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.

An estimation of the human influence on the climate

The month of May has come to an end. Another month of economic paralysis and reduced human CO2 emissions. And again, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise to record levels in modern measurements.

It is time to remove the blindfolds and thoroughly analyze the question of the effect of human CO2 emissions on global temperature. I propose to divide the problem into four issues, open for discussion:

Sydney Sea-Level Rise

According to the IPCC CO2-hypothesis, rising CO2-levels leads to warming. That warming supposedly expands sea-water and melts glaciers and polar ice-caps, finally resulting in rising sea-levels. They warn us for catastrophic sea-level rises in the year 2100 and beyond because of this process.

Sydney is strategically located between the Indian, Pacific, and Southern oceans. CO2-levels went up from 300 to 400 parts per million over the past 100 years. What's the impact on Sydney's sea-level?

Democracy? Make your choice!

In recent centuries the power of governments has become stronger and stronger. The governments got involved increasingly deeper into our lives and the citizens, the individuals, have ever less to say about ever more issues.

Climate policy is an excellent example of this interference. The government relies on completely unreliable data, unproven hypotheses, and ideas while the consequences of this interference affect everyone. At present, governments worldwide are about to make cheap and reliable energy sources -that form the basis of our economic prosperity- inaccessible. The results are far-reaching.

Censored and kicked by a Facebook group!

Yesterday I decided to post my Four Interglacials to a Facebook group called "Global Warming Denialism is a Big Oil agenda".

It was an educational experience.

About consensus, "97%", and settled science

There are four misconceptions about science that are commonly used by catastrophic man-made warming advocates. Normally, when you try to start a conversation on the subject, their first reply will be one of these four "arguments".