Before getting to the subject of climate models, first two small points worth bringing up:
Firstly, it appears that Trump’s policies are sending powerful political impulses worldwide. For example ultra-alarmist German climate and energy site klimaretter here bemoans that leading socialist Sigmar Gabriel seems to be turning into an “Eco-Trump”. Gabriel actually had the audacity to remind Germany that economics need have as great as or greater priority than climate change does, something causing a bit of political indigestion at klimaretter.
Fears of German companies moving to USA
Secondly, German business daily Handelsblatt here cites a study that tells us Germany will likely see jobs lost due to Trump’s tax reforms. It is feared that a number of German companies may opt to flock over to USA to take advantage of lower taxes, cheaper energy and less stringent regulation. Germany helping MAGA!
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated / edited by P Gosselin)
A large part of international climate policy is based on prognoses delivered by climate models. Here the key players act as if they are highly robust and thus serve as a good basis for policy decision making. But what hardly ever makes it through the media filter is the rather hectic discussion taking place behind the scenes among climate modelers.
In September 2014 Theodore Shepherd of the University of Reading summarize the entire extent of the problems in an article published in Nature Geoscience. The models simply fail to grasp the atmospheric circulation. And Shepard feels that will remain the case also in the future:
Atmospheric circulation as a source of uncertainty in climate change projections
The evidence for anthropogenic climate change continues to strengthen, and concerns about severe weather events are increasing. As a result, scientific interest is rapidly shifting from detection and attribution of global climate change to prediction of its impacts at the regional scale. However, nearly everything we have any confidence in when it comes to climate change is related to global patterns of surface temperature, which are primarily controlled by thermodynamics. In contrast, we have much less confidence in atmospheric circulation aspects of climate change, which are primarily controlled by dynamics and exert a strong control on regional climate. Model projections of circulation-related fields, including precipitation, show a wide range of possible outcomes, even on centennial timescales. Sources of uncertainty include low-frequency chaotic variability and the sensitivity to model error of the circulation response to climate forcing. As the circulation response to external forcing appears to project strongly onto existing patterns of variability, knowledge of errors in the dynamics of variability may provide some constraints on model projections. Nevertheless, higher scientific confidence in circulation-related aspects of climate change will be difficult to obtain. For effective decision-making, it is necessary to move to a more explicitly probabilistic, risk-based approach.”
Also accounting for solar irradiance is causi9ng a lot of problems, as Zhou et al. 2015point out:
On the incident solar radiation in CMIP5 models
Annual incident solar radiation at the top of atmosphere should be independent of longitudes. However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results. This oscillation is also found in the Community Earth System Model. We show that this feature is caused by temporal sampling errors in the calculation of the solar zenith angle. The sampling error can cause zonal oscillations of surface clear-sky net shortwave radiation of about 3 W/m2 when an hourly radiation time step is used and 24 W/m2 when a 3 h radiation time step is used.”
Currently the author teams for the planned 6 IPCC climate report are getting together. Are the considerable problems surrounding climate models resolved? No sign of that. On October 11, 2017, Stony Brook University set off the alarms: The models still are not running properly! And the German press prefers to keep silent about this. The Stony Brook press release follows: