Do you know the weakness of IPCC climate model ?

Question

Climate model should include natural processes such as : solar activities, volcanic erruptions, etc and anthropogenic processes, such as the emissions of CO2, MH4, .....etc.

Answer 1

I am pretty sure the IPCC uses more than one climate model. Each one probably has different weaknesses. The main weakness in my opinion is the impossibility of accounting for all the variables and therefore the amount judgment that must go into writing the software. People will judge the way they think it SHOULD go and of course produce a model that does what they already though the climate would do before the wrote the model. In other words, the models are no better than the people who write them.

Answer 2

The really big weakness is the total absense of data about the geothermal flux. The ocean is warmed quite a bit by the geothermal flux and science knows nothing about how much this has on climate even though it is clearly a large effect. It is quite clear the goethermal flux has a major effect on the climate and weather and science does not even know there is a major energy flow from the mantle into the ocean. Science seems not to care either that the ocean would freeze if it was not heated by the mantle. At some time in the future this will be discovered.

Answer 3

Yeah, I do.  And I'll be willing to bet you haven't read this:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4W...

Volcanoes are in there, so is solar activity.  From the phrasing of your question and the degree of technical illiteracy you demonstrate (e.g., "MH4," "solar activities") I'm going to guess that the scientific details concerning the real weaknesses in AOGCM climate models are probably way way over your head, but the IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 is a pretty thorough review of what they are.

Answer 4

Got something better? You too could win a Nobel Prize! Just publish your scientific papers,and lets end this silly arguing! Just think of it! You could make a cool movie about it!

I'm sure that all of those thousands of world renowned scientists never even gave a single thought to those issues you mentioned.  They just wanted to be in Al's movie!

Thanks for sharing your very inaccurate opinions!

Answer 5

I think it's weakness is the fact that human scientists have a drop in the bucket of the knowledge it would take to understand how our climate truly works. I've heard many people on this site suggest that the local weather forecast is a very poor comparison to global climate change as an argument of skeptics. Many have argued that since meteorologists can't tell us what it's going to do next week then how could these climatologist predict what will happen in decades. Believers say this is like comparing apples to oranges. Not so! Both use computer models and both deal with many variables. The biggest difference and most damning fact to believers is the fact that meteorologists have much greater access to tangible data than do climatologists. Strikingly, even with excellent data, meteorologists get the forecast wrong often. So how can anyone so fervently trust these climatologists predictions in such a vast system. Yes, this argument relies on common sense rather than gossipal like hockey stick grafts and cherry- picked temperature records. Unfortunately, the left wing has long ago abandoned common sense as a useful tool in science and politics.

Answer 6

The main weakness of the IPCC is that's it's part of the UN and the UN has proven to be less than forthright over and over and has proven to be corrupt. Yet after an investigation, nothing is done because by then the media has moved onto a new story.

Scientifically, the IPCC tailors the summary report to say what they want, not what the raw group reports reflect. There is a clear agenda here that some of us aren't thrilled about. For cooking the numbers you really can't beat James Hansen at NASA's GISS. He can look at the numbers and sense they're not right, so he develops a new formula so they'll fit into his prediction. You should see what he's done with the new measuring numbers from Peru at: http://www.climateaudit.org/. He's never satisfied with the NOAA numbers either so they get arbritrarily adjusted and tweaked until they fit with no explanation of how they were changed. Just one set of numbers replaced with new ones.

Ground stations in the US fare no better. Check the same link for details on how Arizona stations seem to always get moved from park-like surrounding to parking lots. Could that conceivably change the numbers? Yes and according the the site's owner, Steve McIntyre, they do not correct for this as they claim to do. Not even once have they moved a station to a cooler area? It almost sounds like it's intentional, doesn't it, as if they want certain numbers and they'll get them somehow.

The IPCC scientists rely on this data even if many think it's questionable since they have no other data to use. Why not take untainted NOAA records? Why locate monitoring stations in the middle of airport runways (Reno, NV) and parking lots? If we could get uncorrected raw data from just the rural US stations we might see a totally different picture than what the IPCC paints.

Answer 7

the weakness is it's  all about global socialism, the distribution of our wealth to bring our economy down to the rest of the worlds' level.  so we can become a global union. t he only way to do that is replace religion with a higher power our environment. you should look at the number of scientists that have sued to get their names taken off the ipcc report.

Answer 8

Or how about the weakness that the IPCC publishes a "Summary" report which does not represent the findings of the cientist who write the actual scientific paper. Any scientist who disagrees with the Summary is censored. Many of the scientist who have worked on the IPCC reports have said publicly that any dissenting view is buried.

How about the fact the IPCC models consider cloads to be a positive feed back when it is more commonly thought that they are a negative feedback (low clouds).

Most CO2 scientist calculate the warming effect of CO2 to be 1 to 2.0 degrees total (avg about 1.6). Yet, the IPCC is able to "model" a warming from 2 to 8 degrees (about 4 times most CO2 scientist).

How about their estimates of sea rise. The ironic thing is that very little of their sea rise is from glacier and sea ice melt. There increase is because of the expanding volume of the sea due to the temp increase (of course the more reasonable 1 to 2 degree warming would not generate this expanding volume of water. Only their 8 degree increase). Of course we never see the IPCC leaders come out and explain how wrong the main stream media's portrayal of sea levels are.

How about the biggest weakness? The fact that they do not act or behave in a manor consistent with true scientist trying to discover the truth. Their actions portray a political body with an agenda which they will stop at nothing to achieve. They call deniers "n**i's", and compare them to holicaust "deniers". They denounce any scientist who publishes an opposing view. Notice they do not debate the data. They attack the scientist, of which many are highly recognized, and try to discredit them. They do not publish their work in a transparent fashion to allow independent verification. They rely on their co-authors or peers of a like mind to "independently" verify. They run and hide when they are challenged to a debate. They cloud the debate when possible by screeching about "funding form oil", and yet have no problem funding scientist. This is an obvious conflict of interest since their only reason for existing is to promote global warming. If global warming goes away, so does the IPCC.

Their actions are not of someone to be trusted. The more you know about the IPCC and it's agenda, the less you can trust them.

Answer 9

But the many climate models used by the IPCC do EXACTLY what you say they should.  Here's one good example:

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

summarized at:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

Did you actually think the IPCC climatologists don't do this?   Have you ever looked at their work?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....