Global Warming - Problems with the IPCC Models

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis by the The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the foundation document for Global Warming hysteria. It outlines what was known and explains some of the models that predict that humans are destroying the planet.

This page quotes what the IPCC says about its own models - basically, in my opinion, these experts admit that the entire theory of Human Produced Global Warming is based on models that don't work.

Please, don't just read the few quotes I've included below - read the entire report. (I've only read parts of it.) It is painfully obvious that none of the models are very good ... and clouds are almost ignored.

Atmosphere | Water vapour | Clouds | Precipitation | Radiation | Positive and Negative Feedbacks | Comment | More Questionable Models

7.2 Atmospheric Processes and Feedbacks

Determination of the new equilibrium is complicated by the fact that water vapour is itself a potent greenhouse gas
Atmospheric Processes are the foundation of the "CO2 creates excessive Global Warming" theory ... apparently, the whole theory is based on an assumption that extra heat produces more water vapor which then traps even more heat. The problem with that theory is that, if true, then the Earth should overheat without needing to first add more CO2 to the atmosphere.

Thus, before you even consider the models, it should be obvious that the basic premise of this section is wrong. Water vapour feedback

Attempts to directly confirm the water vapour feedback ... are difficult to interpret ... [but are] consistent with a positive water vapour feedback, but it still cannot be taken as a direct test of the feedback
Note that this section considers water vapor only - clouds and rain are considered separately in the next 2 sections.

7.2.2 Cloud Processes and Feedbacks Cloud-radiative feedback processes

In response to any climate perturbation the response of cloudiness thereby introduces feedbacks whose sign and amplitude are largely unknown.

The sign of the cloud cover feedback is still a matter of uncertainty and generally depends on other related cloud properties.

Cloud optical feedbacks produced by these GCMs, however, differ both in sign and strength. Representation of cloud processes in models

In spite of these improvements, there has been no apparent narrowing of the uncertainty range associated with cloud feedbacks in current climate change simulations. A straight-forward approach of model validation is not sufficient to constrain the models efficiently and a more dedicated approach is needed.

Note - Section has a graph showing which models consider clouds as positive or negative feedback mechanisms.

It is unbelievable that the most important feedback could make human produced Global Warming extremely serious or just a lot of nonsense - but they still can not determine even the sign of the feedback.

At least there is a consensus so that there is no longer a need for scientific inquiry.

7.2.3 Precipitation

This section admits that the rain fall models are wrong - to get a fair treatment, read the actual text.

7.2.3 Precipitation

... the associated heating rates often dominate all other effects and strongly influence local and global circulations.

These aspects have been explored only to a limited extent in climate models. No studies deal with true intensity of rainfall,

However, estimates of precipitation and surface long-wave radiation suggest that the sensitivity of the hydrological cycle in climate models to changes in SST may be systematically too weak. Accordingly, it is important that much more attention should be devoted to precipitation rates and frequency, and the physical processes which govern these quantities.

7.2.4 Radiative Processes

Although this methodology is believed to have only a marginal impact on the accuracy of ... [the models], the analysis of ... measurements ... has generated a concern that the radiative algorithms used in climate models could significantly underestimate the atmospheric shortwave absorption. ... [The very existence of this phenomena], however, remains controversial and is at odds with other investigations.

Incorporating the effect of cloud inhomogeneities in radiative algorithms may become a necessity

Evaluation of its importance is hampered by lack of knowledge of a physical mechanism responsible ...

These quotes show that models and experimental results sometimes give very different results. In this case, observations by only one group of researchers indicates that human produced Global Warming could be worse than predicted. However, my point is that the observations are not universally accepted and therefore are not adequate to develop a model.

It is interesting that cloud physics (inhomogeneities) is not in the existing models.

Positive and Negative Feedbacks

The IPCC report talks about positive and negative feedbacks. Most people already understand what that means ... this is for the rest.

In feedback theory

Examples of positive feedback Examples of negative feedback

In the case of Global Warming, positive feedbacks will make a little heating get even hotter and negative feedbacks tend to make temperature changes very difficult.

The same applies to cooling, with positive feedback a little cooling will cause more cooling until everything freezes. With negative feedback, again, temperature changes (in this case cooling) are very difficult.

One of the major problems with the IPCC report is that the models can not even agree on the sign (plus or minus) of the most powerful of all the feedback systems - humidity and clouds.


So, how many 3% errors can a model handle before you admit that the model is worthless?

What I can't believe is that anyone would suggest a course of action based on a climate model that completely ignores clouds.

Apparently, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, one of the contributors to chapter 7, agrees that the IPCC has misrepresented chapter 7.

More Questionable Models

I don't want to give the impression that all the known model problems were presented above.

What no one seems to realize is that, with few exceptions, everything that is "known" about the climate is actually based on models

The only things NOT based on models are Everything else is based on models.

However, the accuracy of these most basic models is never addressed.

Thus the IPCC hysteria report is based on models that are based on models - and I thought they claimed that the science was done. I guess that they did not read their own report.

Author: Robert Clemenzi
URL: http:// / Global_Warming / IPCC.html