Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 2/21/2024 2:38:50 PM EDT
“Here, we have demonstrated a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in near-surface atmospheric water vapor in arid and semi-ari regions.” – Simpson et al., 2024
A new study published in PNAS has demonstrated, once again, that climate models fail to simulate what happens in the real world with regard to fundamental climate change variables like water vapor. This is a devastating finding, as water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas due to its alleged “feedback” capacity, accelerating warming well beyond what CO2 is said to be capable of alone.

The authors do not understate the significance of this climate modeling failure.

“This represents a major gap in our understanding and in climate model fidelity that must be understood and fixed as soon as possible in order to provide reliable hydroclimate projections for arid/semi-arid regions in the coming decades.”

Per state-of-the-art climate models, specific humidity (SH) should increase as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show no increasing SH trend over arid/semi-arid regions.

Per state-of-the-art climate models, relative humidity (RH) should decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show not a slight declining trend, but a declining trend that is “about an order of magnitude more than the models on average.” In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10.
View Quote


A few years ago another study documented how wildly wrong 102 state-of-the-art climate models have been with regard to a 60-year temperature trends (1958-2017) over tropical regions.

The models say the tropical warming rate should have been nearly 3 times larger than the observations show – “0.389 ± 0.173°C per decade (models) and 0.142 ± 0.115°C per decade (observed)” – due to the assumed feedback response to CO2 forcing over warm regions. Instead, there is a “clear and significant tendency on the part of the models to overstate warming.”

These authors also do not understate the significance of this modeling failure. Climate models are not even realistic.

“Instead, we observe a discrepancy across all runs of all models, taking the form of a warming bias at a sufficiently strong rate as to reject the hypothesis that the models are realistic.”

“[T]he major hypothesis in contemporary climate models, namely, the theoretically based negative lapse rate feedback response to increasing greenhouse gases in the tropical atmosphere, is incorrect.”

There may be no other branch of physical science with model-observation discrepancies (failures) this profound, this fundamental.
View Quote


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/19/new-study-climate-models-get-water-vapor-wildly-wrong-a-major-gap-in-our-understanding/
VP
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:44:29 PM EDT
[#1]
No one knows what they're doing
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:45:37 PM EDT
[#2]
I'm here to say ph*c Billy Gaytes and his spraying of the skies.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:47:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Not surprising, as "Climate Change" is nothing more than grifting for Govt grants and a power-grab tool for govt itself.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:47:35 PM EDT
[#4]
EV grift played out, government dictates that all cars to be 1,000+ HP gasoline powered catalytic converter deleted to fight global cooling by 2035.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:48:08 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
No one knows what they're doing
View Quote


Except for the ones pushing the false narrative.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:48:34 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Not surprising, as "Climate Change" is nothing more than grifting for Govt grants and a power-grab tool for govt itself.
View Quote



Bingo. The only thing that matters is water quality and air pollution.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:52:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Bingo. The only thing that matters is water quality and air pollution.
View Quote

Indeed.  The problem is that those are too objectively measurable, and thus are difficult to twist into reasons we need more taxes and even greater govt controls.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:52:37 PM EDT
[#8]
They'll just roll and move on, like all the other lies about it.  The Klimate Kultists do not base their religion on facts in the first place. This one won't matter either.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:53:57 PM EDT
[#9]
let me guess, the "climate crisis" is actually SO MUCH WORSE after this discovery?  *dismissive wanking motion*
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:55:25 PM EDT
[#10]
If you cannot account for the watts of energy needed to achieve your theory you got nothin'
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:56:10 PM EDT
[#11]

Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:57:26 PM EDT
[#12]
So all this woke green stuff is based on bullshit.  As I knew all along.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:57:33 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
EV grift played out, government dictates that all cars to be 1,000+ HP gasoline powered catalytic converter deleted to fight global cooling by 2035.
View Quote

Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:58:43 PM EDT
[#14]
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 2:58:58 PM EDT
[#15]
One concept that most people don't understand is that much of science is actually just "theory".

Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:00:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If you cannot account for the watts of energy needed to achieve your theory you got nothin'
View Quote


The direct effect of CO2 increase in terms of Watts/square meter is easy enough to figure out. You can play with this tool to figure it out yourself:

https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

The issue is that the direct effect of CO2 is minor, so to get the desired warming they have to rely upon positive feedbacks from other things.

Global warming isn't about CO2. It's about the feedbacks. Feedbacks that must be positive. Negative feedbacks won't produce the desire effect.

