Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don’t Know Why

[Chris]

Uhoh, something's gone wrong with the models: Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don’t Know Why

There are dozens of climate models, and for decades they’ve agreed on what it would take to heat the planet by about 3° Celsius. It’s an outcome that would be disastrous—flooded cities, agricultural failures, deadly heat—but there’s been a grim steadiness in the consensus among these complicated climate simulations.

Then last year, unnoticed in plain view, some of the models started running very hot. The scientists who hone these systems used the same assumptions about greenhouse-gas emissions as before and came back with far worse outcomes. Some produced projections in excess of 5°C, a nightmare scenario.

The scientists involved couldn’t agree on why—or if the results should be trusted....

...Researchers are starting to put together a*nswers, a task that will take months at best, and there’s not yet agreement on how to interpret the hotter results. The reason for worry is that these same models have successfully projected global warming for a half century....

For now, however, there are doubts and worries. A higher warming estimate “probably isn’t the right answer,” said Klaus Wyser, senior researcher at the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. His model produced a result of about 4.3°C warming, a 30% jump over its previous update. “We hope it’s not the right answer.”

...The model run by NCAR, one of American’s main climate-science institutions, started producing unusual data last year while trying to reproduce the recent past. “We got some really strange results,” Gettelman said.

The scientists went on to try 300 configurations of rain, pollution, and heat flows—something they can do as gods of their own digital earth—before matching the model to history. But by solving that puzzle, Gettelman’s team sent future projections upward at an unheard-of rate. NCAR found that CO₂ doubling would lead to 5.3°C world, a 33% jump from the model’s past reading on global warming.

[countryboy]

Uhoh, something's gone wrong with the models: Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don’t Know Why

The alarmists have always cooked the books. Pun FULLY INTENDED. It's actually kind of amazing that anyone falls for this crap.

[Peter1469]

Thousands of data inputs/ All it takes if for one to be wrong....

[carolina73]

But if we send them more money then they can make it cooler.

[skepticalmike]

Much of the higher climate sensitivity with the new models is related to changes in the way that clouds are modeled and on empirical evidence that low level clouds are getting thinner and less reflective in certain regions.
Higher climate sensitivity represents higher positive feedback in the climate system to a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...than-expected/

“It does indeed look like many of the latest models will have ECS values higher than the IPCC ‘likely range’ of 1.5-4.5°C,” said Peter Cox (University of Exeter) in an email. “It seems that the new models with high ECS have more low-level cloud that tends to burn off under climate change, producing an amplifying feedback on warming.

Clouds in the picture
Cloud-related effects have long been one of the biggest question marks in projecting future climate change, apart from uncertainties in future greenhouse emissions that hinge on human behavior. Low clouds—especially marine stratocumulus, which cover huge swaths of tropical and subtropical ocean—are especially crucial, as they tend to cool the climate by reflecting large amounts of sunlight.


The recent concerns about low-level clouds have been reinforced by ongoing work at NASA drawing on data from the CERES satellite program (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System). Measuring the amount of energy entering and leaving the top of Earth’s atmosphere, CERES data shows that net energy in the atmosphere and oceans has climbed steadily with the increase of human-produced greenhouse gases—including both during and after the so-called “hiatus” in global temperature from about 2000 to 2013, when the oceans took up extra energy.
After 2013, the eastern Pacific saw a major drop in low cloud cover, global air temperatures spiked, and “there was a huge increase in sea surface temperatures,” said CERES principal investigator Norman Loeb, who outlined the changes in a 2018 paper.
Loeb is now analyzing how well the models for the upcoming IPCC report—with the higher sensitivities in place—can reproduce cloud cover and air temperature during and after the hiatus, given sea surface temperature. He discussed initial results last month at the 27th IUGG General Assembly (International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics), held in Montreal.
According to Loeb, “some of the models do really darn well” in depicting the cloud changes of the past two decades. He cautions: “I don’t know how far you can extrapolate this. There’s a danger in saying ‘you take the current record and the models nail it, therefore they have the climate sensitivity right.’ I’m cautious about making that leap, but it’s intriguing that they are nailing that post-hiatus difference.”

Another article on this subject is https://eos.org/articles/latest-clim...=EosBuzz070519

Gettelman did not fly through a cloud made mostly of vapor or of ice. It was a supercooled liquid cloud, one in which vapor condenses into water droplets that although they exist at subzero temperatures, do not freeze. Clouds like this are brighter than other clouds, and they reflect sunlight back out into space, helping to keep the planet cool. But as the planet warms, these clouds seem to be getting thinner, Gettelman explained, which erodes their cooling effect.Gettelman and his colleagues added the missing knowledge about supercooled liquid clouds to CESM2, along with other changes to the models’ cloud physics, in an effort to make the clouds in the model behave more like clouds do in the real world.

[stjames1_53]

Much of the higher climate sensitivity with the new models is related to changes in the way that clouds are modeled and on empirical evidence that low level clouds are getting thinner and less reflective in certain regions.
Higher climate sensitivity represents higher positive feedback in the climate system to a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...than-expected/

“It does indeed look like many of the latest models will have ECS values higher than the IPCC ‘likely range’ of 1.5-4.5°C,” said Peter Cox (University of Exeter) in an email. “It seems that the new models with high ECS have more low-level cloud that tends to burn off under climate change, producing an amplifying feedback on warming.

Clouds in the picture
Cloud-related effects have long been one of the biggest question marks in projecting future climate change, apart from uncertainties in future greenhouse emissions that hinge on human behavior. Low clouds—especially marine stratocumulus, which cover huge swaths of tropical and subtropical ocean—are especially crucial, as they tend to cool the climate by reflecting large amounts of sunlight.


The recent concerns about low-level clouds have been reinforced by ongoing work at NASA drawing on data from the CERES satellite program (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System). Measuring the amount of energy entering and leaving the top of Earth’s atmosphere, CERES data shows that net energy in the atmosphere and oceans has climbed steadily with the increase of human-produced greenhouse gases—including both during and after the so-called “hiatus” in global temperature from about 2000 to 2013, when the oceans took up extra energy.
After 2013, the eastern Pacific saw a major drop in low cloud cover, global air temperatures spiked, and “there was a huge increase in sea surface temperatures,” said CERES principal investigator Norman Loeb, who outlined the changes in a 2018 paper.
Loeb is now analyzing how well the models for the upcoming IPCC report—with the higher sensitivities in place—can reproduce cloud cover and air temperature during and after the hiatus, given sea surface temperature. He discussed initial results last month at the 27th IUGG General Assembly (International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics), held in Montreal.
According to Loeb, “some of the models do really darn well” in depicting the cloud changes of the past two decades. He cautions: “I don’t know how far you can extrapolate this. There’s a danger in saying ‘you take the current record and the models nail it, therefore they have the climate sensitivity right.’ I’m cautious about making that leap, but it’s intriguing that they are nailing that post-hiatus difference.”

Another article on this subject is https://eos.org/articles/latest-clim...=EosBuzz070519

Gettelman did not fly through a cloud made mostly of vapor or of ice. It was a supercooled liquid cloud, one in which vapor condenses into water droplets that although they exist at subzero temperatures, do not freeze. Clouds like this are brighter than other clouds, and they reflect sunlight back out into space, helping to keep the planet cool. But as the planet warms, these clouds seem to be getting thinner, Gettelman explained, which erodes their cooling effect.Gettelman and his colleagues added the missing knowledge about supercooled liquid clouds to CESM2, along with other changes to the models’ cloud physics, in an effort to make the clouds in the model behave more like clouds do in the real world.

15000 years ago, the Ice age was ending. Sea levels were down 300 feet, most of the continents were covered in ice. There was hardly any place to set up shop by people.
Now, remember, this planet has been changing since it first formed up. The whole planet underwent drastic changes as it warmed back up. It is continuing to change. Plate shifts, volcanic activity, one earth quake after another. That is the planet doing its own thing: Changing.
You cannot stop the planet from changing anymore than you can change weather. It started out as on singular continent and split apart to form many. It has been speculated by leading geologists that it will reform as one continent again.
How much money will it take to stop changing?

~snip~
Geologically speaking, we live in a time period of intense climatic change. Since the last 1 million years, our species and our human forebears experienced a dozen or so major glaciations of the northern hemisphere, with the greatest ever occurring around 650,000 years ago. During this period of extreme ice buildup, the ice advanced deep into the Midwest, from its center around Hudson Bay in Canada, and deep into Germany, from its center on the Scandinavian Shield. So much ice collected in these two major regions and several lesser ones that the sea level dropped by some 400 feet and the overall global temperature was lowered by around 5°C (about 9°F). Mammoth, mastodon, wooly rhinoceros, giant bison, camels, horses, and many large predators (cats, wolves, bears) roamed the grasslands well south of the rim of the miles-high ice, both in North America and in Europe. Small bands of humans made a living by hunting and gathering in Africa, and perhaps elsewhere. The glaciation that occurred 650,000 years ago lasted some 50,000 years. It had a profound effect on the landscape, carving great glacial valleys and fjords and lakes, and making moraines and glacial outwash plains around the perimeter of its extent. The greatly lowered sea level allowed rivers to cut deeply into the shelves of the continents and into the edges of the shelves, where the sea floor drops off into the deep ocean. Here canyons could form which would later serve to funnel sediments from the shelf into the deep sea.
~snip~
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/01_1.shtml

Where was Man during these massive changes?
It's easier just to hold your hand out and demand we pay for nothing, than to accept the truth of the matter.

[Hoosier8]

Much of the higher climate sensitivity with the new models is related to changes in the way that clouds are modeled and on empirical evidence that low level clouds are getting thinner and less reflective in certain regions.
Higher climate sensitivity represents higher positive feedback in the climate system to a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...than-expected/

“It does indeed look like many of the latest models will have ECS values higher than the IPCC ‘likely range’ of 1.5-4.5°C,” said Peter Cox (University of Exeter) in an email. “It seems that the new models with high ECS have more low-level cloud that tends to burn off under climate change, producing an amplifying feedback on warming.

Clouds in the picture
Cloud-related effects have long been one of the biggest question marks in projecting future climate change, apart from uncertainties in future greenhouse emissions that hinge on human behavior. Low clouds—especially marine stratocumulus, which cover huge swaths of tropical and subtropical ocean—are especially crucial, as they tend to cool the climate by reflecting large amounts of sunlight.


The recent concerns about low-level clouds have been reinforced by ongoing work at NASA drawing on data from the CERES satellite program (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System). Measuring the amount of energy entering and leaving the top of Earth’s atmosphere, CERES data shows that net energy in the atmosphere and oceans has climbed steadily with the increase of human-produced greenhouse gases—including both during and after the so-called “hiatus” in global temperature from about 2000 to 2013, when the oceans took up extra energy.
After 2013, the eastern Pacific saw a major drop in low cloud cover, global air temperatures spiked, and “there was a huge increase in sea surface temperatures,” said CERES principal investigator Norman Loeb, who outlined the changes in a 2018 paper.
Loeb is now analyzing how well the models for the upcoming IPCC report—with the higher sensitivities in place—can reproduce cloud cover and air temperature during and after the hiatus, given sea surface temperature. He discussed initial results last month at the 27th IUGG General Assembly (International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics), held in Montreal.
According to Loeb, “some of the models do really darn well” in depicting the cloud changes of the past two decades. He cautions: “I don’t know how far you can extrapolate this. There’s a danger in saying ‘you take the current record and the models nail it, therefore they have the climate sensitivity right.’ I’m cautious about making that leap, but it’s intriguing that they are nailing that post-hiatus difference.”

Another article on this subject is https://eos.org/articles/latest-clim...=EosBuzz070519

Gettelman did not fly through a cloud made mostly of vapor or of ice. It was a supercooled liquid cloud, one in which vapor condenses into water droplets that although they exist at subzero temperatures, do not freeze. Clouds like this are brighter than other clouds, and they reflect sunlight back out into space, helping to keep the planet cool. But as the planet warms, these clouds seem to be getting thinner, Gettelman explained, which erodes their cooling effect.Gettelman and his colleagues added the missing knowledge about supercooled liquid clouds to CESM2, along with other changes to the models’ cloud physics, in an effort to make the clouds in the model behave more like clouds do in the real world.

Garbage in/garbage out. Now the new models are showing even more warming than the current models that show too much warming compared to observed science.

For instance, the first IPCC report overestimated the CO2 projections along with all other greenhouse gasses. GIGO

Watch the alarmists and media eat this up and start claiming we are all doomed. Oh wait, too late.

[Chris]

Much of the higher climate sensitivity with the new models is related to changes in the way that clouds are modeled and on empirical evidence that low level clouds are getting thinner and less reflective in certain regions.
Higher climate sensitivity represents higher positive feedback in the climate system to a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...than-expected/

“It does indeed look like many of the latest models will have ECS values higher than the IPCC ‘likely range’ of 1.5-4.5°C,” said Peter Cox (University of Exeter) in an email. “It seems that the new models with high ECS have more low-level cloud that tends to burn off under climate change, producing an amplifying feedback on warming.

Clouds in the picture
Cloud-related effects have long been one of the biggest question marks in projecting future climate change, apart from uncertainties in future greenhouse emissions that hinge on human behavior. Low clouds—especially marine stratocumulus, which cover huge swaths of tropical and subtropical ocean—are especially crucial, as they tend to cool the climate by reflecting large amounts of sunlight.


The recent concerns about low-level clouds have been reinforced by ongoing work at NASA drawing on data from the CERES satellite program (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System). Measuring the amount of energy entering and leaving the top of Earth’s atmosphere, CERES data shows that net energy in the atmosphere and oceans has climbed steadily with the increase of human-produced greenhouse gases—including both during and after the so-called “hiatus” in global temperature from about 2000 to 2013, when the oceans took up extra energy.
After 2013, the eastern Pacific saw a major drop in low cloud cover, global air temperatures spiked, and “there was a huge increase in sea surface temperatures,” said CERES principal investigator Norman Loeb, who outlined the changes in a 2018 paper.
Loeb is now analyzing how well the models for the upcoming IPCC report—with the higher sensitivities in place—can reproduce cloud cover and air temperature during and after the hiatus, given sea surface temperature. He discussed initial results last month at the 27th IUGG General Assembly (International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics), held in Montreal.
According to Loeb, “some of the models do really darn well” in depicting the cloud changes of the past two decades. He cautions: “I don’t know how far you can extrapolate this. There’s a danger in saying ‘you take the current record and the models nail it, therefore they have the climate sensitivity right.’ I’m cautious about making that leap, but it’s intriguing that they are nailing that post-hiatus difference.”

Another article on this subject is https://eos.org/articles/latest-clim...=EosBuzz070519

Gettelman did not fly through a cloud made mostly of vapor or of ice. It was a supercooled liquid cloud, one in which vapor condenses into water droplets that although they exist at subzero temperatures, do not freeze. Clouds like this are brighter than other clouds, and they reflect sunlight back out into space, helping to keep the planet cool. But as the planet warms, these clouds seem to be getting thinner, Gettelman explained, which erodes their cooling effect.Gettelman and his colleagues added the missing knowledge about supercooled liquid clouds to CESM2, along with other changes to the models’ cloud physics, in an effort to make the clouds in the model behave more like clouds do in the real world.

Mike, you're telling how models of climate sensitivity are supposed to work. Problem is they now do not work. The OP link addresses that:

One question modeling can help answer is called “climate sensitivity,” an estimate of how much warmer the planet will be once it has adjusted to atmospheric CO₂ at double the pre-industrial level. (At current rates, CO₂ could reach a doubling point in the last decades of this century.) This is the old, reliable number that’s come out to 3°C for 40 years. It was as close as anything gets to certainty.

It takes climate modelers, who run hugely complex calculations on supercomputers, more than a biblical six days to create their virtual worlds. Modules for air, land and sea all churn together and interact, and through early runs the researchers will make adjustments for troubleshooting and debugging that amount to re-wiring the whole world. The first step is to replicate actual conditions of the 20th century within the model; then you can trust the software to forecast the future.

The model run by NCAR, one of American’s main climate-science institutions, started producing unusual data last year while trying to reproduce the recent past. “We got some really strange results,” Gettelman said.

You seem to be unskeptical of the models.

[Chris]

Garbage in/garbage out. Now the new models are showing even more warming than the current models that show too much warming compared to observed science.

For instance, the first IPCC report overestimated the CO2 projections along with all other greenhouse gasses. GIGO

Watch the alarmists and media eat this up and start claiming we are all doomed. Oh wait, too late.

Except it's not just input, but rules that produce output. "The scientists went on to try 300 configurations of rain, pollution, and heat flows—something they can do as gods of their own digital earth—before matching the model to history."

They can manioulate the rules to fit history but then their predictions run hot. They can fit predictions to match what they expect, but then get the history wrong.

[carolina73]

They still confuse symptoms with causes. They do not even start with the right information.
So then they go back to ice and carbon dating but carbon dating is not even effective beyond its half life.
Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years so decays fairly quickly to unusable proportions and after that they are trying to predict conversions of nitrogen-14. So they are plotting numbers in years when the information they are getting is no longer measurable in years.