Of those efforts by global warming alarmists, none have been more solidly debunked than their “modeling” of the dismal future that awaits Planet Earth. The following executive summary is from a paper that looks deeply into these “models.” The author, Judith Curry, is an eminent climate scientist (footnote). She wrote it for the “non-scientist,” but was only partially successful in making it truly understandable.
And importantly, this speaks directly to the frequent and bogus claim that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is “real,” “man-caused,” and portends “disaster.”
There is considerable debate over the fidelity and utility of global climate models (GCMs). (If 97% of climate scientists “agree” why would there be cause for “debate” – RF.) This debate occurs within the community of climate scientists, who disagree about the amount of weight to give to climate models relative to observational analyses. Economists, regulatory agencies and policy makers also use GCM outputs; GCMs have received considerable scrutiny from a broader community of scientists, engineers, software experts, and philosophers of science. (These experts are usually disregarded by the global warming alarmists – RF.) This report attempts to describe the debate surrounding GCMs to an educated but nontechnical audience.
Key summary points
- GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that are norm for engineering and regulatory science.
- There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system. (If you want to see visual evidence that these “models” are total nonsense, click here – RF.)
- There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportion of the 20th century warming that was human-caused as opposed to natural.
- There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.
- The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.
Climate models are useful tools for conducting scientific research to understand the climate system. However, the above points support the conclusion that current GCMs are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for predicting global or regional climate change on timescales of decades to centuries, with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy systems. It is this application of climate model results that fuels the vociferousness of the debate surrounding climate models.
Hmm. I guess 97% of climate scientists will be coming after Professor Curry with pitchforks, feathers, tar, and a rail.
And thank to HP for sending this to me.
Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee. As of 2017, she has retired from academia.
Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.