Henry Schau Your hunch regarding IPCC and its role is correct. I agree that IPCC is currently a political organization rather than a scientific one aimed at promoting one pre-conceived idea of human-caused climate change attributed to only one factor-human caused excessive carbon dioxide. The goal is to divert huge resources under the guise of fighting climate change under control of some powerful political forces.

There are numerous references are being made on the IPCC reports by the climate change proponents to support their view.

However, IPCC reports published in various years seem to contradict each other. Most reports state that humans caused the climate change due to one factor - producing excessive level of CO2. At the same time, other IPCC reports published much earlier state the following: see https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/504.htm

"The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system. As the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) has previously noted, future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve surprises.." and "We simply do not fully understand the causes of climate drift in coupled models (see Chapter 8, Section 8.4.2)."

This quotation is the last line in https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/504.htm

Bullet point #6 summarizes it all in the link: https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the reliable long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

Therefore, on one hand, the IPCC promotes the idea of excessive amount of CO2 as the main reason for climate change but, on the other hand, attributing all climate change to only one factor-human generated CO2-is NOT substantiated because the long-term prediction of climate states using various climate models is not possible. I believe that this is one of the main points of the skeptics. And I believe that it is a valid point.

See also the link (IPCC). 2001, TAR, section 14 Advancing our understanding Working Group I: The Scientific Basis https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

See also the last bullet point in https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm Working Group I: The Scientific Basis-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY”

Thanks for your opinion. The problem is that if you express such an opinion, everyone will turn on you. I grew up in the early GDR and know the effects of centrally switched media and suppression of other opinions.

I worked very intensively on a very simple chaotic (mechanical) system and published the results (Vibrations of straight pipes/beams with two-sided stops: Analytical and numerical analyses). Despite an enormous effort in terms of numerics, the curves diverge after just a few impacts. It can be shown that the time span depends on the accuracy of the numeric (number of decimal places). You quickly reach the limits of the PC (16 ... 17 digits). That's why I'm suspicious when climate simulations cover very long tim periods (50 ... 100 years). I also don't think that all influencing factors have been taken into account or are even known.

Again I cannot help but agree with you. I am not afraid that everyone will turn on me for my views that are supported by physics and thermodynamics.

I grew up in a similar suppressive environment, so I saw it all.

I suggest that you take a look at my RG thread ' Is it misleading to measure the Earth global warming based on moving up the average global temperature anomaly of Earth (vs. preindustrial period)?' | ResearchGate

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_misleading_to_measure_the_Earth_global_warming_based_on_moving_up_the_average_global_temperature_anomaly_of_Earth_vs_preindustrial_period

As for your results on simple chaotic systems and their digital diversion, it is another illustration of famous numerical results by Ed Lorenz from early 1960 from which the contemporary theory of chaotic systems and strange attractors has begun.

The bottom line is that in chaotic deterministic non-linear and non-equilibrium systems, as the Earth’s climate system, there could be more than one stable state. One kind of behavior could last over a very long time, yet a different state could be just as natural for the same system (with an external kick or without any obvious external kick at all).

If contemporary ‘climate science’ would spend its resources performing research in the right direction of analysis the chaotic non-linear climate system, we would witness a lot of progress in climate understanding for 70 years since the time of fundamental Lorenz’s publication. Not much was published after him.

Instead, ‘climate science’ has focused on producing physically meaningless ‘global average temperature anomalies’ and blaming CO2 as the main culprit for ‘global warming and climate change’. Unfortunately, most ‘climate scientists’ have traded real scientific methodology for politically ‘correct’ agenda.

Thanks for the good link. I'll look at the discussion.

My question related more to the IPCC organization than to climate change. There is a statement by Manabe (NP for Physics 2021) that he created his climate models to understand what is happening in the atmosphere and did not want to give any numbers, but politicians wanted numbers.

Thomas Schlemmermeyer

You totally ignore all physical and mathematical counterarguments against the concept of global warming and use only one factor that affect it - level of greenhouse gases. You ignore the fact that the global average temperature and its global average anomaly do not exist as physically measurable quantities. The average can only be calculated-not directly measured- from a database of locally measured temperatures and the averaging procedure is not unique. In fact, one can calculate multiple different averages from the same database with contradicting conclusions of simultaneous warming or cooling.

On top that, you use the meaningless circular definitions such as "Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth".

So, Climate change is a ...change of... climate?!

A circular definition is a type of definition that uses the term being defined as a part of the description, i.e., the term to be defined is used in the definition itself.

Using circular definition does not add credibility to your post.

Thank you.

Henry Schau I tend to agree with you regarding Manabe's work and his NP award.

I have read one of the original papers on which the Nobel prize to Manabe was based: "The effect of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model" Journal of the atmospheric sciences, 1975, v.32, N 1, pp: 3-15.

These are a few quotes from this publication:

"It should be noted here that a sensitivity study such as described in this paper is meaningful provided that the following conditions are satisfied:

(i) the model has a stable equilibrium climate (my comment - it is not-AK)

(ii) an external forcing (such as the doubling of CO2 concentration) is not large enough to force the model climate out of the stable equilibrium into a markedly different state.

It is useful to inquire how large an external forcing is required in order to push the model climate out of stable equilibrium or how the model changes thereafter. However, this is not a SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT STUDY." (page 4 - bottom.)

