Gavin Schmidt, NASA admit their Climate models are running too hot

[JohnLarue]

Science magazine blows the whistle on climate model failure (thegwpf.com)

• Date: 30/07/21
  [*]
  
  [*]Graham Lloyd, The Australian

Leading climate scientists conceded that models used to estimate how much the world will warm with rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are running too hot.

“It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Science magazine.

The admission is seen as a significant development by scientists who argue that not enough attention has been paid to natural cycles in the earth’s climate.

It puts another question mark over the use of the most extreme scenarios generated by models, RCP8.5, to estimate what could be expected in a warming world.

The concession has been made on the eve of this month’s release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on the science of climate change.

That report, delayed a year because of Covid-19, is due to be released on August 9 and will outline what can be expected with different levels of warming.

It will play a major role in preparations for the upcoming climate change summit in Glasgow, Scotland, in November.

A Science article published this week said climate scientists faced the alarming reality that “climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist”.

“Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the model makers themselves, believe are implausibly fast”, the article said.

US climate scientist Judith Curry said the IPCC report would certainly discuss the problem with climate models: “The elephant in the room for the IPCC is they are heavily relying on RCP8.5 emissions scenarios, which are now widely regarded as implausible.”

Michael Asten, an expert reviewer of the IPCC’s AR6 report, said the admission that climate models were running hot was a significant concession.

Interesting development, but no big surprise the models are junk
What is interesting is it is a public admission of failure
Climate is extremely complex and most definitely not controlled by an inert colorless, odorless gas Co2 measure in parts per million

These Alarmists have been trying to model a non linear, chaotic climate system using CO2 as the control knob
The models are producing results which the model makers know and now admit are wrong

The reason: Their understanding of underlying theory is wrong
It is Pseudoscience

So what is the culpability of these Alarmists for producing the RCP8.5 scenario which has been used to intentionally and deliberately to scare the living shit out of a whole generation of children ?

While young Greta should be relieved to hear the sources for all the doomsday predictions are junk, she will be pissed instead because she has been used like a pawn

Maybe she can address the IPCC, look them in the eye and scream

Now this is where Frankfooter usually try's to insult me (showing his scientific illiteracy at the same time) with a comical reference to forcing and feedbacks.
Then he usually inserts a graphic of Gavin Schmidt's model as a rebuttal ... the model Gavin Schmidt has just admitted is a misleading piece of Junk


So here is a better representation of reality, the atmosphere is marginally cooler now than the average over the past 30 years

 

[Frankfooter]

Science magazine blows the whistle on climate model failure (thegwpf.com)

Its pretty amazing how many times larue can be wrong in one post.
First, if you read the article it says that both climate models and reality have been showing bigger changes than they had projected earlier.
Which means if anything, the IPCC warnings have been conservative.
The actual article is here:

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

Second, larue then posts the science deniers/oil lobbyist attacks on RCP 8.5, which was the most highest temp scenario of a series of possible outcomes as if its crazy and way too much.
Its as if he didn't actually read the article, as it suggest that we might be online for RCP 8.5.

In fact, the numbers are looking scarily like we are following that path.

Third, larue attacks the researchers for hiding or fudging the data when the opposite is true, they are open about the work that must be done to make the models better and are actively discussing problems and fixes with those models.

 

[JohnLarue]

Oh yeah, apparently the Canadian Model is pretty much the worse in producing results which are too hot
The Canadian model which no doubt was used as justification for Justin Trudeaus despicable and inflationary carbon tax and his despicable assult on our energy sector

Frankfooter is on ignore , however it took him all of 6 minutes to respond in a panic
Lets hope he did not make too much of a mess soiling himself when presented with the fact that the climate models which produce all his propaganda are junk

 

[Frankfooter]

Being on ignore from larue means not having to engage in his idiotic claims about his dunnig kruger science knowledge or infrared radiation and instead just posting a quick debunk and moving on.

Over the first 6 months of 2021, 3.9% of the Earth's surface has had a record warm temperature.

