Breaking : Climate Models Don’t Work

“a study published in April which said the Arctic would start losing its ice in summer very soon, even if we managed to rapidly reduce carbon emissions in the short-term.

“This really surprised us,” said Dirk Notz of the University of Hamburg, who led that research. “The Arctic will become practically sea-ice free in September before the year 2050… in all scenarios.”

But a closer look at CESM2 has suggested a potential explanation for the extreme result – it could simply be wrong.

Climate model’s dire predictions don’t line up with reality – study | Newshub

Climate scientists used to predict an ice-free Arctic every summer,  but are getting smarter now and push their worthless forecasts out past their retirement date.

Expert: Arctic polar cap may disappear this summer_English_Xinhua

North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer

BBC NEWS | UK | Swimmer aims to kayak to N Pole

Star-News – Google News Archive Search

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’

Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

Wayback Machine

The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search

Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013 | Sierra Club Canada

Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian

The End of the Arctic? Ocean Could be Ice Free by 2015 – The Daily Beast

A farewell to ice | Review | Chemistry World

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Breaking : Climate Models Don’t Work

  1. Arctic ice, in the presence of leads of open water, stops virtually all heat transfer from the ocean when compared to the leads. The % of open leads is related to the heat load that needs to be exchanged, either with air, or to be radiated from the surface of the water. Even a small open lead will exchange heat at orders of magnitude more than even a few centimeters of ice (heat simply does not flow well through ice)… So the ice % is just the result of the heat that does not need to exchange, the open water is the exchange medium, for the most part. If you opened it all up, the rate of heat exchange would be astronomical (which is why it doesn’t do that). It would definitely create huge rivers of sinking cold water which would flow out of the arctic to be exchanged with warmer water, and it would become an enormous radiator to space.

  2. Mark Luhman says:

    “But a closer look at CESM2 has suggested a potential explanation for the extreme result – it could simply be wrong.” If I were a betting man I would bet it is wrong.

  3. Eric Simpson says:

    Babylon Bee:

    Scientists Who Didn’t Predict A Single Thing Accurately For Last Two Months Confident They Know What The Weather Is Going To Be Like In 100 Years … source

  4. Petit_Barde says:

    The article relating how the swimmer Lewis Pugh was training to connect the North Pole by kayak is hilarious, but it got even worse than we thought !

    https://www.ted.com/talks/lewis_pugh_how_i_swam_the_north_pole

  5. Jim Hunt says:

    Meanwhile here are the latest measurements from the real world reveal:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/05/facts-about-the-arctic-in-may-2020/

    Arctic sea ice volume for example:

    • spike55 says:

      WOW, that’s one heck of a lot of sea up there, Jimbo

      FAR more than for nearly all of the last 10,000 years

      Admit the truth, Jimbo, do you have the guts to ???

    • Disillusioned says:

      So, what? ~Five years ago you said (about this same time of the year) the Arctic would likely be almost melted by end of summer and boldly said you’d come back to see us then. That didn’t occur and you were like a church mouse at the end of the summer. Wanna make another failed CO2-based prediction, Jimbo?

      See You in September,

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu-7DXBiVsA

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Hi DI,

        Gotta link to that alleged assertion of mine?

        • spike55 says:

          Poor Jimbo, caught in his perpetual LIE. !

          Still waiting for you to admit the TRUTH, Jimbo.

          That current levels of sea ice are well above the Holocene average.

          Or are you a climate change DENIER?

        • Disillusioned says:

          Hi Jim,

          Are alleging you don’t recall the challenge? It’s not worth my time digging through the archives for it. Maybe it wasn’t five. It could have four years ago. Or six. That’s why I said ~Five.

          I remember you were full of confidence (and something else, but I digress). And I don’t recall you coming back that Fall. But, perhaps you did come back and provided your mea culpa that things didn’t turn out the way you wanted, it got buried and I simply missed it. ;-P

          Well, another summer is upon us, and maybe this summer the Great White Con will get his long-awaited wish for his great white Arctic melt-off. ;-P

          • Jim Hunt says:

            I’ll take that as a “NO!” then.

          • spike55 says:

            So you say you will NEVER admit the truth that Arctic sea ice levels are well above the Holocene norm..

            A perpetual LIAR and con-man, aren’t you Jimbo,

            .. as well as a climate change DENIER.

          • Disillusioned says:

            And you’re denying the conversation ever took place?

            Jim, you have seen the data. You know CO2 isn’t driving climate and that there is no climate emergency. What keeps you fighting for the dark side, Jimbo? Shed that silly mask, step out into the light and stop being a great white CON. ;-P

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Hi DI,

            I just searched this whole site:

            https://realclimatescience.com/?s=jim+hunt+september

            I did discover that Tony was taking my name in vain in September 2017. Thanks for the shout out Tony!

