Arctic Climate Change — Greenhouse models don't pan out
that well
There are good reasons for that. First and foremost,
the models don't account for the most important greenhouse gas of all, about
3,000 times more important than CO2, water
vapor.
For that reason it would not do the performance of the models
justice to call them simulations. After all, the models don't simulate the
real world but only reflect hypotheses by climate alarmists who don't wish to,
and can't, take in all of the factors affecting variations in climate trends.
However, variations in the amounts of atmospheric water vapor,
too, are only a consequence of what steers the global climate, and that is
almost exclusively nothing other than
the variations in solar radiance. The climate models so beloved
by climate alarmists don't take the considerable and extensive solar variations into account either.
Two plus two does not equal five; and the Sun is a variable
star, not a "fixed" star. As my mother was fond of saying, nothing can
remain hidden under the Sun. It appears that also applies to the ideology
driving the climate alarmists who promote the needless fear of man-made global
warming.
Arctic Climate Change — Greenhouse Simulation :
1961-1990
GCM Greenhouse Runs
Source: [U.S.]
National Center for Climate Research (The preceding link no longer
functions. Not even the archived copy of that file exists anymore.)
|
| National Center for
Atmospheric Research |
Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory |
Canadian Climate
Center |
Australia's Common-
wealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation |
Germany's Deutsches
Klima-
rechen-
zentrum |
Max Planck Inst.
and DKRZ : ECHAM 4 |
Center for Climate
Research Studies |
Hadley Centre for
Climate Prediction and Research |
| (NCAR) |
(GFDL) |
(CCC) |
(CSIRO) |
(DKRZ) |
(MPCI) |
(CCSR) |
(HADCM3) |
Sea Level Pressure: |
| (NCAR) |
(GFDL) |
(CCC) |
(CSIRO) |
(DKRZ) |
(MPCI) |
(CCSR) |
(HADCM3) |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Surface Air Temperature: |
| (NCAR) |
(GFDL) |
(CCC) |
(CSIRO) |
(DKRZ) |
(MPCI) |
(CCSR) |
(HADCM3) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Note: During the 1961-1990 interval the
actual mean temperature for the Edmonton rural area was 2.1°Celsius (3.6°C in the City
of Edmonton). Reading the temperature values as best as can be done from the graphs,
the various models indicate values for the Edmonton area in the 1961-1990 interval of 6°C
(NCAR), 0°C (GFDL), 4°C (CCC), 3°C (CSIRO), 1°C (DKRZ), 4°C (MPCI), 3°C (CCSR), and
3°C (HADCM3) respectively. Precipitation: |
| (NCAR) |
(GFDL) |
(CCC) |
(CSIRO) |
(DKRZ) |
(MPCI) |
(CCSR) |
(HADCM3) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Note: The actual average precipitation for
the Edmonton region was about 1.3 mm/day for the 1961-1990 interval. The various
models show the average daily precipitation for that interval to be 2.4 mm (NCAR), 2.3 mm
(GFDL), 2.4 mm (CCC), 2.2 mm (CSIRO), 2.3 mm (DKRZ), 2.0 mm (MPCI), 2.5 mm (CCSR), and 2.3
mm (HADCM3) respectively.
Solar Flux: |
| (NCAR) |
(GFDL) |
(CCC) |
(CSIRO) |
(DKRZ) |
(MPCI) |
(CCSR) |
(HADCM3) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
See also a commentary discussing another climate
model that was used to assess the respective accuracies of two data sets of temperature
records that were derived using satellite measurements:
Splitting Hairs with a
Hatchet: Climate Model Not Up to Task of Determining Real-World Tropospheric
Temperature Trend
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Editorial Commentary
Volume 6, Number 19: 7 April 2003
The calculations done by General Circulation Models (GCMs) are
the main source of the information that fuels the global warming hysteria.
Nevertheless, not one of them comes acceptably close to accurately calculating
what the climate presently is at any location, let alone of the whole Earth.
Not only that, but all of the GCMs differ widely from one another as to what the
climate was in the past, and as to what it is supposed to be in the future.
Therein lies the problem. No one in his right mind will base any decisions
about the future on tools that cannot determine with acceptable accuracy what
the present is and the past was.
__________________
Posted 2003 01 21
Updates:
2003 05 06 (added reference to comparison of results
of modelling used to assess the accuracy of actual global temperature measurements)
|