 

[Frankfooter]

Care to see how the weather is looking in the Russian Arctic?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1417208804568027140

 

[Valcazar]

Oh yeah, apparently the Canadian Model is pretty much the worse in producing results which are too hot
The Canadian model which no doubt was used as justification for Justin Trudeaus despicable and inflationary carbon tax and his despicable assult on our energy sector

Since that doesn't appear to be in the article you posted, where are you getting it from?

The article itself is really interesting. LaRue should try actually reading it since it even discusses his favorite subject - water vapor - and how it plays into the models.

 

[Frankfooter]

Since that doesn't appear to be in the article you posted, where are you getting it from?

The article itself is really interesting. LaRue should try actually reading it since it even discusses his favorite subject - water vapor - and how it plays into the models.

That article is way beyond his comprehension levels, contains discussion of actual science, problems and solutions with models and measuring the reality.

 

[JohnLarue]

This would be the same Gavin Schmidt who ran away from a debate on the subject

(2) Climate Scientist Gavin Schmidt runs in fear from a debate - YouTube

so now after admitting his model is a piece of junk. perhaps this arrogant activist should start acting like a real scientist and be willing to participate in open and public debate ?
The refusal of climate activists to debate the subject is pretty telling
This admission of model failure produces so many new debate questions they must now answer

He does not understand what is wrong with the models which are the source for all the climate doom propaganda and foolish climate change policy
Perhaps Roy Spencer might help him understand what is wrong with the models
after all the pursuit of the truth is far more important for a scientist than any public embarrassment Gavin might experience in a debate
the pursuit of the truth is also far more important for a scientist than any agenda Gavin might have as an activist

Time will tell what Gavin Schmidt really wants to be when he grows up

1. a scientist in pursuit of the truth or
2. an activist in pursuit of a political agenda

 

[Frankfooter]

This would be the same Gavin Schmidt who ran away from a debate on the subject

(2) Climate Scientist Gavin Schmidt runs in fear from a debate - YouTube

2013?

I guess that's likely the last time larue checked the news.

For instance, this is direct from Roy Spencer, the guy larue says denies climate change.
As usual, larue is posting really old, fully debunked, bullshit.
Spencer's only difference is he thinks the warming will be less than the IPCC.

1. I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. I’ve said this for many years.
2. I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C, which is actually within the range of expected warming the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced for 30 years now. (It could be less than this, but we simply don’t know).

 

[JohnLarue]

So here is the thing

One of biggest propaganda projections the climate activists like to spin is the melting of poles will causing catastrophic global flooding


Well here are the facts
70% of the fresh water in the world is trapped in the Antarctic ice
90% of all the ice in the world is in the Antarctic

The chart below illustrate the different monthly average temperature profiles for a series of major geographical regions in the south pole.
The top dark blue line is the South Georgia Islands, approx 2580 miles from the south pole
south georgia island distance form south pole - Google Search
For reference Edmonton Alberta is only 1,400 miles from the north pole
So we can ignore the top dark blue line

It is clear the temperature in the Antarctica is below freezing 99% of the time and extremely cold most of the time
Since 90% of all the ice is there , it is not going to melt away
Catastrophic global flooding propaganda as described by alarmists?
Pure Bullshit

 

[JohnLarue]

]Since that doesn't appear to be in the article you posted, where are you getting it from?

I saw a comparison somewhere, the Canadian Model showed the most projected warming
Is there a model with greater warming? I guess that is possible
You are more than welcome to search the internet if you think I am trying to pull a fast one

The article itself is really interesting. LaRue should try actually reading it since it even discusses his favorite subject - water vapor - and how it plays into the models.

????
The link I provided does not mention water vapor
I am already quite aware that water vapor is THE Greenhouse gas, responsible for 90% of the greenhouse affect.
The models treat water vapor only as a secondary feedback effect (wrong!)

And now we get the modelers admitting their models are broken
Gee I wonder if there is a connection to how they "model" the impact of water vapor and the flawed model results

Oh yeah, from the same link

The models were also out of step with records of past climate.