            However I can find no trace of the alleged “challenge” you refer to. In the absence of a link I’ll be forced to conclude that your memory is even worse than mine.

  6. Margaret Smith says:

    I’m afraid people, including many who should know better, prefer to believe the propaganda. Easier than to think for themselves.

  7. Disillusioned says:

    Climate scientists used to predict an ice-free Arctic every summer, but are getting smarter now and push their worthless forecasts out past their retirement date.

    LOL. So, after all those years of failed predictions, somebody guesses that perhaps the model sensitivity was off. Sheesh.

    Maybe one day the Clime Syndicate will accept that their CAGW radiative forcing hyped-pothesis was altogether garbage, and that waiting for carbon dioxide to melt anything has been a very expensive waste of time and money – and has been a huge black eye to the scientific community. CAGW climate ‘experts’ have zero credibility.

  8. arn says:

    And in 30 years they wont remember this fake predictions
    and their blind followers(so used to dozens of failed predictions) will say “so what-they just got it wrong for 30 years.In 2080 there will be no more ice.That”s 100% sure”

  9. Jeff Jones says:

    I have used numerical predictive models my whole 50 year career in the oil business for predicting the performance of enhanced oil recovery processes. One important fact all modelers (should) know and account for is that you can make them say anything you want by mistaking or adjusting the value a few key parameters. I reviewed Society of Petroleum Engineers technical manuscripts for publication and summarily rejected any simulation paper that did not detail a prior history match before making future performance predictions. A model MUST be capable of history matching the past before it can be used to predict the future.

    • Palaver says:

      Yes. A model that can curve-fit the past doesn’t ensure that you have the right parameters and relationships – but a model that cannot curve-fit the past ensures that you have the wrong ones.

  10. Matthew says:

    You know, I am starting to wish they were right. Good riddance to ice and snow everywhere on the planet! :D

  11. Gerald Machnee says:

    These “experts” still get paid???????????

  12. Gator says:

    Neither does homogenization, unless your agenda is something other than truth…

    https://notrickszone.com/2020/05/03/rural-northern-us-stations-showed-no-warming-before-nasa-rewrote-the-data/comment-page-1/#comment-1306564

    It still amazes me that leftists get away with this crap.

  13. Jeff Jagster says:

    This is actually pretty easy to explain. All these models use the false premise that CO2 is what controls the warming of the planet. If that is built into their models they will always be wrong. Most scientists are wrong many times before they are right, but the smart scientists change their premise. Climate scientists won’t do that because their entire job is based on the premise.

  14. Martin Beck says:

    during the 450 billion years or so that the planet has been in existence, there have been polar ice caps for only 20% of that time!

  15. John F. Hultquist says:

    How many years after a failed prediction should be allowed to pass before these clueless writers apologize?
    Some, I think, just move on to something else, and maybe not involving writing for public consumption. Their retirement and playing with the grandchildren and dog seems a good idea.
    Seth Borenstein still writes on related topics but I have no idea if he has revisited his “ice free” articles.

  16. reg cole says:

    Climate Change models are as accurate as CCP Virus modelling!
    From the Twilight Zone (right click and use goto):
    https://qanon.pub/data/media/bde8f293886502f5901ec7670c090a0cefc89f713479601e56559624ce235c22.jpg

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      You think?

      Here is a software engineer’s review of the CCP Virus pandemic code created by preeminent epidemiologist and Imperial College Professor Neil Ferguson.

      Code Review of Ferguson’s Model
      by Sue Denim

      Imperial finally released a derivative of Ferguson’s code. I figured I’d do a review of it and send you some of the things I noticed. I don’t know your background so apologies if some of this is pitched at the wrong level.
      My background. I wrote software for 30 years. I worked at Google between 2006 and 2014, where I was a senior software engineer working on Maps, Gmail and account security. I spent the last five years at a US/UK firm where I designed the company’s database product, amongst other jobs and projects. I was also an independent consultant for a couple of years. Obviously I’m giving only my own professional opinion and not speaking for my current employer.
      The code. It isn’t the code Ferguson ran to produce his famous Report 9. What’s been released on GitHub is a heavily modified derivative of it, after having been upgraded for over a month by a team from Microsoft and others. This revised codebase is split into multiple files for legibility and written in C++, whereas the original program was “a single 15,000 line file that had been worked on for a decade” (this is considered extremely poor practice). A request for the original code was made 8 days ago but ignored, and it will probably take some kind of legal compulsion to make them release it.  Clearly, Imperial are too embarrassed by the state of it ever to release it of their own free will, which is unacceptable given that it was paid for by the taxpayer and belongs to them.

