Another example of climate models being wrong

[Flash]

I have been critical of computer models being used to predict the effects of human on the climate. The main reason is that they are always wrong and are nothing more than shit in shout models that are paid for by the Environmental Wacko lobby. Mostly in the universities but also with the government agencies like NASA and NOAA.

These are models that the Environmental Wackos refer to when they tell us we are all going to be dead in seven, or ten or 20 years because of man made warming.

The Climate Change scam research mostly is nothing more than grifting for government grants and a power-grab tool for government itself.

It looks like we have now discovered a main reason the models are always wrong. 40 years of observed data trumps some grad student's computer program, doesn't it?

New Study: Climate Models Get Water Vapor Wildly Wrong – A ‘Major Gap in Our Understanding’

From the NoTricksZone By Kenneth Richard on 19. February 2024 “Here, we have demonstrated a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in n…

wattsupwiththat.com

New Study: Climate Models Get Water Vapor Wildly Wrong – A ‘Major Gap in Our Understanding’​

By Kenneth Richard on 19. February 2024

“Here, we have demonstrated a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in near-surface atmospheric water vapor in arid and semi-ari regions.” – Simpson et al., ​

A new study published in PNAS has demonstrated, once again, that climate models fail to simulate what happens in the real world with regard to fundamental climate change variables like water vapor. This is a devastating finding, as water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas due to its alleged “feedback” capacity, accelerating warming well beyond what CO2 is said to be capable of alone.


The authors do not understate the significance of this climate modeling failure.


“This represents a major gap in our understanding and in climate model fidelity that must be understood and fixed as soon as possible in order to provide reliable hydroclimate projections for arid/semi-arid regions in the coming decades.”


Per state-of-the-art climate models, specific humidity (SH) should increase as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show no increasing SH trend over arid/semi-arid regions.


Per state-of-the-art climate models, relative humidity (RH) should decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show not a slight declining trend, but a declining trend that is “about an order of magnitude more than the models on average.” In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10


The models say the tropical warming rate should have been nearly 3 times larger than the observations show – “0.389 ± 0.173°C per decade (models) and 0.142 ± 0.115°C per decade (observed)” – due to the assumed feedback response to CO2 forcing over warm regions. Instead, there is a “clear and significant tendency on the part of the models to overstate warming.”

 

[two_iron]

Shitlibs use "chick math".

It's the same math that came up with 81 Million votes for a bed-shitting fucktard that hid in a basement for a year.

Never.... I repeat, NEVER take that diseased filth seriously.

 

[Flash]

 

[Lemmi]

If climate models from the age of Al Gore were correct Miami and Los Angeles would've been undersea cities years ago.

 

[ding]

The emperor is naked.

 

[Flash]

If climate models from the age of Al Gore were correct Miami and Los Angeles would've been undersea cities years ago.

But yet good old Al bought an ocean front mega mansion in California.

He knows this AGW crap is a scam.

 

[Donald H]

The emperor is naked.

The lack of substance in the comments pretty much say it all for the denialist side my friend.
Have you contacted a climate scientist to validate your claims yet, or are you still your own expert authority?

 

[ding]

The lack of substance in the comments pretty much say it all for the denialist side my friend.
Have you contacted a climate scientist to validate your claims yet, or are you still your own expert authority?

Do you see any of them defending their beliefs here?

 

[Lemmi]

But yet good old Al bought an ocean front mega mansion in California.

He knows this AGW crap is a scam.

Another example is the Obamas buying big on Martha's Vineyard. Talk about a risky climate change flood zone.

 

[Flash]

Do you see any of them defending their beliefs here?

Don't worry. Crick will come along shortly to claim there is indisputable evidence that humans are burning up the earth.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I have been critical of computer models being used to predict the effects of human on the climate. The main reason is that they are always wrong

Hate to disappoint you, but...

Despite the level of uncertainty and variation between models, studies are showing that models have been accurate in their projections. Climate models are evaluated for accuracy by “hindcasting,” or replicating the climate of the past 100 years.

Basics of Global Climate Models | USDA Climate Hubs

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

www.climatehubs.usda.gov

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Shitlibs use "chick math".

It's the same math that came up with 81 Million votes for a bed-shitting fucktard that hid in a basement for a year.

Never.... I repeat, NEVER take that diseased filth seriously.

link:​

How accurate are climate models?​

All models, including climate models, contain some level of uncertainty. This is largely because the complex behavior of certain atmospheric processes is difficult to replicate. Some of these processes are chaotic in nature, such as turbulence, which has been referred to as “the most important unsolved problem in classical physics” and is nearly impossible to model. Others occur at such small scales, such as how clouds form, that models cannot perfectly capture their behavior. When models are parameterized, they attempt to incorporate these atmospheric processes into models, but they are never 100% accurate.


Different models are parameterized differently. Therefore, there is often variation among model projections. Since no model is perfect, it is important to pay attention to both the range and general consensus of all models. For this reason, each model’s projection is typically referred to as a “plausible future.” Depending on how the atmosphere responds or how human behavior changes, the climate could go down any of the paths that models project. If all models agree on the same changes, that is the most likely outcome.

Basics of Global Climate Models | USDA Climate Hubs

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

www.climatehubs.usda.gov

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The lack of substance in the comments pretty much say it all for the denialist side my friend.
Have you contacted a climate scientist to validate your claims yet, or are you still your own expert authority?

Ahem:

Feature|January 9, 2020​

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.

climate.nasa.gov

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right​

By Alan Buis,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

There’s an old saying that “the proof is in the pudding,” meaning that you can only truly gauge the quality of something once it’s been put to a test. Such is the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various factors that interact to affect Earth’s climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean, ice, land surface and the Sun.


