world.
The concession has been made on the eve of this month’s release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on the science of climate change.
That report, delayed a year because of Covid-19, is due to be released on August 9 and will outline what can be expected with different levels of warming.
It will play a major role in preparations for the upcoming climate change summit in Glasgow, Scotland, in November.
A Science article published this week said climate scientists faced the alarming reality that “climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist.”
“Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the model makers themselves, believe are implausibly fast”, the article said.
“In advance of the UN report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers.”
In the past, most models projected a “climate sensitivity” – the warming expected when atmospheric carbon dioxide is doubled over pre-industrial times – of between 2C and 4.5C.
Last year, a landmark paper that used documented factors including ongoing warming trends calculated a likely climate sensitivity of between 2.6C and 3.9C but many of the new models from leading centers showed a warming of more than 5C – uncomfortably outside these bounds.
The models were also out of step with records of past climate.
According to Science, the IPCC team will probably use reality – the actual warming of the world over the past few decades – to constrain model projections.
The IPCC report is also likely to present the impacts of different amounts of warming – 2C, 3C, 4C – rather than saying how quickly those impacts will be felt.
Steve Sherwood from the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre said “while it is true some new climate models have surprising climate sensitivities and predict very high future warming, what doesn’t always come through is that most new models have sensitivity values within the range estimated from observations.”
“Those models still predict substantial future weather and climate changes due to carbon dioxide, similar to predictions made by the science community for many years,” Professor Sherwood said.
US climate scientist Judith Curry said the IPCC report would certainly discuss the problem with climate models: “The elephant in the room for the IPCC is they are heavily relying on RCP8.5 emissions scenarios, which are now widely regarded as implausible.”
Michael Asten, an expert reviewer of the IPCC’s AR6 report, said the admission that climate models were running hot was a significant concession.
h/t JK
Read more at The Australian ($)
Wow, Aido. You just nailed it.
However, I detect a hint of apology on behalf of “experts” , Ph.D’s with bills to pay and mouths to feed. I say that they chose to ride the gravy train from the get-go. Look at the expense to society! I have only contempt for such people. There will be no Inquisition, they’ll all walk.
Given how difficult it is to predict what is going to happen with the weather a few weeks ahead, it is hard to believe anyone no matter how qualified who tells us what the climate is going to be like in ten, twenty or fifty years from now. Yet some ‘experts’ do precisely that. They claim that they know, with a “high degree of certainty” not only how the world’s climate is going to develop in the future, but also how much that development is being and will be influenced by modern man’s emissions of gases, principally carbon dioxide.
Just who are these ‘experts’?
They are men and women who have been to university, obtained degrees and PHDs and have impressive letters after their names. Having developed an interest in climatology, they will have focused on an aspect of that subject that interests them. The field of climatology is huge; no-one could possibly be expert in every aspect. However, to qualify as an expert in any one of the many aspects of climatology, one needs to be conversant with how other aspects impinge on or influence each other. These include meteorology, oceanography, geology, volcanology, biology, anthropology, chemistry, physics and even astrophysics.
While the experts’ knowledge and learning may to some extent set them apart, at heart they are human beings like the rest of us with similar aspirations, hopes and desires. Few are born rich, so they must earn a living if they are to enjoy a normal family life. They are subject to many of the same pressures as the rest of us. Their work can be influenced by personal attitudes, religious beliefs or political leanings. They are prone to all the human conditions including pride, jealousy and envy..
There are not many employment opportunities for climatologists in industry and few in the state sector. Their principal source of income tends to be research grants which are available from governments, universities, foundations, philanthropists and Environmentalist organisations. Such grants are rarely open-ended or without conditions. The giver will want something in return: a research paper that will prove a desired outcome or reinforce the giver’s beliefs, ambitions, opinions or prejudices. It’s natural that the recipient will want to achieve the purpose of the grant. Often, to do this puts great pressure on the expert. A recipient of a grant will be reluctant to bite the hand that feeds.
He decides how much emphasis or weight to give to any piece of evidence. The potential for further grants will be an influence as will the views of his fellow scientists (especially if there is a ‘consensus’). In the academic world, this is known as ‘herding’. As a realistic climatologist said: ‘if you play along with the tune, you are the most likely to get into the orchestra’.
It would be rare for a scientist not to have his own views and theories about the subject before him. These can often colour his judgment, sometimes to the exclusion of contrary evidence. We all have biases and scientists are no exception. As someone put it: if a committed vegan is asked to judge a plate of eggs and bacon, it’s hard for him to be even-handed. Not all scientists are hardworking, diligent and honest. Just like the rest of humanity, some are lazy and follow the line of least resistance, reluctant to buck the trend.
It’s natural for a scientist to want to be well-regarded by his peers and to desire success. The goal is to have one’s paper published in a reputable journal. The mantra in academe is ‘Publish or Perish’. With publication comes grants, speaking engagements, professorships, book offers and the respect of one’s peers, altogether a heady prize to aim for.
