Questioning Computer Climate Models
According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “None of the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate of the Earth.”
The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth. (1)
It is interesting to note Kevin Trenberth was one of the contributors to the IPCC’s AR4 report, and is an alarmist, so his statement above is even more important.
The Wall Street Journal and Powerline report climate models’ projections of future temperatures have gotten worse over time.
As new generations of supposedly improved climate models are produced and refined, the accuracy of their temperature simulations decreases. Each new generation of general circulation models fails to track or correspond to a greater degree with measured temperature changes and trends than the previous generation. (2)
Here are some recent examples:
Using same tree ring dataset, 15 groups come up with 15 different reconstructions, reported in a 2021 study. This was a double-bbind experiment of 15 different groups that yielded 15 different Northern Hemisphere summer temperature recommendations. Each group used the same network of regional tree ring width datasets. (3)
What’s fascinating is that all groups, though using the same data network, came up with a different results. When it comes to deriving temperatures from tree rings, it has much to do with individual approach and interpretation. Sure we can follow the science, but whose results?
The 15 groups who contributed independently to the experiment all had experience in developing tree ring based climate reconstructions. But as the study describes, each group employed a distinct reconstruction approach.
How could the groups come up with different results?
The paper abstract summarizes: “Differing in their mean, variance, amplitude, sensitivity, and persistence, the ensemble members demonstrate the influence of subjectivity in the reconstruction process. We therefore recommend the routine use of ensemble reconstruction approaches to provide a more consensual picture of past climate variability.” (3)
Perhaps this should not surprise since tree ring width does not correlate to temperature. Botanists, horticulturists, foresters, and paleobotanists have been saying this for 30 years but ‘climate scientists’ refuse to listen.‘
Another recent study highlights the abysmal model performance manifested in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (AR6). The 38 CMIP6 circulation models fail to adequately simulate even the most recent (1980-2021) warming patterns over 60 to 81 percent of the Earth’s surface. (4)
The author places particular emphasis on the poor performance of the highly uncertain estimates (somewhere between 1.83 and 5.67 C) of equilibrium climate sensitivity and their data model agreement relative to 1980-2021 global warming patterns.
The worst performing ECS estimates are the ones projecting 3-4.5 C and 4.5-6 C warming in response to doubled CO2 concentrations (to 560 ppm) plus feedback, as the 1980-2021 temperature trends are nowhere close to aligning with these trajectories. (5)
A study by John Christy of UAH demonstrates climate models consistently overstate the warming effect of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations on climate. (6) Christy warns that the models are warming too fast, as seen in the image below he produced in April 2019 for a presentation to the British government:
In the early 1990s, most climate modelers developed models projecting a 0.35 degree Celsius rise in temperature. Using satellite readings available since 1979 Christy and colleague Dick McNider projected the amount of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere should cause the Earth to warm, on average by about 0.09 degrees Celsius per decade.
That’s about one-quarter of the level projected by prevailing models used by the IPCC and government agencies such as NASA. He concludes, “The warming trend we found suggests that we are having a relatively minor impact on global temperatures.” (7)
Living legend Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has harsh critical words for climate scientists and the models they rely on. He calls the science of climate modeling a ‘very dangerous game.’ He adds, “When you work with a computer model for years and years, always improving the model, in the end you end up believing it. It’s very difficult to remain objective.”
On why we should not trust the models, Dyson days ‘because they’re wrong, it’s very simple, they’re wrong.’ He adds that although the models are ‘very good tools for understanding climate,’ they area ‘very bad tool for predicting climate,’ and that these scientists ‘live by scaring the public.’ (8)
References
1. Norman Rogers, “The profound junk science of climate,” wattsupwiththat.com, November 27, 2021
2. H. Sterling Burnett, “Climate model problems persist, changes reduce accuracy further,” heartland.org, February 10, 2022
3. P. Gosselin, “Follow the science: but which results? Using same tree ring dataset, 15 groups come up with 15 different reconstructions,” notrickszone.com, April 19, 2022
4. Nicola Scafetta, “Advanced testing of low, medium and high FCS CMIP6 GCM simulations versus ERA5-T2m,” geophysical Research Letters, March 2, 2022
5. Kenneth Richard, “AR6 model failure affirmed: no model group succeeds reproducing observed surface warming patterns,” notrickszone.com, April 25, 2022
6. John Christy, “The tropical skies: falsifying climate alarm,” Global Warming Policy Forum, May 23, 2019
7. H. Sterling Burnett, “Speakers at climate conference flood Washington, DC with facts,” Environment & Climate News, July 2019
8. P. Gosselin Renowned physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘theories of climate are very confuse,’ models are wrong,” notrickszone.com, November 16, 2018
Bold emphasis added
Header image: John Christy
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Heretic Jones
| #
As a statistician, the data fraud being committed by nasa/noaa seems pretty straightforward.
First, go on over to Hellers site to learn how the data collection agencies are manipulating the data to cool the past and warm the present. Here’s an example post:
https://realclimatescience.com/2022/04/100-fake-data/
It appears the agencies’ kikery revolves around using ppm CO2 as an explanatory variable in a relatively simple regression model. The kicker is that a log-linear functional form is specified along with weighting the model with CO2. So the response variable, ‘adjusted temperature’, will have have ‘negative weighting’ in the past when CO2 ppm was lower, and ‘positive weighting’ in more recent times as CO2 has slowly increased.
So yeah, I totally trust the shabbos goy models. Not.
Reply
Heretic Jones
| #
By the way, if you plot ppm CO2 against ‘adjusted temperature’, the correlation is extremely high.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Just as NASA launders tax money into the insiders pockets using fake space programs , NOAA produces fake climate data to enable the laundering of tax money into the the insiders “Green Energy” scam.
Reply
Squidly
| #
I don’t question computer climate models, I completely dismiss them 100% .. they are completely bogus!
Reply
Heretic Jones
| #
Lol nice!
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Whenever a Zionist agenda is instigated, like the Club of Rome’s “Green Energy” climate scam, 9/11 or the fake virus medical fraud with the poison injections, they are always accompanied by lots of technical jargon and experts to “explain” the fake narratives to us, like Mikovits, Malone, Ardis, Fetzer, Jones and Olson.
Reply
Tom
| #
Since 1967, the predictions are 0-41. Silly computers will not matter because they are programmed by global warmers.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
The author of this article, (pronounced masturbatory exercise), is someone named Jack Dini.
Dear Jack, I have an online Blackjack Casino computer program. As soon as you demonstrate a betting pattern, my program figures out how to win for the House every time!
Are you ready to bet your home or your job on my online gambling program?
Reply
Heretic Jones
| #
I love your comment. You’re smart. I mean, so smart. You’re smarter than smart. Your comment is so relevant. I’m at a higher level after reading your totally relevant comment.
It makes sense. The masturbation thing…just smart. I’ll visit this website more frequently just in the hope that you write more stuff here. Smart relevant stuff. Like your comment today.
Yep, casino program. I’ll tell you what – I’m ready to bet my home and job! I love your comment you faggot hasbara kike. Kevin. Hilarious. Fake and gay kike.
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
Well well Mr Doyle, perhaps you can come up with some actual proof that Jack Dini is wrong. Your ad hominium attack is typical of global warming fanatics.
Reply
Jacque
| #
You what I’ve heard about computers is “stupid in stupid out” you only get what you program in so climate forecasters only get what they want to to find. Totally a hoax
Reply