For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels, and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?


Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate.

 

[Donald H]

Ahem:

Feature|January 9, 2020​

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.

climate.nasa.gov

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right​

By Alan Buis,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Good contribution to the discussion and worth a closer look!

Also worth a quick look is our ding's climate science denial.

 

[Flash]

Hate to disappoint you, but...

Despite the level of uncertainty and variation between models, studies are showing that models have been accurate in their projections. Climate models are evaluated for accuracy by “hindcasting,” or replicating the climate of the past 100 years.

Basics of Global Climate Models | USDA Climate Hubs

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

www.climatehubs.usda.gov

I would like to see those models and who in the hell are claiming they are accurate and where they get their funding from.

The USDA is just another branch of the filthy ass Federal Government. The same government that runs NASA and NOAA. Both those agencies have been caught red handed fabricating data.

This climate prediction shit is full of scammers, including governments.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I would like to see those models and who in the hell are claiming they are accurate and where they get their funding from.

The USDA is just another branch of the filthy ass Federal Government. The same government that runs NASA and NOAA. Both those agencies have been caught red handed fabricating data.

This climate prediction shit is full of scammers, including governments.

Cuckoo Conspiracy Alerts!

Attack! Attack! Attack!

 

[DGS49]

It's getting warmer. It is impossible to deny.

Is that a bad thing? No. It is good for some places and bad for others. Ten times more people die of cold than die of heat.

Is there anything that can be done about it? NOTHING can be done to stop or significantly slow warming; that's a fact. But Mankind will devise engineering solutions to virtually every "problem" that is caused by warming.

Coincidentally, I was playing golf yesterday (in Florida) with a French-Canadian couple from Ottawa. They were bemoaning the warmer temperatures that were making ice skating, skiing, snow-mobiling, etc., problematic in their neck of the woods. In their 70's, they had never seen anything like it before in that region. Ski resorts in both Canada and the U.S. are struggling.

Not really frightening, but inconvenient for some, eh?

 

[ding]

Good contribution to the discussion and worth a closer look!

Also worth a quick look is our ding's climate science denial.

You misspelled climate model denial.

 

[Flash]

It's getting warmer. It is impossible to deny.

Is that a bad thing? No. It is good for some places and bad for others. Ten times more people die of cold than die of heat.

Is there anything that can be done about it? NOTHING can be done to stop or significantly slow warming; that's a fact. But Mankind will devise engineering solutions to virtually every "problem" that is caused by warming.

Coincidentally, I was playing golf yesterday (in Florida) with a French-Canadian couple from Ottawa. They were bemoaning the warmer temperatures that were making ice skating, skiing, snow-mobiling, etc., problematic in their neck of the woods. In their 70's, they had never seen anything like it before in that region. Ski resorts in both Canada and the U.S. are struggling.

Not really frightening, but inconvenient for some, eh?

Climate change is real. It is part of Nature and has been going on since the earth came into existence.

However, there is absolutely no scientifically credible proof that humans are altering the climate. Just a stupid correlation, shit in shit out computer models funded by Environmental Wacko sources and a lot of fraudulent and cherry picked bogus proxy data from sources that been caught being dishonest.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I have been critical of computer models being used to predict the effects of human on the climate. The main reason is that they are always wrong and are nothing more than shit in shout models that are paid for by the Environmental Wacko lobby. Mostly in the universities but also with the government agencies like NASA and NOAA.

These are models that the Environmental Wackos refer to when they tell us we are all going to be dead in seven, or ten or 20 years because of man made warming.

The Climate Change scam research mostly is nothing more than grifting for government grants and a power-grab tool for government itself.

It looks like we have now discovered a main reason the models are always wrong. 40 years of observed data trumps some grad student's computer program, doesn't it?

New Study: Climate Models Get Water Vapor Wildly Wrong – A ‘Major Gap in Our Understanding’

From the NoTricksZone By Kenneth Richard on 19. February 2024 “Here, we have demonstrated a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in n…

wattsupwiththat.com

New Study: Climate Models Get Water Vapor Wildly Wrong – A ‘Major Gap in Our Understanding’​

By Kenneth Richard on 19. February 2024

“Here, we have demonstrated a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in near-surface atmospheric water vapor in arid and semi-ari regions.” – Simpson et al., ​

A new study published in PNAS has demonstrated, once again, that climate models fail to simulate what happens in the real world with regard to fundamental climate change variables like water vapor. This is a devastating finding, as water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas due to its alleged “feedback” capacity, accelerating warming well beyond what CO2 is said to be capable of alone.


The authors do not understate the significance of this climate modeling failure.


“This represents a major gap in our understanding and in climate model fidelity that must be understood and fixed as soon as possible in order to provide reliable hydroclimate projections for arid/semi-arid regions in the coming decades.”


Per state-of-the-art climate models, specific humidity (SH) should increase as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show no increasing SH trend over arid/semi-arid regions.


Per state-of-the-art climate models, relative humidity (RH) should decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show not a slight declining trend, but a declining trend that is “about an order of magnitude more than the models on average.” In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10


The models say the tropical warming rate should have been nearly 3 times larger than the observations show – “0.389 ± 0.173°C per decade (models) and 0.142 ± 0.115°C per decade (observed)” – due to the assumed feedback response to CO2 forcing over warm regions. Instead, there is a “clear and significant tendency on the part of the models to overstate warming.”

Alarmists believe computer models is settled science, I kid you not. I know the world's IQ is slipping and we can see how the Left are dragging it down.