The BFD | Close Enough, eh James?

There is a new post up at WUWT that is a fairly technical analysis of error propagation uncertainly in the latest CMIP6 official climate model scenarios.

Here are the conclusions that Pat Frank ends the post with:

Not one of those projected temperatures is different from physically meaningless. Not one of them tells us anything physically real about possible future air temperatures.

Several conclusions follow.

First, CMIP6 models, like their antecedents, project air temperatures as a linear extrapolation of forcing.

Second, CMIP6 climate models, like their antecedents, make large scale simulation errors in cloud fraction.

Third, CMIP6 climate models, like their antecedents, produce LWCF errors enormously larger than the tiny annual increase in tropospheric forcing produced by GHG emissions.

Fourth, CMIP6 climate models, like their antecedents, produce uncertainties so large and so immediate that air temperatures cannot be reliably projected even one year out.

Fifth, CMIP6 climate models, like their antecedents, will have to show about 1000-fold improved resolution to reliably detect a CO2 signal.

Sixth, CMIP6 climate models, like their antecedents, produce physically meaningless air temperature projections.

Seventh, CMIP6 climate models, like their antecedents, have no predictive value.

As before, the unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.

I’ll finish with an observation made once previously: we now know for certain that all the frenzy about CO2 and climate was for nothing.

All the anguished adults; all the despairing young people; all the grammar school children frightened to tears and recriminations by lessons about coming doom, and death, and destruction; all the social strife and dislocation. All of it was for nothing.

All the blaming, all the character assassinations, all the damaged careers, all the excess winter fuel-poverty deaths, all the men, women, and children continuing to live with indoor smoke, all the enormous sums diverted, all the blighted landscapes, all the chopped and burned birds and the disrupted bats, all the huge monies transferred from the middle class to rich subsidy-farmers:

All for nothing.

Pat starts with the observation that the model calibration error is ±2.7 W/m² while the signal they are trying to measure (mankind’s CO₂ effect on the climate) is 0.025 W/m² and the measured forcing from all greenhouse gases is 0.035 W/m².

Put another way, the calibration error is ±108 times larger than the annual average increase in forcing from CO₂ emissions alone, and ±77 times larger than the annual average increase in forcing from all GHG emissions.

Taking the best case, the lower limit of CMIP6 resolution is ±77 times larger than the perturbation to be detected when one should require the instrumental detection limit (resolution) to be 10 times smaller than the expected measurement magnitude.

If the models could detect a signal from CO₂ or GHG emissions, they would need to improve their resolution by nearly 1000-fold.

As it is, properly propagating the model errors means that the predicted temperatures in 2100 are not 3 or 4°C higher than now, as reported from the model outcomes, but are actually somewhere within the range 15°C warmer to 10°C cooler. But the models cannot tell us where in that range the real answer is.

Plus 15 to minus 10 seems close enough to bankrupt the country with the Zero Carbon Act. Thanks, James!