Climate models

02/18/2019 09:53 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
Computer models are something magical. As powerful computers, located at famous universities and authoritative government agencies are involved, model output is often considered to be a substitute for reality.

But it's not.

A computer model is nothing more than a simulation of reality. No matter how powerful the computer, model accuracy depends on the rules that define it. If one of the model rules states "1+1=3", the model output will always be wrong, even if you run it on the fastest supercomputer available.

Climate "science" heavily depends on models. There are thousands of climate computer models trying to predict the climate for the coming decades and even centuries. All IPCC-reports are based on these models and governments implement the policy recommendations included in those IPCC-reports.
Obviously without even checking if the models are right because if they would do so, any rational person would give it a second thought.

In the above graphic, we see the global temperature forecasts of 32 different climate models used by the IPCC. The first thing that draws the attention is the huge difference between the models.

There's only one reality, so only one can be right and all the other models must be wrong!

In any normal scientific process, this would automatically disqualify any conclusion based on this data, but in climate "science", the "solution" is to use the average of the wrong models. No, I don't make this up, that's how it works and yes, they call it "science."

The thick red line in the graphic shows the average of 102 wrong models used in the IPCC reports.

The second obvious shortcoming of these models is the fact that they don't predict the real-world measurements. And they're not off by 5% or 10%... The average model predicts the global temperature anomaly over the 40-year period from 1977 to 2017 to be three times as high as the measured anomaly.

In any other scientific discipline, models with this kind of deviation would directly be discarded as worthless and useless. But in the case of climate "science", the models can't even be questioned. And if you do, you'll be called a "climate denier".

Even this abysmal, 200% deviation from reality does not stop governments from all over the world to use these models and the IPCC-recommendations based on them for their long-term energy policies, legislation and projects.

Back to the models

When model output does not match real-world measurements, one or more of the rules that define the simulation must be wrong. We should isolate the problem in order to fix it.

Luckily, among the climate models, there's one positive exception. The Russian Imncm4 model does track the real-world measurement quite well. The difference with all other climate models is that the Imncm4 model definition recognizes CO2 only as a very small factor when it comes to modeling the climate. It's the model that uses the smallest CO2-forcing of them all.

Imncm4 is the "climate denier" under the climate models. But it's the one that closest matches reality.

It seems quite obvious that CO2 is not the main climate "control knob". Models that are based on the CO2-hypothesis all predict way too much warming, while the only model that uses a small CO2-forcing matches real-world measurements much better.

I think the time has come to start an independent investigation, using traditional scientific methods, about this issue.

Tom van Leeuwen, February 2019.


Please donate

Fighting the climate hysteria is time-consuming! If you think I'm on the right track and you want to support my efforts I would be more than happy to receive a small donation that will help me to maintain this site.


The fingerprints of the greenhouse effect

The hypothesis of "man-made climate change" tells us that the increase in the concentration of CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere and has global warming as a final result.

Since the beginning of the industrialized era around 1850, man emits relatively large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. The consequence of these emissions is that during that period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased sharply from about 300 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, an increase of almost 40%. The average temperature increased in the same period more or less 1.5 °C with a small variation depending on the data source used.

Why did the warming stop?

The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture

When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.

Dutch Warming

In the Netherlands, the day-to-day whether depends heavily on the direction the wind is coming from. Being a small country, the wind direction is quite homogeneous for the whole country, specially on higher altitudes where the bulk of heat convection is taking place.

Due to its geographical position, midway between the icy-cold Arctic to the north, the dry and hot Sahara to the south, the Eurasian land-mass to the east and the Atlantic Ocean to the west, every wind direction comes with unique weather characteristics.

North - cold,
East - dry,
South - warm,
West - wet whether.

Satellite temperature observations

This month of January 2023, the average satellite temperature published, by Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer (University Alabama Huntsfield) had a negative deviation, compared with the average monthly measures between 1991 and 2000.

Of course, this value does not mean much, it's definition is full of arbitrary begin and endpoints, but anyway it doesn't sound like a lot of warming has taken place over the past 30 years, and even less "catastrophic warming" we're reading about in the Mainstream Media, newspapers and TV stations.

CO2 saturation

This graph is all you need to understand that CO2 is not the Earth's Climate Control Knob.

On the horizontal axis, we see the Infra-red (IR) spectrum wavelengths, that is like "IR colors" were this kind of radiation visible to the human eye.
The vertical axis shows to energy flux, that is the energy emitted by the Earth, as seen from outer space.

The graph itself shows how the Earth's atmosphere filters the IR radiation emitted by the Earth's surface and the role of the various greenhouse gases in that filtering process. The green line is the filter of the Earth's atmosphere without any greenhouse gases.

Video - Who are the real climate deniers?

The climate has shown many fluctuations during the Holocene. The difference between the highest and lowest average temperature of the past 10 thousand years is about 3 °C.

Climate alarmists, led by the IPCC, are trying to deny this, and understandably so. This variation means that without human influence there was climate change as well.

This undermines their hypotheses and often their jobs depend on it.

Climate change seen from a historical perspective.

Satellite Earth temperature February 2022

The satellite temperature departure measurement for February 2022 is exactly 0° C.

This means that Earth temperature during February 2022 was exactly the same as the average from 1991 to 2020.

Satellites are the best way to have insight into the short-term temperature variations. They measure the whole surface, independent of weather station distribution, Heat Islands, measurement failures, surface condition (land or water).

There is a step-wise increase in temperature, triggered by two very strong El Niño events (1998 and 2016.) The energy that welled up from the deep oceans established a new level in these two ocasions, where the warming paused. This is a natural phenomenon and has nothing to do with CO2, or human activity.

Where is the Climate Emergency? It just does not exist.

Wake up and spread this information to your government!

Tom van Leeuwen, March 1st, 2022.