Any model which can not replicate past experimental data is ..... worthless. (actually worse as it is misleading)

Once again these are the models used to produce the RCP8.5 scenario which has been used to intentionally and deliberately to scare the living shit out of a whole generation of children
Do you honestly think that is acceptable?

 

[Frankfooter]

I am already quite aware that water vapor is THE Greenhouse gas, responsible for 90% of the greenhouse affect.
The models treat water vapor only as a secondary feedback effect (wrong!)

That would give you a failing grade in high school science.

CO2 = forcing effect
Water vapour = feedback effect

 

[Frankfooter]

So here is the thing

One of biggest propaganda projections the climate activists like to spin is the melting of poles will causing catastrophic global flooding

I expect larue hasn't read the news since his 2013 video he posted.

Greenland: enough ice melted on single day to cover Florida in two inches of water

Data from Danish government shows vast ice sheet lost 8.5bn tons of surface mass on Tuesday

www.theguardian.com

Ice shelf protecting Antarctic glacier is breaking up faster

A critical Antarctic glacier is looking more vulnerable as satellite images show the ice shelf that blocks it from collapsing into the sea is breaking up much faster than before and spawning huge icebergs, a new study says.

www.ctvnews.ca

Study Predicts 'Rapid And Unstoppable' Antarctic Ice Melt If Paris Targets Missed

The Antarctic ice sheet could start disintegrating much faster after 2060 if global warming approaches 3 degrees Celsius, increasing sea-level rise.

www.wbur.org

Study says Antarctic Ice Sheet melt to lift sea level higher than thought

The sea level in a warming world will be greater than anticipated, according to a new study from Harvard researchers.

news.harvard.edu

 

[Valcazar]

I saw a comparison somewhere, the Canadian Model showed the most projected warming
Is there a model with greater warming? I guess that is possible
You are more than welcome to search the internet if you think I am trying to pull a fast one

Really not worth the effort.
You just keep on believing what you want to believe.

????
The link I provided does not mention water vapor

I was talking about the actual article in Science.
My mistake for assuming you would want to read the science magazine and not the news article reporting on it.

Any model which can not replicate past experimental data is ..... worthless. (actually worse as it is misleading)

Once again these are the models used to produce the RCP8.5 scenario which has been used to intentionally and deliberately to scare the living shit out of a whole generation of children
Do you honestly think that is acceptable?

Do I think it is acceptable to constantly iterate and check models to refine them and make them better?
Do I think is is acceptable they consider making models that are for experimental analysis and discussion and other models which are more constrained to offer more tangible policy aspects?
Do I think that it is acceptable they spend 2 years in public discussing the problems with the models and working out the issues in open discussion?
Yes. Of course.
But then I believe in science.

 

[oil&gas]

Do I think that it is acceptable they spend 2 years in public discussing the problems with the models and working out the issues in open discussion?
Yes. Of course.
But then I believe in science.

Modelling is employed in pretty much all disciplines of natural
science and social science as a tool to characterize systems
not amenable to experimental measurement or for prediction of
quantities that are prohibitively difficult or too costly to measure in
laboratory. Depending on the complexity of the systems studied
modelling is not hard science. Considering that climate modelling
is aimed for prediction of a quantity that is not even uniquely defined
I am inclined to call it soft or very soft science.

 

[basketcase]

Interesting, Jonny quotes a blog talking about a science article that documents how the temperature has increased and says CO2 is playing a significant role.


" The report, the first part of which will appear on 9 August, will drop on a world that has starkly changed in 8 years, warming by more than 0.3°C to nearly 1.3°C above "

The actual report in science for anyone who want to read past jon-boy's climate denier blog.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

 

[JohnLarue]

Really not worth the effort.
You just keep on believing what you want to believe.

Oh so it is not worth your effort to check
So much easier for you to just imply I am lying

How about you just keep on believing what others decide you should believe

I was talking about the actual article in Science.
My mistake for assuming you would want to read the science magazine and not the news article reporting on it.

Your mistake for assuming that matters
I read both, the article and the magazine quickly
The news article happened to be the first link handy

Do I think it is acceptable to constantly iterate and check models to refine them and make them better?