Next quote:

"Because of the various simplification of the model it is not advisable to take too seriously the quantitative aspects of the results obtained in this study" page 13, the bottom.

Yet, the Nobel press release includes a graph with quantitative results from this paper.

Thus, the author himself warns that his quantitative results should not be taken too seriously, and his model is a crude approximation with multiple assumptions.

The model assumes no transport of heat by the ocean, idealized topography and a fixed distribution of clouds amongst some others.

This is not to say that the model is useless. It is a good academic exercise. But the model is highly limited for making real life predictions or prove anything, especially quantitatively.

Yet, the Nobel prize committee says: The prize is given to Manabe “for the physical modeling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming.” (My comment - reliably - indeed? given the above quotations of the author!!)

So, I believe that the Nobel Prize in physics to Manabe is unfortunately mostly driven by a political agenda than by real physics in contrast to what the Nobel Prize committee said.

"IPCC Models" "Climate Models" "General Circulation Models", Appellations, with alarmist or skeptical ulterior motives, are of no importance. It is in all cases Physics-Driven Models developed within multi-disciplinary scientific teams worldwide to describe the evolution of weather phenomena (at short time scales) and climate phenomena that involve long time-scale processes, more complex to analyze, as part of these phenomena are not yet well understood.

This is why, despite the enormous progress already achieved, the predictability of Climate Models (The Earth System Models, ESMs), are not yet sufficiently accurate. The standard deviations between the different models remain of the same order of magnitude as the mean values and huge biases on regional levels are noticed and well documented in technical and scientific references of each of the models.

This should lead us to admit that more research is needed to improve our knowledge of the driving forces that control the climate in order to build more accurate predictive climate models, as scientists do well for weather prediction

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Climate_Change_and_Climate_Models_Progress_and_Limits

My problem is the so-called tuning of the climate moels. My own investigations on relatively simple non-linear (mechanical) models show that a prediction over longer periods of time is not possible. I used exact and identical initial conditions. The solutions only diverge due to the finite numerical precision. This is a fundamental property of all nonlinear systems. The IPCC writes that in some cases small changes give completely unexpected and significantly different results. Since the initial conditions (such as temperatures) contain relatively large errors in comparison, a prediction about e.g. 100 years very questionable. Who knows solar radiation in 100 years? Furthermore, different models are often averaged and probabilities are given. However, this is only permitted if the results from the models are normally distributed. Is this proven? There is one point that the climate models cannot capture: What can science and technology in the future? New energy sources, new physical laws...

The relationship between atmospheric changes and global temperature change is not of a one-way cause-effect type. This kind of one-way reasoning, in one sense or another, is IMHO incomplete: just consider that changes in global temperatures (due to transfers at the interfaces lithosphere-hydrosphere-atmosphere) have, in their turn, direct effects on atmospheric changes via, evapotranspiration, photosynthetic activities, gases solubilities in the hydrosphere, partial pressures in the atmosphere. All these phenomena are physically well-described. All climate parameters, without exception, are interdependent and correlated in space and time and non-linear ways (depending on the initial conditions of all the variables at all points of the globe).

Here is the Table. What do we have in front? We have scientists who want to understand how this monster evolves and are struggling to make intercorrelations resulting from the laws of thermostatics valid in a laboratory situation on parameters averaged above all or part of the planet!

This said the nagging question would be: Is it admissible to describe even on average such a system from the point of view of thermostatics?

The subsidiary question would be: how and with what tools are we examining and analyzing these data to drive conclusions and interpretations? The fact that these analyses lead to numerous interpretations that are different is absolutely normal and mathematically expected. It shows at least one mathematically obvious truth.

The answer would be: This should lead us to admit that more fundamental research to develop mathematical tools is needed to improve our knowledge of the driving forces that control the climate in order to build more accurate meteorological and climate models. On the other hand, advances in the study of complex systems (which include GCMs and ESMs among others) have been rewarded with the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics.

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Climate_Change_and_Climate_Models_Progress_and_Limits

The effects of climate change for the next century are fairly well predicted as far as temperature is concerned. The hydrologic effects are much more uncertain. Nevertheless, the current prediction is that the temperature increase will generate a significant acceleration of the water cycle, with more evaporation. The global rainfall will thus increase, but its spatial distribution is much more uncertain.

See also: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226652110_Changing_Water_Resources_and_Food_Supply_in_Arid_Zones_TunisiaArticle Predictability of water resources with global climate models...

Iceland volcano erupts on Reykjanes peninsula (BBC, 4 hours ago). Volcanic eruptions, always Fascinating in Beauty and Majesty, remind us in a spectacular way of essential factors in the heat balance of the globe: the transfers at the Visible Lithosphere-Atmosphere Interface in the form of Seismic and Volcanic Activities and the transfers at the Lithosphere-Hydrosphere interface, Invisible because they occur at the bottom of the oceans. Unlike the GHE, the effects of these activities on Climate Change are not well analyzed, at least in Climate Models, including those used in IPCC projections.

Illustration Source: ICELANDIC MET OFFICE:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67756413

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Adaptation_and_Resilience_to_Climate_Change_Temporal_Paradox_versus_Chronology_Protection_Conjecture

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Climate_Change_and_Climate_Models_Progress_and_LimitsArticle Predictability of water resources with global climate models...