Study Shows CMIP5 Wrong, Gross Errors Give Spurious Results.

[Billy_Bob]

Whoops! Study shows huge basic errors found in CMIP5 climate models.

" The alleged radiative forcing from all man-made CO2 generated since 1750 is claimed by the IPCC to be 1.68 W/m2. By way of comparison, the up to 30 W/m2 of “spurious variations” from incorrect calculation of solar zenith angle discovered by the authors is up to 18 times larger than the total alleged CO2 forcing since 1750. "

From the models are crap department and the latest lie of "Global warming is increasing faster than we thought" .. Their data is FALSE and MADE UP! Who could not see this one coming...

Source

And the initial papers making the claims and models passed PAL REVIEW! EPIC FAIL!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCult responds: DENIER!!!! DEATH TO THE DENIERS!!!! AGW AKBAR!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The AGWCult makes Bernie Madoff look honest and ethical. He stopped once he was busted, the AGWCult just doesn't give a fuck how many times they're caught with their thumb on the scale.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Gross errors make all claims about the new and improved climate record adjustments to be BOGUS! Fabricated... This puts into question all data supplied by NASA and NOAA using this model for recreations and adjustments..

 

[ScienceRocks]

Even I will admit that the predictions from 1990, 1995 and 2000 were way to high. Not to say it hasn't warmed or won't warm in the future...

The track record isn't very good.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even I will admit that the predictions from 1990, 1995 and 2000 were way to high. Not to say it hasn't warmed or won't warm in the future...

The track record isn't very good.

30W/M^2 is a ridicules amount of error...

Its going to be real funny to watch when the model is rerun on the last 18 years of data and a cooling trend is formed... I can hear the screeching already.. Even a cursory look at what a 30W/M^2 change would do shows major cooling since 2002.

 

[Crick]

The net effect of such oscillations, if they actually exist, on global mean temperatures is ZIP. If true, it could effect regional behavior, but given the effect is oscillatory, the sum at the end if the day is NADA.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The net effect of such oscillations, if they actually exist, on global mean temperatures is ZIP. If true, it could effect regional behavior, but given the effect is oscillatory, the sum at the end if the day is NADA.

SO CO2 being 1/30th of this is NADA... NICE to see you coming around to the truth..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The net effect of such oscillations, if they actually exist, on global mean temperatures is ZIP. If true, it could effect regional behavior, but given the effect is oscillatory, the sum at the end if the day is NADA.

The gross errors render the whole model garbage. unsupportable and unreliable in all aspects..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The data refused to acknowledge AGW and HAD to be adjusted, it was begging for it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The net effect of such oscillations, if they actually exist, on global mean temperatures is ZIP. If true, it could effect regional behavior, but given the effect is oscillatory, the sum at the end if the day is NADA.

SO CO2 being 1/30th of this is NADA... NICE to see you coming around to the truth..

Hair shirt time for Crick for inadvertently admitting the truth that CO2 is a non-event on planet Earth's climate

 

[Billy_Bob]

Major OUCH for the AGW crowd. Many of their deeply held beliefs are about to get outed as fabrications and outright falsifications. CO2's response will be one of them..

"The paper adds to hundreds of others demonstrating major errors of basic physics inherent in the so-called ‘state of the art’ climate models, including violations of the second law of thermodynamics. In addition, even if the “parameterizations” (a fancy word for fudge factors) in the models were correct (and they are not), the grid size resolution of the models would have to be 1mm or less to properly simulate turbulent interactions and climate (the IPCC uses grid sizes of 50-100 kilometers, 6 orders of magnitude larger). As Dr. Chris Essex points out, a supercomputer would require longer than the age of the universe to run a single 10 year climate simulation at the required 1mm grid scale necessary to properly model the physics of climate."

The paper: On the Incident Solar Radiation in CMIP5 Models

 

[Billy_Bob]

“the alleged radiative forcing from all man-made CO2 generated since 1750 is claimed by the IPCC to be 1.68 W/m2”

Let’s see, given the IPCC equation : (dT/dt) (C/year) = Forcing (W/m2) / 3.3

0.51 = 1.68 / 3.3

In other words the temperature of the atmosphere should have risen over 5 degrees C in the last 150 years given this number.

Funny, I don’t see that in the temperature records. I see only minor 0.6 deg C warming and cooling since 2002..

Wonder what it is these folks are smoking at the IPCC.. Given the error of 30W/M^2 that could influence the temperatures by some 150 degrees C. Any moment now the libs will be along to tell us that it wont affect the temperatures in the models.. OH WAIT! Crick already did!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nice to see Dr Soon's work so completely exonerated and shown correct by science... Even after millions of dollars were spent on his vilification.

Gawd this is gonna leave a mark on alarmists foreheads..

 

[Billy_Bob]

And we base energy policy on this type of output? No other place in society would this type of issue be tolerated.

Ask yourself why?

Just amazing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't have time to read the paper, and WUWT is hardly a trustworthy source for interpretation of that paper. However, I would like to point out that it was real scientists, and not flap-yap deniers that are making the corrections. You see, that is the differance between scientists and you people. They can look at the data and make honest adjustments. You look at the data, and lie about it if it does not fit your political outlook.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Don't have time to read the paper, and WUWT is hardly a trustworthy source for interpretation of that paper. However, I would like to point out that it was real scientists, and not flap-yap deniers that are making the corrections. You see, that is the differance between scientists and you people. They can look at the data and make honest adjustments. You look at the data, and lie about it if it does not fit your political outlook.

The source gets millions of hits because its reliable unlike SKS which is unreliable at best. Nice to see you admit you got nothing and run away crying and using an adhom in a effort to discredit.. Standard alarmist drivel..

 

[IanC]

For those who haven't read it- Soon's paper is a 1D climate model that can run on a HP scientific calculator. The output is no better or worse than the supercomputer climate models but the strength is that it shows the dependence of all models on the inputs and assumptions made.

The paper received harsh peer review in China's equivalent to the journal Science. Once the reviewers questions were answered they felt obligated to publish.

It is a straight forward and simple paper that uses no 'new' data or methodology. It could easily be done by committed volunteers in their 'spare' time. That is how most skeptical papers are produced because there is little funding available for non consensus research.

It is very telling that rather than being able to prove the simplistic math incorrect, the CAGW mafia turned instead to trumped up ad hominem attacks instead. If Soon is guilty of conflict of interest then so are hundreds of scientists on the other side.

 

[Old Rocks]

Events, not models, are what I go by. The warming and the physics that predicted it as far back as 1896 still stand as proven. In 1981, Dr. James Hansen made some definate predictions about the time we are in right now. He was called an alarmist for those predictions, and was taken to task by those that stated nothing at all was happening. Today, those same people are admitting that things are warming up, but have changed their tune to 'it's all natural cycles', although they cannot name those cycles. And they are lying constantly about those predictions that Hansen made, and that we have seen come true.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Events, not models, are what I go by. The warming and the physics that predicted it as far back as 1896 still stand as proven. In 1981, Dr. James Hansen made some definate predictions about the time we are in right now. He was called an alarmist for those predictions, and was taken to task by those that stated nothing at all was happening. Today, those same people are admitting that things are warming up, but have changed their tune to 'it's all natural cycles', although they cannot name those cycles. And they are lying constantly about those predictions that Hansen made, and that we have seen come true.

Bull Shit!

The only reason there is any significant rise is due to homogenization and falsification of the record. The unmolested data shows no such rise..