We know that climate models spectacularly fail to show the correct amount of warming, running much too hot. See IPCC AR6: Breaking the hegemony of global climate models – Watts Up With That?
Now we have this: Pacific problems for climate models - Net Zero Watch They find that the models don’t work and don’t work by a great margin. They find the large-scale differences between observed and modelled trends are very unlikely (<5% probability) to occur due to internal variability as represented in models. Conflicting trends are found even in regions with weak multi-decadal variability, suggesting that the climate model inadequacy is profound.
All in all it would seem that the world would be mad to rip up a reliable energy system using relatively cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels and move to a costly and much less reliable system based on wind and solar.
IPPC was getting it right a long time ago. Listening to WUWT, you think that scientists are the biggest dingbats around. The science is actually doing a reasonably good job.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).
This is from carbon brief. Models are actually doing quite well.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.instagram.com/p/BZ38rf7F3al/?ig_rid=b3023615-c3e5-4b76-b6b8-dae72e4d509a
If you put contrarian ideas into the models, the results are way below the measured temperature observations. So which is more accurate. IPPC models or the results coming out of people who publish on WUWT?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/
Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.
Here is another good article which explains why the models are way too hot. It is foolish to abandon our successful fossil fuel energy based on such inaccurate computer models.
ReplyDeleteThis “renewable guy” - clearly has a mission and is in full flight. Unfortunately he is deluding himself and trying to delude everyone else. The world has had its variable climate agenda long before humans appeared. In short There Is No Climate Emergency - Full Stop.
DeleteAnyone that chooses to, does not have to listen to the science. I present the science and would enjoy direct engagement rather than gossiping around.
Deletedrroyspencer is one of the contrarians putting out false data on models. Below is a list of arguemnts countering Roy Spencers statements on global warming issues.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm
Below is a criticism of Spencer's work with the model.
https://skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html
Roy is a leading scientist in the climate field and as such should be listened to. He has been in charge of the project to produce satellite temperature readings, which give the most comprehensive data available. He has had gun shots fired at his work place just for doing his job.
ReplyDeleteThe science field doesn't listen to him anymore. His disinformation is highly apparent to the 97% climate scientists.
Delete