The only climate model
that seems to predict
future global average
temperatures, says
there is NO climate
emergency.
The other IPCC models
predict too much
global warming.
Unfortunately, it now
appears that half
the IPCC models will be
predicting even faster
warming for the
next IPCC report
-- predictions moving
even further away
from reality.
Russia’s INM
climate model
"predicts" well,
or at least seems
to predict well.
In my opinion
that's because
it seems to look at
past global warming,
and predicts more
of the same.
A very safe prediction.
In fact, all the
climate models
are worthless,
because the
causes of
climate change
are not known
in any detail
-- just a long list of
"the usual suspects".
Without an accurate
climate change
physics model,
constructing a real
climate prediction
model is impossible.
What we have
is many dozens
of computer games,
representing many
dozens of opinions
of the scientists
who programmed
them.
And with many dozens,
of models, at least
one model is expected
to appear "accurate",
just by chance.
The Russian model
uses a negative cloud
feedback:
–0.13 W/m2/degree C.
All other IPCC models
use a large positive
cloud feedback: up to
+ 0.80 W/m2/degree C.
A large positive
cloud feedback
allegedly triples
the global warming
caused by CO2 alone,
instantly causing the
scary IPCC climate
predictions.
Warming leads to
more water vapor
in the air, which causes
increased cloudiness.
Clouds / humidity
block our planet's
cooling process,
making Earth's
surface warmer
( a positive feedback ).
The Russians,
however, chose
a negative feedback,
and measurements
support their choice.
According to the IPCC,
each +1 degree C.
of global warming,
will cause the amount
of water vapor in the air
to increase by +6% to +7%.
Demetris Koutsoyiannis,
a hydrologist at the
National Technical
University of Athens,
does not agree.
His findings, currently
up for open peer review
at the journal Hydrology
and Earth System Sciences,
say the water vapor
in the air is increasing,
but only at one third
of the IPCC’s predicted
rate, which is negligible,
given the normal variability
of hydrological cycles.
The IPCC also says
the average rainfall
across the planet
should increase by
+1% to +3%, per
+1 degree C. degree
of global warming.
This claim is also
within the “noise”
of normal variability,
and Koutsoyiannis sees
no meaningful trends
in the data.
Koutosoyiannis says
the alleged small changes
that excite climate scientists
today, are just noise in the
ever-changing patterns
of hydrological cycles.
Meanwhile, the
United Nations' IPCC
is writing its sixth
new Assessment
Report (AR6).
It appears that many
AR6 modelers have
increased their
positive feedback,
"warming the models".
No real science
justified "warming
the models".
In fact, real science
measurements
say the models
have always run
too hot, except the
one Russian model.
But in climate
junk science,
inaccurate
predictions
do not matter.
Conclusions of a coming
climate change crisis
are never changed.
The large gap
between predicted
climate, and the
actual climate,
has existed for
over 30 years,
and does not
seem to matter.
The primary goal
of using models
is obviously not
to accurately
predict the
future climate,
( except for the
Russian model ).
The goal of using
climate models
appears to be
scaring people
about the future climate,
with what appears to be
real science, but is not.
The ultimate goal
of climate alarmism,
with wild guess models,
is empowering the
Democrats, and other
socialist politicians
around the world,
to micro-manage
our lives !