Note that negative feedbacks are characteristic of stable systems, positive feedbacks of unstable systems.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:00:38 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
EV grift played out, government dictates that all cars to be 1,000+ HP gasoline powered catalytic converter deleted to fight global cooling by 2035.
View Quote

I'll be happy to do my part. Can I get a tax credit for it?
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:02:54 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

One concept that most people don't understand is that much of science is actually just "theory".

View Quote
real science is all theory, supported by empirical, predictable and repeatable evidence.  After many years and thousands of confirmations it starts to slide into science fact, but even then it's open to be proven wrong.  Scientists are always pursuing truth and understanding, not dogma.

That's how you know climate science is pure bullshit even if you don't understand the science behind it.  Climate "science" is a religion.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:04:37 PM EDT
[#19]
"Why are there deserts?" is a pretty complex question.

That aside, we have satellites in orbit that are measuring net thermal radiation, and setting aside the hyperbole of "wildly wrong", the satellite measurements are in agreement with the numerical model estimates for the observed atmospheric columns.

Deserts are curious things, yes, but to say we don't know everything so we can't know anything just isn't the case here.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:05:12 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
real science is all theory, supported by empirical, predictable and repeatable evidence.  After many years and thousands of confirmations it starts to slide into science fact, but even then it's open to be proven wrong.  Scientists are always pursuing truth and understanding, not dogma.

That's how you know climate science is pure bullshit even if you don't understand the science behind it.  Climate "science" is a religion.
View Quote



"The Science".

Steven Koonin  wrote a book about it:

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:07:13 PM EDT
[#21]
They have been getting water vapor wrong in the models all along, it is a long known problem.

Fuck the climate crisis activists.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:08:25 PM EDT
[#22]
Basically what KeithJ was saying years ago.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:08:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Next week's weather forecast is an educated guess, but we're supposed to base policy and spend billions of dollars on agenda-driven forecast models?

Remember when Paul Ehrlich told us that half of us were going to starve to death before the beginning of the 21st Century?
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:09:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
"Why are there deserts?" is a pretty complex question.

That aside, we have satellites in orbit that are measuring net thermal radiation, and setting aside the hyperbole of "wildly wrong", the satellite measurements are in agreement with the numerical model estimates for the observed atmospheric columns.

Deserts are curious things, yes, but to say we don't know everything so we can't know anything just isn't the case here.
View Quote


We also have satellites measuring temps, and the temps they measure are not in line with those predicted by the models.

You seem to be referring to simpler models on thermal radiation, like the one I linked above. So your argument seems tangential.

Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:11:20 PM EDT
[#25]
Humans know everything until we don’t…..And then we realize just how badly we fucked everything up with our rash actions and lack of understanding
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:12:45 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
“Here, we have demonstrated a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in near-surface atmospheric water vapor in arid and semi-ari regions.” – Simpson et al., 2024
A new study published in PNAS has demonstrated, once again, that climate models fail to simulate what happens in the real world with regard to fundamental climate change variables like water vapor. This is a devastating finding, as water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas due to its alleged “feedback” capacity, accelerating warming well beyond what CO2 is said to be capable of alone.

The authors do not understate the significance of this climate modeling failure.

“This represents a major gap in our understanding and in climate model fidelity that must be understood and fixed as soon as possible in order to provide reliable hydroclimate projections for arid/semi-arid regions in the coming decades.”

Per state-of-the-art climate models, specific humidity (SH) should increase as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show no increasing SH trend over arid/semi-arid regions.

Per state-of-the-art climate models, relative humidity (RH) should decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show not a slight declining trend, but a declining trend that is “about an order of magnitude more than the models on average.” In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10.
View Quote


A few years ago another study documented how wildly wrong 102 state-of-the-art climate models have been with regard to a 60-year temperature trends (1958-2017) over tropical regions.

The models say the tropical warming rate should have been nearly 3 times larger than the observations show – “0.389 ± 0.173°C per decade (models) and 0.142 ± 0.115°C per decade (observed)” – due to the assumed feedback response to CO2 forcing over warm regions. Instead, there is a “clear and significant tendency on the part of the models to overstate warming.”

These authors also do not understate the significance of this modeling failure. Climate models are not even realistic.

“Instead, we observe a discrepancy across all runs of all models, taking the form of a warming bias at a sufficiently strong rate as to reject the hypothesis that the models are realistic.”

“[T]he major hypothesis in contemporary climate models, namely, the theoretically based negative lapse rate feedback response to increasing greenhouse gases in the tropical atmosphere, is incorrect.”