Skeptics have been calling out the model failures for at least 13 , maybe 20 years
Through that time frame predictions just kept getting worse and more sensational
So they were not constantly iterating and checking the models to refine them and make them better

Do you honestly think this was a sudden and new revelation to Gavin Schmidt? Ha HA
The atmosphere is marginally cooler than the average over the past 30 years
He must have know about the problem for years
Likely before he declined to debate Roy Spencer (13 years)

]Do I think is is acceptable they consider making models that are for experimental analysis and discussion and other models which are more constrained to offer more tangible policy aspects?

?????
WTF
????
Two types of models?? One for experimental results and one for policy????
Do you keep two sets of books for your business, one for the results and the other for the tax man or shareholders?
Hopefully you can connect the dots to the analogy

Ultimately that is a moot point , no sense duplicating and then adjusting for policy what is flawed to begin with

The only difference between predictive models' should be differences in the input assumption, constrained by the theory hypothesis
and if model results do not match experimental data , then there is something wrong with the theory or the modeling of that theory

Do I think that it is acceptable they spend 2 years in public discussing the problems with the models and working out the issues in open discussion?
Yes. Of course.
But then I believe in science.

Then you really should question why climate scientist like Gavin Schmidt refuses to participate in open debate/ discussion
Only to admit 13 years on that there is a problem with the models which he does not understand

2 years?
There is no deadline for arriving at scientific truth

But then I believe in science

Science with a 2 year deadline??
You may believe in science, but you understand it?

Now back to the question you avoided

Once again these are the models used to produce the RCP8.5 scenario which has been used to intentionally and deliberately to scare the living shit out of a whole generation of children
Do you honestly think that is acceptable?

 

[basketcase]

Modelling is employed in pretty much all disciplines of natural
science and social science as a tool to characterize systems
not amenable to experimental measurement or for prediction of
quantities that are prohibitively difficult or too costly to measure in
laboratory. Depending on the complexity of the systems studied
modelling is not hard science. Considering that climate modelling
is aimed for prediction of a quantity that is not even uniquely defined
I am inclined to call it soft or very soft science.

Which means you don't like what they say.

When models closely correlate past measurements they make pretty good science. But yes, as with all science our conclusions improve as we get more data.

 

[JohnLarue]

Interesting, Jonny quotes a blog talking about a science article that documents how the temperature has increased and says CO2 is playing a significant role.


" The report, the first part of which will appear on 9 August, will drop on a world that has starkly changed in 8 years, warming by more than 0.3°C to nearly 1.3°C above "

The actual report in science for anyone who want to read past jon-boy's climate denier blog.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

Yeah like I did not expect that
Odd how the alarming headline is already known before the report is released. Almost like it was preordained / pre-determined. (That happens when you start off looking for only one answer)

Sadly for you the satellite data tells a different story
A story which covers the complete globe ie full coverage
A story not impacted by the Urban Island Heat Effect (Man it is hot at the airport)
A story not impacted by the fiddling of data by modelers, who apparently can not explain what is wrong with their models

A story which actually shows some marginal cooling rather than the rapid heating the sensational headline implies

This chart is Roy Spencer's work.
The same Roy Spencer I believe you and /or Frankfooter insulted and attempted to discredit multiple times.

He pointed out there were problems with "the models" at least 13 years ago


And now suddenly you have a couple of additional problems

1. You have gone to great lengths to hide behind so called experts. But sadly , your experts have just admitted their models are flawed and they do not understand why. So your go to: appeal to authority is useless
2. The IPCC report due out in 9 days is based off of models which are now known to be flawed

So do we toss the expected IPCC report straight in the recycle bin right away or save it incase there is another run on toilet paper?

Its time for you to slither away now

 

[JohnLarue]

Which means you don't like what they say.

When models closely correlate past measurements they make pretty good science. But yes, as with all science our conclusions improve as we get more data.

Oh yeah, from the same link

The models were also out of step with records of past climate.

So by your definition, this NOT "pretty good science "then ???

You are confused about science,

Here read , learn and understand this:

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”

― Richard P. Feynman