3.4. IPCC own Tinkering & Tweaking Confession “The presence of H2O in the CO2 band (12-19µ) prevents the increase of temperature due to the saturation of the band, because the combined effect of CO2 and H2O yields an absorptivity that approaches unity, as in the black body case....the presence of H2O in these interval (12-19µ) reduces the effect of CO 2 doubling, because the spectrum of CO 2 plus H2O gets closer to Planck’s curve, and there is no room for larger increases in the spectrum. This saturation effect limits the temperature increase due to the increase of CO 2” Adem and Garduño (1998) in the detailed presentation of the equations ruling their ATM1 computer models. Going through the section «9.8.3 Implications of Model Evaluation for Model Projection of Future Climate» (Flato and Marotzke et al., 2013) reveals the amazing level of «tinkering» that the authors consider normal in their assessment of the ensemble of models they review. Honestly, for any computer scientist, it is simply flabbergasting. Not only do they confess that it is better if the model(s) are somehow capable of reproducing past variations, amazing as one could have expected that to be the very minimum, but they also naively indicate that when projections of previous IPCC assessments have failed to materialize it is not that serious as «these projections were not intended to be predictions over the short time scales for which observations are available to date». So basically, models are unable to make short term predictions (say a few years to one decade) but we must trust them for making good computations for the Average Mean Temperature, decades from now! Well, not that much because «longer-term climate change projections push models into conditions outside the range observed in the historical period used for evaluation». As if things were not severe enough, they confess that weighing the models, i.e. just ad-hoc tweaking to make things better match, is a reasonable practice. The tuning will be made by adjustments according to past abilities demonstrated by the models to account for past observations not knowing if this will in any case be related to their future ability to forecast anything meaningful «In some cases, the spread in climate projections can be reduced by weighting of models according to their ability to reproduce past observed climate» (Flato and Marotzke et al., 2013) and this goes as far as « the use of unequally weighted means, with the weights based on the models’ performance in simulating past variations in climate, typically using some performance metric or collection of metrics». The cherry on top of the cake is when it is written plain black on white that «Another frequently used approach is the re-calibration of model outputs to a given observed value» which means that making such sort of retro-fitting to anchor off the track computer programmes to some reference data is considered acceptable. What a mess for any computer scientists who has worked in the industry! I just could not believe it. So models are unreliable, they fail to make any decent projections (at least IPCC honestly acknowledge it) and making weighted averages of them would improve their forecasting ability? Adjusting, tuning, parameterizing the models a posteriori to accommodate ex-post reference data points or observations that could not be properly accounted for in the first place is not a satisfactory practice. This could be somehow acceptable if the underlying physical principles were so sound that such adjustments would have no impact on the basic theories involved, but it is not the case as the computer models are supposed to help validate the AGW theory! Vicious circular reference. Let's make an astrometric analogy: let's compare the situation to an ensemble of incorrect orbits (for the same system), each unable to deliver any reliable ephemeris, and one would think that by making weighted averages of these, one would have any chance of getting an improved orbit ? Astronomers are going to laugh, indeed! This is just a spooky quackery and a feckless tampering of gimmicked models, what an outlandish and ludicrous claim to think that these computerized fantasies bear enough resemblance to reality that coercive policies could be based on them. One should recall the very basic reasons why Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) dismissed climate models “It cannot be overemphasized that even if these equations 292 are simplified considerably, one cannot determine numerical solutions, even for small space regions and even for small time intervals. This situation will not change in the next 1000 years regardless of the progress made in computer hardware. Therefore, global climatologists may continue to write updated research grant proposals demanding next-generation supercomputers ad infinitum. As the extremely simplified onefluid equations are unsolvable, the many-fluid equations would be more unsolvable, the equations that include the averaged equations describing the turbulence would be still more unsolvable, if “unsolvable” had a comparative ”. Furthermore, these authors elaborate on the issue of boundery conditions and Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) state “There are serious solvability questions in the theory of non-linear partial differential equations and the shortage of numerical recipes leading to sufficient accurate results will remain in the nearer or farer future - for fundamental 292MHD-type global climatologic equations
266
