... "The IPCC has failed to apply the scientific method including correcting grievous errors and omitting significant data that contradicts its conclusions.
Consequently, it has failed to provide policymakers with scientific assessments. Instead, it provides policymakers with political assessments.
Rather than focus on the gathering of tens of thousands of political types, and others, gathering at the COP 26 being held in Glasgow, this TWTW will focus on some of the errors and omissions that occurred in the IPCC process, rendering its results scientifically meaningless.
Without physical evidence supporting them, the IPCC adaptation and mitigation options have no scientifically convincing foundation.
Without physical evidence, IPCC relies on elaborate mathematical models that have never been validated, that is shown to fit the physical world they supposedly describe.
Many of these deficiencies were brought out at the 14th Heartland International Conference on Climate Change, from October 15 to 18.
Two of the important presentations are discussed below.
Converging Models:
As discussed later, the models used by the IPCC are diverging from the physical world by increasing amounts.
The IPCC ignores any need for convergence, yet their global climate models are built on weather models made more elaborate.
This creates a significant problem in reliability.
Numerical weather models must be updated constantly, several times a day.
Yet weather models cannot be relied upon for prediction of weather events even two weeks out, usually a few days.
Weather is a non-linear system with many variations.
Though others had noted problems with non-linear systems before, starting in the 1960s mathematician Edward Lorenz developed what became chaos theory,
small changes to the beginning of a chaotic system, or model of one, can cause huge differences in results over time.
Most weather forecasters are now familiar with the problem and are reluctant to make firm forecasts until they see the different models are converging on the same result.
The “spaghetti charts” showing great variation in climate models over time are not convergence.
... Unfortunately, the IPCC does not recognize the need for climate models to converge to a consistent solution, that can be tested against physical evidence.
Instead, it uses an average of all the models.
An average of significant errors is still a significant error. ...
IPCC Model Deficiencies:
At the Heartland Conference, in his Breakfast Keynote address, Patrick Michaels of the Competitive Enterprise Institute presented a masterly summary of some of the significant errors and omissions in the global climate models used by the IPCC.
Later that morning during the science panel 2A, The IPCC and the Scientific Method, David Legates, who had received the Fredrick Seitz Award, amplified the significance of these errors and omissions and added additional ones.
Michaels points out that many in and out of government are insisting that we must “follow the science” and change energy policies to fit global climate models.
The models are being used to change our way of life.
Yet, the models have wrong input, the unrealistic extreme carbon dioxide emissions used by the UN IPCC; the models run far too hot, greatly overestimating the warming of the planet; and we are living on a modestly warming, greener planet, nothing to be feared.
There is even disagreement in the establishment about the use of IPCC models, for example Michaels cites Hausfather and Peters (Nature 2020) who wrote:
“Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome – more realistic baselines to make for better policy.”
Others have estimated that the vast bulk, over 10,000 papers, focus on this unrealistic worst-case.
Michaels goes into some detail on how fictitious this scenario is.
He discusses some of the issues glossed over by the use of models, such as stratospheric cooling and the growing disparity between global climate models and observations.
He notes that the instruments on weather balloons are carefully calibrated daily before the balloons are launched.
[As meteorologist Anthony Watts has shown, surface temperature data comes from instruments, many of which sorely lack calibration and are in areas where the settings have greatly changed, resulting in very unreliable data.]
Michaels brings up that the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics was shared by Suki Manabe of the Princeton Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL):
“For the physical modeling of the earth’s climate, quantifying variability, and reliably predicting global warming”
Michaels then shows how deficient the GFDL modeling is, and the model results are among the most extreme in overestimating the warming rate at the so-called hotspot roughly 10 km above the tropics, when compared with atmospheric observations.
He then covers other issues such as the models are becoming worse,
claims of increasing hurricanes are contradicted by evidence,
claims of increasing tornadoes are contradicted by evidence,
but NOAA removed the web site explaining that.
What NOAA cannot remove are death certificates which are way down from extreme storms.
Contrary to years of false claims, crop production is increasing significantly while population growth is steady, or declining.
One should note that one of the worst performing global climate model, the one by the Princeton Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL), is sponsored by NOAA.
(Broken) Climate Models:
David Legates is professor of climatology in the Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences at the University of Delaware and an adjunct professor in the university’s Department of Applied Economics & Statistics.
He went into further detail on the likely problems of climate models.
Climate models should give rough ideas of what may be.
Climate models run hot.
The question is why?
It may be the climate model operator rather than the model itself.
What is the response of the modeled temperature over time?
To a large part, modeled equations are regression equations, and the coefficients are guessed at – optimized for a purpose (model tuning).
The operators keep climate sensitivity within in a preconceived accepted range.
The modelers choose what they want!
The entire approach is subjective, not objective.
Tuning climate models to a desired result is not a legitimate objective under the scientific method.
Legates then discusses how CO2 is estimated to increase over time.
Representative Concentration Pathways – how much temperatures will increase over time.
These are now called the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP), but they have the same watts per square meter of forcing by 2100.
Which ones make sense?
Certainly not those in the US National Climate Assessment (USNCA) which are based on extreme scenarios.
It should be made clear that such extreme estimates are far from “business as usual” but it is not.
Legates estimates that 80 to 90% of papers we see are based on extreme scenarios.
Thus, what is called science is unrealistic!
The papers overstate the rise in CO2.
Legates concludes that climate models overstate both climate sensitivity and the rate at which carbon dioxide is changing over time.
This is operator error and deliberate."
Total Pageviews
Monday, November 1, 2021
"The IPCC has failed to apply the scientific method including correcting grievous errors and omitting significant data that contradicts its conclusions."
"THIS WEEK: by Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)"