There may be no other branch of physical science with model-observation discrepancies (failures) this profound, this fundamental.
View Quote


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/19/new-study-climate-models-get-water-vapor-wildly-wrong-a-major-gap-in-our-understanding/
View Quote
When government pays people to come up with desired results those people tend to warp the numbers to get the desired results. If government were to have a true study of said it would sure help to understand why government sponsored studies tend to get things so wrong.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:14:51 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I'm here to say ph*c Billy Gaytes and his spraying of the skies.
View Quote

Geo Engineering

They can take the sky from you.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:17:58 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
When government pays people to come up with desired results those people tend to warp the numbers to get the desired results. If government were to have a true study of said it would sure help to understand why government sponsored studies tend to get things so wrong.
View Quote
Research grants often pay for a result. Either explicitly or implicitly.  They don't pay for high quality science.  That doesn't mean that they sometimes don't get high quality science, but that isn't what they pay for.

If all the people in your field are getting grants to prove climate change is a crisis, and nobody is getting grants to prove it isn't...what is your grant application going to focus on?

There are distortions in the scientific community all over, not just on climate, but climate is probably one of the most distorted.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:24:29 PM EDT
[#29]
It's settled science...or just too detail intensive for the kids that don't want to get a real job.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:26:20 PM EDT
[#30]
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:29:21 PM EDT
[#31]
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:30:25 PM EDT
[#32]
There is some relevant reading material, coincidentally banned from Amazon....wonder why

The plague of models
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:31:25 PM EDT
[#33]
They were applying the Ideal Gas Law to steam, weren't they?
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:34:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The direct effect of CO2 increase in terms of Watts/square meter is easy enough to figure out. You can play with this tool to figure it out yourself:

https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

The issue is that the direct effect of CO2 is minor, so to get the desired warming they have to rely upon positive feedbacks from other things.

Global warming isn't about CO2. It's about the feedbacks. Feedbacks that must be positive. Negative feedbacks won't produce the desire effect.

Note that negative feedbacks are characteristic of stable systems, positive feedbacks of unstable systems.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you cannot account for the watts of energy needed to achieve your theory you got nothin'


The direct effect of CO2 increase in terms of Watts/square meter is easy enough to figure out. You can play with this tool to figure it out yourself:

https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

The issue is that the direct effect of CO2 is minor, so to get the desired warming they have to rely upon positive feedbacks from other things.

Global warming isn't about CO2. It's about the feedbacks. Feedbacks that must be positive. Negative feedbacks won't produce the desire effect.

Note that negative feedbacks are characteristic of stable systems, positive feedbacks of unstable systems.


Also note that were the Earth's climate an unstable system, we would have spiraled into a permanent snowball or permanent greenhouse a long time ago.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:37:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
No one knows what they're doing
View Quote



Some do.   They found out it’s easier to be a whore and get govt and private grant money for promoting the preferred agenda
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:47:00 PM EDT
[#36]
The climate activists problem is that CO2 isn't causing the warming, it's far too weak of a greenhouse gas to have much effect on global temperatures. Water vapor however is both by far the strongest and the largest component of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so in order to try and get the models to respond to the CO2 levels they have to greatly downgrade the effect of water vapor in their models. Yes, carbon dioxide does keep Venus very hot, but there is over 200,000 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Venus as there is in the atmosphere of Earth. Venus also receives double the amount of energy from the sun than Earth does simply by being closer to the sun.
Climate modelers aren't trying to reflect reality in their models, they are trying to get the result they want so the models are always wrong.

Quoted:

One concept that most people don't understand is that much of science is actually just "theory".

View Quote

@_DR: This post shows that you have no understanding of science or the definitions of words as they are used in science. "Theory" and "Hypothesis" may be synonyms in common English, but they have different meanings when used in science.
A Hypothesis is an idea, that needs to have scientific experiments run to produce the evidence needed to see if it might be correct or not.
A Theory is an idea that has considerable experimental evidence to show that it is correct.
One of the biggest misuses of these words in a set of mathematical equations often referred to as "String Theory". These equations do not represent a "Theory" as no one has been able to formulate an experiment to run to gather evidence on whether the equations describe reality. It is correct to refer to these equations as the "String Hypothesis", and incorrect to call them string theory.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 3:51:24 PM EDT
[#37]
The science is setteld.  Come on, guys!
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:06:07 PM EDT
[#38]
Models are all subject to garbage in, garbage out, especially in climatology. Google’s Gemini is well-programmed to argue for 97% of scientists who are allegedly in agreement that the climate is changing due to anthropogenic influence. Of course the climate is changing, it always is! However, AI is programmed to support the notion that it is entirely historic in terms of how quickly it is “changing” and that it is all caused by humans.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:14:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Nothing new here.  AGW models are worthless.  They can't even work in theory, let alone in practice, there hasn't been enough reliable data for the forcing functions that they cherry picked, let alone all of the possible forcing functions.

