General circulation
computer models (GCMs)
do not accurately depict
complex
climate processes,
and can't hind-cast
( or forecast )
the effects of
human-related
greenhouse gas
emissions
on the climate.
To make
climate predictions,
the UN's IPCC
relies entirely
on those inaccurate
computer models (GCMs).
Relatively few people
in the climate science
community,
are experts in
building and operating
such models,
so the rest
of the community
accepts their outputs
on faith.
The outputs of models
are nothing more than
a statement of how
the modeler believes
a part of the world works
= a personal opinion !
Modelers assume
a CO2 increase
must cause
a significant
temperature increase,
so they program
that assumption
into their models.
When asked
how they KNOW
this happens,
they have
no answer !
Dr. Freeman Dyson,
professor of physics
at the Institute
for Advanced Study
at Princeton University
and one of the world’s
most eminent physicists,
said the models,
used to justify
global warming alarmism,
are “full of fudge factors”.
"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.
They do not begin
to describe
the real world
that we live in.”
Dr. Antonino Zichichi,
emeritus professor of physics
at the University of Bologna,
and former president of the
European Physical Society,
said global warming models
are “incoherent and invalid.”
Christy (2017)
performed a test of
102 climate model runs
conducted by GCMs
in the Coupled Model
Inter-comparison Project (CMIP),
an international collaboration
that provides GCMs
to the IPCC, and to
national governments.
Almost all models
predicted
double to triple
the warming
that satellite and
weather balloons
later measured.
With such poor hind-casts,
why would anyone believe
what today's climate models
predict about earth’s
future climate?
Of the 102 model runs
considered by
Christy and McKitrick,
only one came close
to accurately hind-casting
temperatures since 1979:
The INM-CM4 model
produced by
the Institute of
Numerical Mathematics
of the Russian Academy
of Sciences.
That model
happens to predict
only +1.4°C warming
by the end of the
( 21st) century,
a warming
only one-third
as much as the
IPCC predicts.
INM-CM4 had the lowest
CO2 forcing response
at 4.1K for 4xCO2.
That is 37% lower than
the multi-model average.
INM-CM4 also had,
by far, the highest
climate system inertia:
( Deep ocean heat capacity ).
INM-CM4 also
exactly matched
observed atmospheric
water vapor content
in the lower troposphere
(215 hPa),
and was biased low
above that altitude.
Most others models
were biased high.
But when only one
out of dozens of
climate models
seems to be "right",
I strongly suspect
that correct "prediction"
iwas just a coincidence
-- a "lucky guess" --
not based on
any great knowledge
of climate change,
unknown to all other
modelers.
The outputs of GCMs
are only as reliable
as the data
and theories
“fed” into them,
which scientists
widely recognize
as being flawed.
The real purpose
of GCMs,
in my opinion,
is to present
a scary prediction
of the
future climate,
that seems like
real science,
to laymen.
GCMs are
nothing more than
complex props,
in a political
power game,
designed to
tell the world
exactly what
leftist politicians
want them to hear !