In 2007 The IPCC Admitted: The Computer Models Are Crap - Granite Grok

In 2007 The IPCC Admitted: The Computer Models Are Crap

GISP2 TemperatureSince10700 BP with CO2 from EPICA DomeC
Atmospheric CO2 vs. the Temperature record…

Dr. Norman Page, quoting the IPCC, reveals that they have no confidence in their own climate models. And if you can handle some actual science, I suggest you read the whole article.

Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. It recognizes the short comings of the models. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which concludes:

“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”

The IPCC admitted in 2007 that the computer models they rely on (and by extension all the “science”and policy based on them), are crap.Dr. Page continues.

What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that it doesn’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability (i.e., we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2). This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way.

Even the IPCC itself  has now  given up on estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”

Lack of agreement put a different way, sounds a lot like a lack of consensus.

Paradoxically they still claim that UNFCCC  can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels .This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational.There is no empirical evidence which proves that CO2 has anything more than a negligible effect on temperatures.

If your climate-cult religious beliefs prevent you from reading the article, I’m here to help. Dr. Page presents the following climate predictions based on the data he presents.

3.Forecasts

3.1 Long Term .
I am a firm believer in the value of Ockham’s razor thus the simplest working hypothesis based on the weight of all the data  is that  the millennial temperature cycle peaked at about 2003 and that the general  trends from 990 – 2003 seen in Fig 4 will  repeat from 2003-3016 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2640.

3.2 Medium Term.
Looking at the shorter 60+/-  year  wavelengths the simplest hypothesis is that the cooling trend from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the rising trend. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig,1.which shows cooling until 2038 ,slight warming to 2073, then cooling to the end of the century.

3.3  Current Trends
The cooling trend from the millennial peak at 2003  is illustrated  in blue in Fig 5. From 2015 on,the decadal cooling trend is obscured by the current El Nino. The El Nino peaked in March 2016. Thereafter during 2017 – 2019 we might reasonably expect a cooling at least as great as  that seen during the 1998 El Nino decline in Fig 5 – about 0.9 C

It is worth noting that the increase in the neutron count  in 2007 seen in Fig 8 indicated a possible solar regime change which might produce an unexpectedly sharp decline in RSS temperatures 12 years later – 2019 +/- to levels significantly below the blue trend line in Fig 5.

4.Conclusions.
To the detriment of the reputation of science in general, establishment climate scientists made  two  egregious errors of judgment in their method of approach to climate forecasting  and thus in their advice to policy makers in successive SPMs. First, they based their analyses on  inherently untestable  and specifically structurally flawed models which  included many questionable assumptions.

Second they totally ignored the natural, solar driven , millennial  and multi-decadal quasi-cycles. Unless we know where we are with regard to and then  incorporate the phase of the millennial cycle in particular, useful forecasting is simply impossible.

It is fashionable  in establishment climate circles to present climate forecasting as a “wicked” problem.I would by contrast contend that by adopting the appropriate time scale and method  for analysis it becomes entirely tractable so that commonsense working hypotheses with sufficient likely accuracy and chances of success to guide policy can be formulated.

If the real outcomes follow the near term forecasts in  para 3.3 above  I suggest that the establishment position is untenable past 2020.This is imminent in climate terms. The essential point of this post is that the 2003 peak in Fig 1 marks a millennial peak which is totally ignored  in all the IPCC projections.

Not to worry. NOAA will continue making “fudge,” and the Flying Climate Monkeys will continue their sorties. State Attorney’s General will file RICO suits. And the Climate-Cult will invoke its commandments to shield itself. And no matter what the weather is or why, it will still be your fault.  Except it won’t be.

Chaser: From a new Study in Nature, from Stockholm University. Ooops! Another big failure of the climate models – rainfall did not increase.

>