A total scam from the beginning.

But hundreds of billions are spent every year on AGW.  Notice how all of the AGW "researchers" and "green" companies are Dems?  Hmmm...

Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:23:15 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
They were applying the Ideal Gas Law to steam, weren't they?
View Quote


Moisture is a gas damnit
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:32:45 PM EDT
[#41]
And yet, observed temperatures are higher than most of the models predicted.

All models are wrong. That doesn't mean they aren't useful. That has implications far beyond this subject. Even direct human experience is an incomplete model of reality.

It isn't news to anyone that humidity doesn't rise with temperature as much in a desert as it does elsewhere, or that climate models don't attempt to predict humidity in particular places. Water vapor is a condensable gas, modeling a global average may produce a more meaningful result.

When you cherry-pick studies or datasets that seem to support your presuppositions you only mislead yourself.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:33:11 PM EDT
[#42]
lol so you are saying people aren't smart enough to properly create a model of the entire earth with completely accurate thermodynamic physics which can accurately predict the future at all?

shocking
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:34:09 PM EDT
[#43]
A guy in the 60's invented a carburator that would allow engines  to run on water but somebody killed him so now we have climate issues.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:35:37 PM EDT
[#44]
I've been pointing out that water vapor is basically bad, to the hydrogen fuel crowd and they say I'm wrong.

water vapor and raising humidity is generally seen as a bad thing - increasing humidity is changing the climate.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:38:37 PM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
And yet, observed temperatures are higher than most of the models predicted.

All models are wrong. That doesn't mean they aren't useful. That has implications far beyond this subject. Even direct human experience is an incomplete model of reality.

It isn't news to anyone that humidity doesn't rise with temperature as much in a desert as it does elsewhere, or that climate models don't attempt to predict humidity in particular places. Water vapor is a condensable gas, modeling a global average may produce a more meaningful result.

When you cherry-pick studies or datasets that seem to support your presuppositions you only mislead yourself.
View Quote


Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:41:17 PM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
And yet, observed temperatures are higher than most of the models predicted.

All models are wrong. That doesn't mean they aren't useful. That has implications far beyond this subject. Even direct human experience is an incomplete model of reality.

It isn't news to anyone that humidity doesn't rise with temperature as much in a desert as it does elsewhere, or that climate models don't attempt to predict humidity in particular places. Water vapor is a condensable gas, modeling a global average may produce a more meaningful result.

When you cherry-pick studies or datasets that seem to support your presuppositions you only mislead yourself.


https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Figure-1-578x324-c-default.jpg

was going to say temps have more or less not increased at all where models showed we should be bbq by now.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:42:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
And yet, observed temperatures are higher than most of the models predicted.

View Quote



Provide a citation to support this, because that doesn't ring very true.
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:43:48 PM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
And yet, observed temperatures are higher than most of the models predicted.

All models are wrong. That doesn't mean they aren't useful. That has implications far beyond this subject. Even direct human experience is an incomplete model of reality.

It isn't news to anyone that humidity doesn't rise with temperature as much in a desert as it does elsewhere, or that climate models don't attempt to predict humidity in particular places. Water vapor is a condensable gas, modeling a global average may produce a more meaningful result.

When you cherry-pick studies or datasets that seem to support your presuppositions you only mislead yourself.


https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Figure-1-578x324-c-default.jpg

The key there being completely useless, what's that one model that does appear to align with observed values?
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:44:12 PM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
They'll just roll and move on, like all the other lies about it.  The Klimate Kultists do not base their religion on facts in the first place. This one won't matter either.
View Quote


What religion does?
Link Posted: 2/21/2024 4:44:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Breaking News: This forum learns about the scientific method.

Scientific method is formulating your best guess/theory on the available data.

When you encounter new data and figure out you're wrong, you admit your mistake.


I mean, isn't that life in general?
When you find fault in your conclusion based on new evidence, do you modify your theory or opinion or supposed to dig your heels in and fight harder out of pride?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top