Austria’s ZAMG Meteorology And Geodynamics Institute Concedes Climate Models Not Reliable

Austrian ZAMG Meteorology Institute Says Drivers In Climate Models Still Not Correctly Understood

By Die kalte Sonne

In climate science, as is generally known, there is a 97% consensus on all topics. The remaining 3% are just crazy. This is so because anyone who openly contradicts the "consensus" can forget about his career, and gets marginalized and excluded from project funding opportunities. So it's best to keep quiet.

Thus, it's all the more surprising that the Austrian Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG) has taken a critical look at the topic of climate change.

On the ZAMG's website, the Vienna-Austria-based scientists discuss important criticisms:

Future natural climate drivers not accounted for

If the share of individual climatic drivers in the development of global temperature are misjudged by climate models, and even if they delivered a realistic result thus far, future simulations will be wrong. In addition, beside the anthropogenic one, other climate drivers in future scenarios are not even accounted for. They just cannot be predicted.

One problem with the global climate models is the model quality's focus on the reproduction of the measured global mean temperature. Although this is relatively well simulated, there are concerns as to whether the models' sensitivity to the different climate drivers (solar activity, volcanic aerosols, greenhouse gases, etc.) corresponds to reality.

In addition, the drivers are not understood properly even with their warming or cooling effect. So it is possible that a climate model correctly simulates the mean global temperature – even with an incorrect sensitivities with respect to its drivers.

Anthropogenic climate driver overrated?

The 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC (Solomon et al. 2007) notes that warming in the second half of the 20th century was "very likely" caused by the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This statement is based on the simulations from a variety of global climate models. Critics, however, say that the models have too high a sensitivity for CO2 as a driver and, for example, underestimate the influence of the sun.

Strengths-weaknesses analysis helpful

It is going to take some development time to properly reflect the balance among the drivers in the climate models. However, fundamental criticism of the performance of the climate models gets equated as denial of reality. It is crucial to clearly distinguish which results climate models can provide with certainty (see articles on strengths) and which ones that cannot (see article on weaknesses).

The article in German can be found at the website of the ZAMG.

 

from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2GDuGFd