Posted On: Monday - April 14th 2025 7:51PM MST
In Topics: Global Climate Stupidity Science

Peak Stupidity is no scientific journal, so we refer not to our post itself here but to a recent short paper ("letter") in Geophysical Research Letters pointed out by commenter Alarmist under one of our recent posts.* I don't claim to understand the methods within the paper. However, I can read this sort of thing and at least see what kind of science these people are up to.
In Biases in Climate Model Global Warming Trends Related to Deficiencies in Southern Ocean Sea Ice Evolution Over Recent Decades, climate scientists H. Mutton** and T. Andrews noted "deficiencies" in various climate models. These discrepancies, as I'd call them, have to do with the actual versus predicted extent of Antarctic sea ice. Different surfaces on the Earth, or any body, say, plowed soil, forest, rock, ice, etc. reflect energy by different amounts. Ice obviously reflects a lot. The term used in Astronomy is "albedo" (al-bee'-doh).
Well, OK, since the albedo of all areas of the Earth, these areas themselves changing due to changes in the environment, must be part of a model of the Earth's climate, such a model must predict the current and future states of such surfaces. These researchers have found that the prediction of sea ice extent in the Antarctic is not just wrong but backwards. First line from the Abstract (Intro.):
Between 1985 and 2014 observations show an expansion of Southern Ocean sea-ice. This phenomena is not simulated in CMIP6 Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs). Here we quantify the impact of this discrepancy on radiative feedback and simulated global temperature trends.One may note from reading or from a perusal of the paper's Table 1 that 5 different mathematical models of the climate are being studied, errr, really, screwed-with, here. "CMIP6" is one of them, but I'm sure there are thousands outside of the realm of this work.
Sea ice obviously has a high albedo, so if it's increasing in that region rather than decreasing, as predicted by THESE MODELS, then the models must be changed. I'll make my basic points here shortly, but let me excerpt a few parts to show the tone of this paper. There's no science/engineering-style observational data of measured different ice albedos, convection and radiative heat transfer equations, energy balances, etc. here. It's all about the various and sundry factors, "global ensemble means", "regressions", "feedback forcing functions", etc. Now, I can see that the math here is originally based on thermodynamics and heat transfer, but what you read here is playing with math. Of course, it all ends up as math in the models, but, I'll summarize the problems... OK, to get a taste of this:
Using this relationship between and , for each model we apply three values of to demonstrate the impact of Southern Ocean feedback biases on the estimated . First, the estimated from the historical ensemble mean, second, a modified where we replace the Southern Ocean (55–78°S) with values from the amip-piForcing ensemble mean, and third, a modified where we replace the Southern Ocean with values from the amip-piForcing ensemble mean. These values of and the associated are indicated for each model as a dot, vertical marker, and an arrowhead respectively in Figure 3d and are recorded in Table 1. Here the Southern Ocean substitution has been performed for and to capture both the direct impact of the sea ice biases through surface albedo changes as well as any other related local processes such as changing clouds (Cesana et al., 2025).Sorry, the paper's Greek letters, sub-, and superscripts don't show up here, and I'm not up for it - you can read it better there if you care. I have points to make that's not about the details.
The zonal mean of and over the Southern Hemisphere higher latitudes is shown in Figures 3b and 3c respectively, where black vertical lines indicate the region over which the amip-piForcing values have been substituted when modifying the historical . In Figure 3b observed values of have also been included, using observed values of and and taking from the ensemble mean of all CMIP6 models analyzed. This was done given the effective radiative forcing used for the IPCC AR6 is only provided as a global mean timeseries. A clear negative feedback can be seen in the observed estimate, confirming that in this region the amip-piForcing experiment is able to capture feedback processes consistent with those seen in the real world.