A root problem for the scientist is that ‘good news is no news’ and few if any of his colleagues will want to hear it. They know that if they keep saying “there’s no problem here”, pretty soon no-one will want to hear from them. But come up with a doomsday scenario and everybody listens. In particular, the media eagerly snap up and embellish predictions of disaster. The fact that previously such predictions have never materialised in the past doesn’t seem to matter. Perhaps the next one will prove true?
When a scientist’s prediction – if he’s foolish enough to put a date on it – doesn’t materialise, you’ll never hear him say “oops, I got that one wrong;” no siree. You’ll hear all sorts of fudges: something no-one could have foreseen happened after he made the prediction, or he relied on someone else’s data that was faulty, or it hasn’t happened yet, just the timing is wrong. In an important field like climatology, where there are large sums of money involved, it’s important to try to keep your reputation, lifestyle and funding intact.
But when there is collusion among scientists to push a particular thesis, knowing full well that its basis is uncertain, we’re entitled to get angry. Doubly so when their collusion costs us money, money that could be spent to better effect elsewhere.
The thousands of emails that were hacked from the computers of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in 2009, dubbed ‘Climategate’, painted a rather sordid picture of such collusion. The falsehoods and manipulation of data were breathtaking. They showed that far from it being one or two rogue scientists, the collusion was endemic at the highest levels of many at the head of the climatology profession.
At the United Nations Conference on Environment Development in Rio in 1992 – otherwise known as the Earth summit – a document was produced, called the Rio Document. It contains twenty-seven principles, all signed up to by the UN’s 196 members.
Principle number fifteen is an eye-opener; it states that
“lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”.
So, there you have it: the ‘experts’ no longer have to be certain or prove their case beyond doubt. They can just pursue their own Environmentalist agenda, hidden under the pretence
70.
of Doing The Right Thing – as they see it. Against that background, it’s easy to see how the politicians have been led astray.
Stephen Schneider, science advisor to seven US presidents, puts it even more brazenly:
“Each of us [scientists] has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest”
There are dozens of such quotes from scientific ‘experts’ and yet the reports they publish are taken at face value by politicians and the media and that’s what you read in your paper over your cornflakes.
There is also a considerable amount of collusion between scientific advisory bodies and the relevant agencies of government. Although the scientists are well aware of the uncertainties in their theories, the trick for them is to allow just enough uncertainty for their funds to keep flowing, but not enough to cause real doubt on the validity of their views
The campaign by these ‘experts’ to force their point of view on us is eerily reminiscent of another such campaign, from seventy-eight years ago, illustrated by two quotes:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it”.
and
“Tell a lie so colossal that no-one could believe that someone could have the
Impudence to distort the truth so famously”.
The first quote is by Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s chief propagandist; the second one is by Adolf himself, taken from his book, Mein Kampf.
We’re not talking about Nazis today, but we are talking about colossal lies. Because they are uttered by scientists with letters after their names, they are taken as gospel by those who are unwilling or unable to seek the truth for themselves.
You have climate science fundamentally wrong.
There are very few “climate scientists” but what you do have are more than 2 dozen scientific fields ranging from planetary geology to atmospheric chemistry to glaciology that all study climate as part of their own discipline and the knowledge discovered in one field interrelates with the others.
As a result, climate science is the most researched area of science in history. It is important to note that ALL (as in every single one) scientific organizations on the planet which conduct original research into climate have issued position papers in support of man-made climate change theory.
The unreliability of their climate model of climate is revealed in their history of revisions.
Please see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/12/25/earth-day-wisdom/
Jul 21, 2021 The Untouchables
Academic climate fraudsters know they can say whatever lies they want with impunity.
https://youtu.be/836vqHf1SbA
From the article, “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this.” This statement shows that they want the more alarmist models to be correct. That supports the political agendas. Instead they should be celebrating that models such as RCP 8.5 are implausible.
From the article, “Scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models.” What went wrong was that the models were driven by politics, not science. Turning the models only requires the application of true science. Take a look the historical relationship of carbon dioxide to the Earth’s temperature and it shows that CO2 has a minor influence if any at all. A true scientific approach would look at a all factors driving the Earth’s climate especially solar output. Only then can there be a model that is properly tuned. Of course, even the best tuned model is only an estimate.
Good post Lewis! Jan 2, 2020 THE SUN | Plasma Climate Forcing
This is the first in a new special series investigation the mechanisms of solar climate forcing.
https://youtu.be/p-dq3JbZdr4
The Climate Models are only as good and the persons who design them and most all of those man made climate change models are in it for the Money Biden like Obama both are Liberal Democrats and run on Politics not Science
Gavin Schmidt is a serial liar who has committed numerous frauds. This is simple CYA.
The AGW people can make all the excuses or adjustments they want.
The models are still based on the false assumption that CO2 causes global warming.