CMIP6 Climate Models

CSS-30 – The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) alarmist community relies almost exclusively on their computer model projections to justify their ideological narrative. Unfortunately, (for them) they do not have empirical data. There is no empirical CO₂/Temperature dataset that shows CO₂ driving the climate on any statistically significant historical time scale. The “fact checkers” could easily refute this claim by putting forward some, well, facts (i.e.: empirical data), but that empirical data does not exist. They use their computer projections to manufacture future temperatures that are much higher than today’s temperatures, but those manufactured temperatures are still much lower than historical temperatures where life survived and thrived. The same statement can be made for much higher historical atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. Those manufactured temperatures/CO₂ concentrations still include implausible (according to the IPCC) high emission scenarios like RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, SSP3-7.0 and RCP6.0. RCP refers to the Representative Concentration Pathways, SSP refers to the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

Dr. John Christy (University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH)) has done similar evaluations in the past. He compared the CMIP5 and CMIP6 model results with satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data to show that the models run too hot (as the modelers themselves acknowledge). I reviewed his January 2021 presentation in my CSS-6 post. More recently, Dr. Roy Spencer also looked at the models, confirming again that they run too hot. The link to the data files was included in the Spencer evaluation. I could not resist. This post will, of course also confirm that the models run too hot. And by going into more detail, the poor scientific methods and ideological drivers become very evident.

Computer modeling, while not proof of any concept can be useful in analyzing different processes. The starting point needs to be good representative data. I looked at both the HadCRUT5 surface (good and representative (?)) and the UAH Lower Troposphere satellite temperature data. Christy and Spencer did not include any surface temperature data sets in their analysis presented here. Quick summary, the models (in general), still run too hot, even using homogenized (i.e.: manipulated) surface temperature data. And most of the modeling groups should be immediately fired/dismissed to start bringing science back into the discussion (and policy decisions). The billions that are wasted on these obviously unscientific computer simulations is disgusting. The simple spreadsheet models that I have developed (Open Letter Addendum, OPS-8 – Basic Climate Model, CSS-16 – Central England Temperature – Model, and CSS-29 – Climate Model – TSI-AMO- CO₂) produce better (and cheaper) matches than the models being used by the CAGW alarmist crowd. Not surprising, given that the current models ignore the much more powerful, technically valid solar forcings and remain focused on the simplistic, unscientific CO₂ narrative.

As I have mentioned before, we need to wake up as a society. We have some serious problems (energy, food, financial, supply chain, etc. crises) and sadly they appear to be deliberately created and/or are being ignored (colder, dangerous temperatures are coming over the next few decades).

Open Letter Addendum

Addendum

CSS-6 – Dr. John Christy – January 2021 Presentation

John Christy – January 2021

CSS-16 – Central England Temperature – Model

Central England Temperature – Model

CSS-29 – Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO₂

Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO2

OPS-8 – Basic Climate Model

Basic Climate Model

OPS-55 – The State of Climate Science

The State of Climate Science