We see that had the coupled historical experiments simulated the observed changes in sea ice, assuming all other feedbacks remain unchanged, this would impact the global temperature trends by approximately 0.04 0.03 K (multi-model-mean). For HadGEM3-GC3.1-LL, this accounts for just under one third of the bias in historical temperature trends compared to observations. We see that depending on the model, when substituting in just the Southern Ocean , 12%–29% of the total disparity in global is accounted for between the historical and amip-piForcing experiments. This increases to 18%–57% when other local changes are considered and the Southern Ocean is substituted (Table 1). In the multi-model-mean, substituting all local Southern Ocean processes changes global-mean by 0.25 , whereas substituting just changes global-mean by 0.18 (Table 1), that is, contributes 72% to the total difference over the Southern Ocean.OK, here are my problems with the shear hubris of anyone who claims to have made a working model of the entire Earth's climate***, with this paper as an example:
1) These models have been wrong in predicting the changes in Antarctic sea ice. How much confidence should we have in the rest of these model's predictions?
2) The effect of higher albedos over larger areas (more ice) would have made those models wrong. Is that the one and only input factor in the models that was wrong? Not bloody likely! (Hey, the writers are British, so just trying to relate.)
3) We see the vicious (maybe viscous too) cycle here. The models predict wrong climate changes, somehow.. Those changes result in different conditions for the models to be based on. The models were bound to be wrong from the start. Here, different sea ice extend means higher albedos for certain areas, which would certainly affect the results of any model that took albedo into account, out of hundreds, I'd say, processes that must be modeled VERY PRECISELY for a model to have any chance in hell of predicting ANYTHING!
4) Note the very wide ranges of the values for conclusions here. 0.07 W per square meter per degree K to 0.23, 0.01–0.06°C per decade, 12% to 29%, 18% - 57%, come on! OK, I'm glad the guys are honest with their error ranges, but then don't pretend anyone can predict what's going on.
5) The corrections being made in papers like this are not going back to the basic science and even the real math, the calculus derived from the science. These writers are only using the statistical techniques and fancy functions to fudge the originally derived math to make the models work better. This is not really science - it's fun with math.
6) Five models are compared. I've said this before: If they don't match, one should figure out why. It's what I don't like about "Meta studies", besides that they are a way to avoid doing science/engineering one's self. "On average, the studies yielded value x." OK, but what's wrong with the ones that are not close. Without seeing the errors in the "off" models, how do we know they're not ALL wrong?
... which they ARE, because, again, there is no working model of the entire world's climate!
This Geophysical Research Letter seems like a difficult read on a complex subject, but what I get out of it is that fudging of mathematical climate models is a science in and of itself. Knock yourselves out with this stuff, guys. Just don't go ruining the economies of the world with it. (They don't need your help.)
* Unfortunately NOT under our 2-Part series The melting of Antarctica: More Alarmist Trickery See Part 1 and Part 2. This got me going though, so, thanks, (non-Climate) Alarmist.
** A British name if there ever was one. I really didn't see much on the authors, but the words "Centre" and "Programme" spelled so, gave it away..
*** Peak Stupidity has a series of short posts from over 8 years back, early in our blog history, titled very clearly and adamantly There is no working mathematical model of the world's climate, dammit!: Part 1 - - Part 2 - - Part 3 - - Part 4 - - Part 5.
Comments:
Moderator
Thursday - April 17th 2025 12:41PM MST
PS: It's "*Fine* Corinthian Leather, thank you very much.
Sincerely, that Fantasy Island guy.
You're slipping. Then again, I was about to write "that Love Boat guy". Wrong show, same T&A.
Sincerely, that Fantasy Island guy.
You're slipping. Then again, I was about to write "that Love Boat guy". Wrong show, same T&A.
The Alarmist
Thursday - April 17th 2025 12:22PM MST
PS
Does it come with Rich Corinthian Leather?
🕉
Does it come with Rich Corinthian Leather?
🕉
Moderator
Thursday - April 17th 2025 8:45AM MST
PS: Had to get up pretty early this morning, so yesterday was a short evening. Anyway, I hope you get a lot done, Adam. Got the "new" vehicle from my friend finally. It's only 30 years old, so 2nd newest in the fleet.
Speaking of fleet, that made me thing of Fleetwood Braugham(?), big land yachts, I saw a beautiful red with Landau back* Mercury Marquis (basically a Crown Vic, I think), with only 60-something thousand on it, since new in '98. No, I don't want it though.
