Link: https://fakta360.no/2024/07/klimamodeller-og-virkeligheten-toulike-verdener/
Please see the link above for the source text.
Climate models and reality - two different worlds
How good are the climate models?
Erik Bye
July 20 2024 How good are the climate models?
How good are the climate models? This has been a recurring question for many years. At times, the claims made by the alarmist climate scientists have been rather embarrassing. From time to time, climate scientists have presented what they have believed to be documentation of valid models and model results. However, for those of us who are familiar with scientific modeling work, it was easy to refute the claims about valid models.
By: Erik Bye – The article is an external post and expresses the writer's opinions.
Calibration and test data sets
The cardinal error was that the models that were presented covered the observation period up to the present. That is, the models did not describe the future; they described the present and past times. The models were also good at describing how we were, then and then. But this had nothing to do with using models to say something about the future. When using observational models, we operate with calibration data and test data. The calibration data is used to construct the models, test data is data from the same period, which is not included in the construction of the models. The
test set is used to test whether the model is able to reproduce observations that we know. If the models do not pass this test, they are completely useless. The models must be able to describe the period we are in. But this was and is where the climate scientists bluffed, they bragged that the models worked with the test data. And of course, they must.
Predictions
The challenges arose when the models were supposed to predict or predict how the development could be. That was the whole point of the models. And then the models had to be well calibrated and tested. Secondly, it had to be determined how far in the future the models would predict the development. Here, statistical methods are used to determine the strength of the prediction, how far in advance the models could predict the development.
Exam: reality?
And then there remains the "exam", waiting for the prediction period to occur and assessing the agreement. And here the models failed catastrophically, all the time. The predictions were constantly above the real situation, as illustrated in the figures below. This was the situation, the models missed and missed.
The skeptics pointed this out, time after time, period after period, but the climate scientists were satisfied, it was right up to the present day, that is, for the period the model was calibrated. As if this was some groundbreaking, some startling scientific discovery. Without this agreement, the whole thing is and was quite ridiculous.
The climate cannot be modeled according to the IPCC
What has happened? Suddenly, the IPCC acknowledges that the climate cannot be modeled:
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore, the long-term prediction of future EXACT climate states is not possible. Rather, the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions." AR3, Scientific basis, p. 78.”
Was much written about this, was much talked about this? No. This happened in the main report AR3, or TAR as it was originally called (Third AR, 2001). This was hardly mentioned at all; it would have been too embarrassing. But the rhetoric continued, there was talk of climate models, but almost no reservation was made that the climate could not be modeled. How come?
Ensembles and distributions
And interestingly enough, the IPCC added that one had to work with ensembles and look at probability distributions for possible future climate states. One, what did the ensembles consist of, other than simple models for the climate? Surely there is a big question related to whether these ensembles could be more valid than the previous models? This may seem like pure wishful thinking, a ploy to hide defeat, that future climate states could not or could not be predicted, anyway. But this was the straw that broke the camel's back for the debate trolls. I have no idea how many times I was accused of citation fraud because I claimed that "the climate cannot be modeled". And I will continue to claim that these ensembles only represent pure wishful thinking for climate modeling.
And both CICERO and Met. inst. made this mistake, calling it modeling. CICERO used the term in connection with cable models against icing. This
is pure heresy: "Icing on power lines"
The Nobel Prize
But then, suddenly this situation changed dramatically, to the embarrassment of the entire climate issue. Roy Clark has recently published an article in the Climate Realists' journal, Science of Climate Change (SCS), about the fraud in connection with the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2021: "A Nobel Prize for Climate Model Errors"
In short, Syukuro Manabe received the prize for climate models that were constructed in 1968. These climate models are the basis for the models that are included in all the main reports of the IPCC, AR1 – AR6, and probably AR7 as well. Now it turns out that Manabe's models give far too strong an effect due to the observations of the CO2 content in the atmosphere that are included in the model. This is documented by Roy Clark, who describes the whole thing as a fraud. This is a huge scandal for the Swedish Academy of Sciences.
The matter is discussed by me here: "The Nobel Prize in Physics for 2021 was awarded to Syukuro Manabe on the wrong basis"
No Tricks Zone
After a tip from me, the case was presented on No Tricks Zone: "Seminal 1967 Paper Introducing CO 2 'Radiative Forcing' Is Based On Assumptive Imaginary-World Modeling"
SEPP – Science and Environmental Policy Project
Now the matter has been picked up by SEPP, the Science and Environmental Policy Project :
WUWT
Moreover, the case is also presented on WUWT: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #605 .This could be the beginning of the end for the entire Climate Panel and the climate issue. Stay tuned, stay tuned – the last word has not been said about this climate bomb!