Since 2001 the atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 20% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while average global temperature (agt) has not increased significantly and in fact the agt for the nine years from 2001 through 2009 shows a decline of 0.5C per century. This is outside of the ‘limits’ asserted by the ‘Consensus’ of the Climate Science Community.
So how did the Consensus get it so wrong?
The scientists in the Consensus apparently don’t understand some of the science very well, stubbornly refuse to acknowledge some science or may not even be aware of some relevant science.
Here are some of the issues:
1. Global Climate Models
Climate Scientists use huge mathematic models that are intended to simulate climate over the entire globe. The mathematic models are very computationally intensive and are run on powerful computers. These so-called Global Climate Models (GCMs) divide the atmosphere into about 100,000 or more contiguous blocks that may also be called elements. For example, the Hadley Center model named HadAM3 is a 73 by 96 grid with 19 levels for a total of 133,152 elements. HadGEM1 has four times as many. The number of elements is limited by the practical consideration of computer run time. The programs necessarily use strategies and algorithms to suppress numerical computational artifacts such as aliasing and computational instability.
The known laws of physics and some approximations are applied to calculate energy interchange between the elements. Once everything balances at a particular time, the program advances by a specific time interval and repeats the process. This works great if you know exactly where you started (initial conditions) and have perfectly determined what causes change. Neither of these is true for the GCMs. To be true for initial conditions, all properties of every point in the atmosphere would need to be specified which is clearly impractical. Instead, properties must be interpolated and extrapolated from the comparatively few known measurements and then smeared over the elements. Wikipedia has an extensive discussion of climate models at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model
. Caution is advised when consulting Wikipedia on controversial subjects because article content can be controlled by administrators and may exhibit their biases.
To perfectly determine how things change requires exact application of the physical laws to each of the elements. Again this is impractical (e.g. some of the phenomena take place in less volume than an element) so some of the phenomena, such as convection and cloud behavior, are approximated using human-determined parameterization. One of the acknowledged sources of greatest uncertainty in GCMs is the parameterization of cloud behavior.
Climate Scientists are apparently unaware of the limitations of the climate models that they use. Inherent in this type of modeling (approximation of initial conditions and time-step progression with approximate application of physical laws) is that the longer the program runs, the greater the uncertainty in the results. Although the GCMs are pretty good at predicting weather for up to a few days they are useless for predicting climate for years. This has been demonstrated in the total failure of GCMs to predict the apparently flat and even declining average global temperature (agt) trend since about 2001.
Thus the so-called global climate models are actually global weather models. It is woefully naïve to believe that all that is needed to turn a global weather model into a global climate model is to run it longer.
The GCMs were expanded in an attempt to account for the influence of oceans in Atmospheric/Oceanic Global Climate Models (AOGCM). However, these models have suffered from poor definition of initial conditions especially temperature distribution in the oceans and a paucity of attention to the various ocean current oscillations.
Both the GCMs and AOGCMs suffer from a failure to incorporate thermalization and also suffer from an artificial enhancement by the users of the influence of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.
to download PDF file to read FULL report from Dan Pangburn P.E