* I wonder what the hole landau roof thing was about anyway - a fairly short-run, 1970s thing...
Speaking of fleet, that made me thing of Fleetwood Braugham(?), big land yachts, I saw a beautiful red with Landau back* Mercury Marquis (basically a Crown Vic, I think), with only 60-something thousand on it, since new in '98. No, I don't want it though.
* I wonder what the hole landau roof thing was about anyway - a fairly short-run, 1970s thing...
Adam Smith
Wednesday - April 16th 2025 8:19PM MST
PS: Top o' the evenin' to you, Mr. Moderator...
𝐼𝑡'𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 -57𝐹 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐼 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑜 𝑚𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑟𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 -85𝐹 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑙. ;-}
Yeah... But it's a 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑...
Low clouds and 𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑...
Wind gusts = 18mph
Dew Point = -70° F
-58° F RealFeel -90° F
Air Quality = Excellent
Kinda tired. Busy today. Mostly just checkin' in to say hi!
Hope you are enjoying your evening as much as I!
Cheers! ☮️
𝐼𝑡'𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 -57𝐹 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐼 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑜 𝑚𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑟𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 -85𝐹 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑙. ;-}
Yeah... But it's a 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑...
Low clouds and 𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑...
Wind gusts = 18mph
Dew Point = -70° F
-58° F RealFeel -90° F
Air Quality = Excellent
Kinda tired. Busy today. Mostly just checkin' in to say hi!
Hope you are enjoying your evening as much as I!
Cheers! ☮️
Moderator
Wednesday - April 16th 2025 10:29AM MST
PS: I perused your 2 articles yesterday, Mr. Smith. Interesting ...
Regarding the weather at Scott-Amundsen station today, it's not the -57F that I mind so much rather than the -85F Real Feel. ;-}
On the other hand, the air quality down there today is Excellent! You can't see what you're breathing as in the old Beverly Hillbillies episode, but maybe you have to breath with a fork and spoon.
"Looking ahead", there's going to be cold wave coming... wait, what??
Regarding the weather at Scott-Amundsen station today, it's not the -57F that I mind so much rather than the -85F Real Feel. ;-}
On the other hand, the air quality down there today is Excellent! You can't see what you're breathing as in the old Beverly Hillbillies episode, but maybe you have to breath with a fork and spoon.
"Looking ahead", there's going to be cold wave coming... wait, what??
Adam Smith
Tuesday - April 15th 2025 3:29PM MST
PS: Good evening, y'all...
https://www.accuweather.com/en/aq/amundsen-scott-south-pole-station/2258520/weather-forecast/2258520
Albedo you say?
https://files.catbox.moe/4gncei.pdf
https://files.catbox.moe/dab3kn.pdf
☮️
https://www.accuweather.com/en/aq/amundsen-scott-south-pole-station/2258520/weather-forecast/2258520
Albedo you say?
https://files.catbox.moe/4gncei.pdf
https://files.catbox.moe/dab3kn.pdf
☮️
The Alarmist
Tuesday - April 15th 2025 6:47AM MST
PS
Icy Libido ... lulz
🕉️
Icy Libido ... lulz
🕉️
Moderator
Tuesday - April 15th 2025 6:19AM MST
PS: "That would have been a very different paper." Indeed, I'd expect lots of Figures showing how that's supposed to work.
M
Tuesday - April 15th 2025 5:27AM MST
PS
I first read the headline as "Sea Ice Libedo". Yes, it's misspelled.
That would have been a very different paper.
I first read the headline as "Sea Ice Libedo". Yes, it's misspelled.
That would have been a very different paper.
I'm generally not a fan of Fords, but the third gen. panthers (Crown Vic, Lincoln Town Car, Mercury Grand Marquis and Mercury Marauder.) are actually pretty good. They're quite reliable and fairly inexpensive/easy to maintain.
A tour of the Amundsen Scott station...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ3_gZ3ZS_4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1ZMsOJ7lWg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWtHMBssWvg
☮️