Betting on climate models

“Observations of the global energy budget and their implications” (9)

“The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued (1–5) that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.”

“Using up-to-date data on radiative forcing, global mean surface temperature and total heat uptake in the Earth system, we find that the global energy budget (6) implies a range of values for the equilibrium climate sensitivity that is in agreement with earlier estimates, within the limits of uncertainty.”

“The energy budget of the most recent decade does, however, indicate a lower range of values for the more policy-relevant (7) transient climate response (the temperature increase at the point of doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration following a linear ramp of increasing greenhouse gas forcing) than the range obtained by either analysing the energy budget of earlier decades or current climate model simulations. (8)

“Our results match those of other observation-based studies (15) and suggest that the TCRs of some of the models in the CMIP5 ensemble (10) with the strongest climate response to increases in atmospheric CO2 levels may be inconsistent with recent observations —“

They explain, “The best estimate of TCR [transient climate response] based on OBSERVATION of the most recent decade is 1.3 °C (0.9–2.0 °C;) This is lower than estimates derived from data of the 1990s 1.6 °C (0.9–3.1 °C); or for the 1970–2009 period as a whole 1.4 °C (0.7–2.5 °C)”

But here is the key:  “within the limits of uncertainty.”  Note that the limits of uncertainty are huge, plus or minus 50% of their best estimate of the MEASURED average temperature.  They are betting our money on a coin toss using a formula that is not good at predicting coin tosses.

They are acknowledging that climate models predicted temperatures that were too high. A doubling of CO2 does not produce as much temperature increase as they expected, even though they gave themselves a huge margin of error.  So they want to try again.  They are addicted.

By analogy, the government bet over $100 billion of our money that the Dow Jones stock market average would finish at 14,000.  It didn’t.  But within the limits of uncertainty the government stock brokers gave themselves, the Dow could have been at 7,000 or at 25,000 and the government would still consider that the bet with our money was reasonable.  We lost our $100 billion and now they will lower their best estimate and bet some more of our money.  Think gambling addiction.

Christy graph of models

References

  1. Aldrin, M. et al. Environmetrics 23, 253–271 (2012).
  2. Lewis, N. J. Clim. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1 (2013).
  3. Ring, M. J., Lindner, D., Cross, E. F. & Schlesinger, M. E. Atmos. Clim. Sci. 2, 401–415 (2012).
  4. Stott, P. A., Good, P., Jones, G., Gillett, N. P. & Hawkins, E. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 014024 (2013).
  5. Schwartz, S. E. Surv. Geophys. 33, 745–777 (2012).
  6. Gregory, J. M. & Forster, P. M. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 113, D23105 (2008).
  7. Allen, M. R. & Frame, D. J. Science 318, 582–583 (2007).
  8. Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2011).
  9. http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/76064/7/ngeo1836%281%29_with_coversheet.pdf
  10. 10. Forster, P. M. et al. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 1–12 (2013)
  11. Gillett, N. P., Arora, V. K., Matthews, D. & Allen, M. R. J. Clim. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00476.1 (2013).

About budbromley

Life sciences executive
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Betting on climate models

  1. budbromley says:

    The radiative forcing parameter for CO2 (created by Hansen) which is used in the climate models is a linear function. The parameter does not account for the fact that the quantum energy bands of CO2 which absorb and re-emit energy are already mostly occupied at current concentration. Logarithmic less and less energy can be absorbed by atmospheric CO2. Thus, a doubling of CO2 concentration as sensitivity is defined results in an asymptotic limit to temperature increases. That is but one problem in the models, but they could start by fixing that.

  2. budbromley says:

    Thanks to Richard Cronin. “In the publications of the AGU , 17-May-2016, J. Ray Bates has another run at Climate Sensitivity and has determined a value of 1.0. He is openly challenging the IPCC.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/full

  3. there is not ”LESS” global warming, but global warming is ZERO – and Warmist are looking for a backdoor exit – public is starting to notice that is all lies. Only the ”climate skeptics” fundamentalist are promoting the Warmist lies -they hope that the PHONY GLOBAL warming will show up soon; otherwise they have to admit to themselves that THEY HAVE BEING DUPED BY Anthony Watts and Ian Plimer that is possible to tell the correct temp FOR THE WHOLE PLANET by few thousands of thermometers. GLOBAL WARMING IS ZERO. Warmist would have being finished by now, if it wasn’t for the ”climate skeptics deviates” (even migratory birds know that climate is changing every season)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s