      Read the body of the review text here

      Conclusions. All papers based on this code should be retracted immediately. Imperial’s modelling efforts should be reset with a new team that isn’t under Professor Ferguson, and which has a commitment to replicable results with published code from day one. 

      On a personal level, I’d go further and suggest that all academic epidemiology be defunded. This sort of work is best done by the insurance sector. Insurers employ modellers and data scientists, but also employ managers whose job is to decide whether a model is accurate enough for real world usage and professional software engineers to ensure model software is properly tested, understandable and so on. Academic efforts don’t have these people, and the results speak for themselves.

      https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model

      It would be a blast if some whistleblower released the HARRY_READ_ME.txt programming diary of the poor sap who for the last 10 years had the privilege to administer the original highly scientific 15,000 line single program file for prof. Ferguson.

  17. Gamecock says:

    These aren’t models. They are simulations. For entertainment purposes only.

  18. Richard F. Yanda, Ph.D. says:

    I can understand why lots of clever people are trying to model the climate in spite of the fact that there are too many variables and the Earth’s climate cannot be modeled very well. The situation has gone beyond the point of scientific incompetence. These people are causing social problems with their fraud. If, for example, children in the UK are having nightmares about climate change something has to be done. Certainly we have to stop depending on fossil fuels because they are going to go away. Certainly air polution is a bad thing. But incorrect science masking as valid journalism does not have to be part of that discussion.

  19. Bjørn Rudholm says:

    The Science Fiction Climate Models doesn’t work as predicted? That’s the most important news for the next generations! That means going back to normality. But as we now, the climate alarmists will continue their fantasy “work”, despite climate reality ? The never ending story of craziness episode 124677?️?

  20. Susan says:

    Tony
    You need a delayed uBoob video that will be triggered in 2050 congratulating all the climate hoaxers for 100 years of “ice free arctic” claims that never came true.

  21. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Not only will it not be the first time even (to be ice-free in summer) it is quite reasonable to assume from the evidence that the Arctic was ice-free in the 1920’s.

    Reading the logs of Dutch whaling ships 1665-1685 it is clear they went as far north as 88 degrees. One claimed to have crossed over the pole to the other (Western) side for a short distance. They reported there was no ice.

    So based in historical evidence from eyewitnesses, it is very unlikely that “this year” or any year would by the first time ever it was ice-free.

  22. Jl says:

    A quick glance thru this piece tells me one thing-Seth Borenstein is an idiot…

  23. Robert Gipson says:

    Stick a fork in this youtube. I give it 12 hours, tops.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN4SmapD7w0&pbjreload=10

  24. Abit Ruff says:

    I would put my life on the line and say that an Ice Free North Pole will not happen in my , my childrens or my grandchildrens life times.
    Climate models have been around for 100 years and more and have been shown to be simply the reflections of the views of those that produce them and have been so incorrect that my 3 yo grandchild could have a more correct view on what the future holds.

  25. aido says:

    But what if the Arctic ice were to melt completely? The sea level wouldn’t rise at all. The Northwest Passage would be permanently open to shipping, saving shipping lines massive amounts of time and money. The polar bears would migrate south and perhaps revert to being the black bears they once were. We’d have no more daft people trekking to the North Pole and getting frostbite; no intrepid sailors trying to sail to the North Pole and getting stuck in the ice half-way. Finally, the several nations who lay claim to the North Pole would see their flags floating away, removing a source of potential conflict. A win-win, I’d say.

  26. Robertv says:

    Models don’t work not even in a fashion show because 99.9 % of women are different than the model.

  27. Gregg Brazel says:

    Thanks for your work, Tony. It’s great to see someone parsing objectively parsing the data. Could you recommend one or two videos in particular as introductions to climate realism that I might share with others?

  28. DM says:

    Garbage In / Garbage Out

    was a point EMPHASIZED while a student studying computer modelling.

    After several years coping with bad results from computer models, I realized garbage OUT MEANS garbage IN.

  29. Gator says:

    Speaking of failed models, and failed modeler pre-projections…

    Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
    [His] latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

    Yep! That was from 2007. So another in an unbroken series of failed models and pre-projections. So what is Malsucki doing to make up for his ill conceived ideas and models? Well doubling down on stupid of course!

    Modelers like Maslowski have been using data from previous Arctic expeditions to predict how local climate change at the Arctic could affect global trends, but he says that there is still a lot we don’t know. The computers can only do so much and Maslowski says that “we need to have a reference for real nature.”

    https://www.montereyherald.com/2019/11/23/montereys-naval-postgraduate-school-scientists-looking-for-answers-in-the-ice/

    No Malsucki, you need to ditch your leftist agenda, and study real nature. Start with a geology 101 course, as that would vastly improve your knowledge of the Earth Sciences.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *