And finally, AR6 WG1 recognized the failure of AOGCMs to properly handle clouds (which you exemplified above) and noted that about half produce estimates of current warming that are inconsistent with observations. They decided evidence form models was no longer suitable for quantitatively estimating climate sensitivity. Section 7.5.6 and Figure 7.19. (:)) However, everywhere else in the report other authors rely heavily on the output from climate models.
If AOGCMs are ruled out, estimates of climate sensitivity from other lines of evidence might be worthy of examination, sun as Figure 7.12. Of course, all six studies cited rely on models to some extent too.
True Frank. There are quite convincing reasons why climate models can't be even close to predicting patterns of change. Their resolution is way too course, probably at least 50 times too course. As pointed out in this post, their subgrid models appear inadequate as well.
I had a post at Climate Etc. in December of last year going through the CFD literature and explaining why this lack of skill is implied by the literature.
Parameters are best guess ranges, not exactly robust science, not reality of what's happening. When the models use best guesses, it's not an attribution study, it's simply adjusting the algorithms to what they want to see or expect to see. Then they attribute the "results" to the forcings and feedbacks of their best guess ranges. Maybe that's why the models aren't very successful.
Simply simulation games that reside more in sci-fi than reality. No models projected the 20 year hiatus, we're also into a 9 year cooling trend. The models aren't designed with reality in mind.
And finally, AR6 WG1 recognized the failure of AOGCMs to properly handle clouds (which you exemplified above) and noted that about half produce estimates of current warming that are inconsistent with observations. They decided evidence form models was no longer suitable for quantitatively estimating climate sensitivity. Section 7.5.6 and Figure 7.19. (:)) However, everywhere else in the report other authors rely heavily on the output from climate models.
If AOGCMs are ruled out, estimates of climate sensitivity from other lines of evidence might be worthy of examination, sun as Figure 7.12. Of course, all six studies cited rely on models to some extent too.
True Frank. There are quite convincing reasons why climate models can't be even close to predicting patterns of change. Their resolution is way too course, probably at least 50 times too course. As pointed out in this post, their subgrid models appear inadequate as well.
I had a post at Climate Etc. in December of last year going through the CFD literature and explaining why this lack of skill is implied by the literature.
Parameters are best guess ranges, not exactly robust science, not reality of what's happening. When the models use best guesses, it's not an attribution study, it's simply adjusting the algorithms to what they want to see or expect to see. Then they attribute the "results" to the forcings and feedbacks of their best guess ranges. Maybe that's why the models aren't very successful.
Simply simulation games that reside more in sci-fi than reality. No models projected the 20 year hiatus, we're also into a 9 year cooling trend. The models aren't designed with reality in mind.