As much as one can be skeptical about the ridiculous climatology of which the models do not converge and the forecasts prove to be double to triple false in only 5 years of observation, as much we can count on the physics which has proved its worth and whose forecasts are reliable. However, the temperature of the planet is thermodynamics, it is statistical mathematics, it is physics.
So when physicists tell climatologists that they are going wrong, which happens regularly, you have to listen to them carefully.
That one,
Dr Patrick Frank, undoubtedly exasperated,
made a notification to the IPCC in accordance with the IPCC's own error reporting protocol. It's even more appalling than I thought.
He tells us: In early September 2019, my study of climate models passed peer review and was published in the Atmospheric Sciences section of Frontiers in Earth Science.
It answers the following questions: How reliable are climate models and how much credit should we give to their predictions of a hot CO2-fueled future? The answers are: they are unreliable, and no credit."
Details:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00223/full"
In my six-year journey to publication, through nine journal submissions, 30 reviewers, and their 35 reviews, I haven't encountered a single climate modeler who understood physical error analysis, or propagation of errors, or the significance of model calibration or uncertainty, or the impact of physical errors on predictive reliability, or even the absolutely central distinction between accuracy and precision.
Climate modelers are clearly unable to assess the reliability of their own models. This finding provides an explanation for the universal use of an unnecessary precision metric to claim the reliability of projections in their published work, rather than accuracy.
I mention these difficulties because in order to assess the error ... you will need to consult competent experimental physicists, who understand the analysis of physical errors, rather than climatologists, who do not understand it.
[...]
All general circulation models, whatever their other uses, are totally unsuitable for making projections of anthropogenic global warming. They cannot tell us absolutely anything about how air temperatures might change in the future, nor can they explain the temperature excursions of the past.
GCMs, by themselves, cannot detect, attribute or project the impact of CO2 emissions on average temperatures on the earth's surface, neither in the present nor in the XNUMXst century.
The uncertainty propagated by the simulation time steps generates an envelope of uncertainty far too large to allow a reliable projection of future warming, whatever the time scale. Models cannot say anything about atmospheric temperature.
It is therefore formally demonstrated that the projections of global warming from climate models are no better than conjectures.
These projections, which justify all concerns about our influence on the climate, are, to put it bluntly, totally unreliable.
They cannot provide reliable information on the warming or cooling of the climate. For this, you can consult the Oracle of Delphi as well as one or the other of the climate models of general circulation.."
It turns out that climatologists are incompetent who have no idea how to deal with the margins of uncertainty and the errors they propagate. They can actually consult the Oracle of Delphi or read the entrails of chickens, and have the same results, besides that is what they do, they are the new Haruspices of the carbocentrist religion.