Climate scientists and climate modelers recently admitted the newest sixth generation of climate models (CMIP6), particularly its high-emissions scenario, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) produce “implausibly hot forecasts of future warming.”
Two peer-reviewed papers from independent teams confirm that climate models overstate atmospheric warming and illustrate that the problem has gotten worse over time, not better.
The papers are Mitchell et al. (2020) “The vertical profile of recent tropical temperature trends: Persistent model biases in the context of internal variability” in Environmental Research Letters, and McKitrick and Christy (2020) “Pervasive warming bias in CMIP6 tropospheric layers” in Earth and Space Science.
McKitrick and Christy write:
- “…we find considerable warming biases in the CMIP6 modeled trends, and we show that these biases are linked to biases in surface temperature (these models simulate an unrealistically large global warming).”
- “…we note here for the record that from 1998 to 2014, the CMIP5 models warm, on average 4 to 5 times faster than the observations, and in one model the warming is 10 times larger than the observations.”
- “Throughout the depth of the troposphere, not a single model realization overlaps all the observational estimates. However, there is some overlap between the RICH observations and the lowermost modeled trend, which corresponds to the NorCPM1 model.”
- “Focusing on the CMIP6 models, we have confirmed the original findings of Mitchell et al. (2013): first, the modeled tropospheric trends are biased warm throughout the troposphere (and notably in the upper troposphere, around 200 hPa) and, second, that these biases can be linked to biases in surface warming. As such, we see no improvement between the CMIP5 and the CMIP6 models.” (Mitchell et al. 2020)
Mitchell, et al. write:
- “As in earlier studies, we find considerable warming biases in the CMIP6 modeled trends, and we show that these biases are linked to biases in surface temperature.”
- “We also uncover previously undocumented biases in the lower-middle stratosphere: the CMIP6 models appear unable to capture the time evolution of stratospheric cooling,…”
- “Finally, using models with large ensembles, we show that their standard deviation in tropospheric temperature trends, which is due to internal variability alone, explains ∼ 50% (± 20%) of that from the CMIP6 models.”
Modeling the climate is incredibly difficult, requiring massive computing power. But, since problems with the CMIP6 models have been recognized by others for more than two years, what we are really dealing with here is GIGO – garbage in, garbage out – based on the confirmation bias of the people creating the climate models.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) has refused to change course or alter its publication timelines despite the recognized failures of the models their report relies upon.
In addition, an unquestioning media reports IPCC’s most alarming scenarios based on these flawed models.
As a result, many people are all living with the fear and loathing of alarming weather predictions.
Yet these predictions, are grounded in models which project far too much warming, based on an inaccurate assessment of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, and IPCC representatives and modelers highlighting grossly exaggerated forcing scenarios, RCP8.5, concerning the amount of carbon dioxide likely to enter the atmosphere.
The bottom line is that the future isn’t being accurately represented to us by most climate scientists or their media lapdogs.
Science is supposed to be self-correcting. However, getting activists and scientists that rely on future alarm as part of their paycheck to pay attention to what science actually says, versus what they believe will really happen in their dire vision of the future, is a much tougher problem.
As Upton Sinclair once famously said:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Read more at Climate Realism
The models cannot be “over heated” because the models are based on the GHG Theory which has been debunked.
CO2 is a coolant and cannot “trap” heat.
Most all Climate Models are only as good as the persons who create them and therefore can not be relied upn since those who design them in the first place Gore the Bore and DiCaprio the Lets Pretend fool making fake Documentries
Just another facet of the “Great Reset.” Rather ironic that whether it is climate, COVID, police activity, urban crime, inflation…you name it…that we are constantly bombarded with the mantra “Follow the Science!” OK, so when do we START? So when do FACTS and a true test of REASONABILITY make a comeback? Folks need to start waking up to the ongoing full court press of AUTHORITARIANISM that is sweeping through multiple component areas, being promoted by activists, their progressive political supporters and a (largely) enabling media. As an American, I can get behind Freedom 3.0. Based on it’s long track record worldwide, the new Marxist 3.0 is not going to be a “bargain”…
Yes, Upton Sinclair is the key to the alarmists fudges to win public fear by cheating with the numbers. His famous book Oil written 100 years ago chronicled the nasty reality of oil industry right wing politics where graft and anti-union violence dominated. The irrational attack on fossil fuels is the ongoing left’s backlash and revenge of the cradle. It is the legacy of this dramatic oil history rooted in group think like a religion.
Its all about Globalism and Global Government run by the United Nations/Globalists which the UN was created for in the first place
Computer models are not meant and probably can never be designed to represent an entire complicated system. Mainly, computer models are used to test the effects on a system by changing individual variables. The global climate has many variables which wage influence on weather patterns, cloud formation, surface temperature and other aspects of the atmosphere. It is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that “our global climate model demonstrates how human-produced CO2 will ruin the planet.” There are so many variables to work with, many of them still not well known or clearly defined.
Right on BOXOROX.
Too many variables affecting climate.