A Few Ways in Which Climate Models Fail to Account for What is Happening in the Real World

Modern climate models are huge conglomerations of matched and mis-matched computer code. These models require powerful supercomputers and must ingest massive amounts of well-massaged data in order to regurgitate multi-decadal projections of global climate parameters.

But with all the sophistication and massiveness of these modern models, is it possible that they are leaving a few things out -- a few critical things which could make all the difference?

Here is a very short list of a few important omissions from modern climate models.

Climate Models Will Need to be Substantially Revised (cosmic rays and clouds)

Negative Feedbacks from Clouds (PDF)

Misconceptions in the models about Earth's radiation energy balance (PDF)

Underestimation by models of effects of ocean dynamics

Insufficient accounting of effect of ocean waves and storms

Insufficient testing of the models themselves against real world observations

There are also valid questions about the effects of black soot on climate, and a wide range of negative feedbacks which are being ignored.

Global temperature readings have diverged significantly from climate model temperature projections. This is a troubling phenomenon for more honest climate scientists. Fortunately for the field, there do not seem to be many climate scientists who fit into that category. Most of them are blissfully floating down a river in Egypt. It is a sad fact that climate modelers do not actually wish to take their art to its logical conclusion, because they are afraid of what they may find. Up until this point, carbon hysteria and greenhouse mania have been highly beneficial to any scientists and computer modeler who can tie himself to the global carbon crusade. Job security and remuneration will remain stable as long as politicians and funding agencies remain convinced that these models and modelers serve a useful political purpose.

As for the taxpayers in the developed world who are expected to foot the bill for what is turning out to be a multi-$trillion payoff to be channeled through the IPCC, governments and inter-governments have never particularly cared about them. So long as they pay their taxes, follow the rules, and don't make waves, they can be safely ignored by the higher powers.

Personally, like the wind, I have always enjoyed making waves. Particularly in the faces of arrogant policy makers, academics, and journalists who are steeped in ignorance and misinformation, and who seem determined to destroy the modern human world in order to save a fantasy utopia that never existed.

More -- Example of climate model fail: James Hansen 1988 misses target by 150%.

Figure 1: Temperature forecast Hansen’s group from the year 1988. The various scenarios are 1.5% CO 2 increase (blue), constant increase in CO 2 emissions (green) and stagnant CO 2 emissions (red). In reality, the increase in CO 2 emissions by as much as 2.5%, which would correspond to the scenario above the blue curve. The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average). Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 ° C, which is a whopping 150% wrong. Figure supplemented by Hansen et al. (1988) ._WUWT

As long as no one calls the hucksters on their mistaken assumptions, sloppy methods, and outright fraud, they will continue escalating the grand and destructive utopian crusade.