by Judith Curry
IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think. – Dana Nuccitelli
Last February, I wrote a post Spinning the climate model – observation comparison, where I introduced Ed Hawkins’ now famous graph:
The following version of Figure 1.4 from the Second Order Draft of the AR5 SPM showed this version of the comparison:
The Final Draft SMP made this statement about the model-observation comparison:
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
Much has been made of the lack of agreement between the model projections and observations, with the observations being perilously close to falling outside the entire range of model projections.
- I discussed this disagreement in my Congressional testimony (in context of Ed Hawkins’ diagram).
- Fyfe et al. Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years (blog post last month)
- von Storch et al. Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?
The final WG1 Report provides the following version of Figure 1.4:
Note that the observations are no longer outside the range of model simulations. Text from Chapter 1 states (both Final and SOD):
Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments.
Steve McIntyre has a post IPCC: Fixing the Facts that discusses the metamorphosis of the two versions of Figure 1.4. McIntyre states:
For the envelopes from the first three assessments, although they cite the same sources as the predecessor Second Draft Figure 1.4, the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations, so that the observations are now within the earlier projection envelopes. You can see this relatively clearly with the Second Assessment Report envelope: compare the two versions. At present, I have no idea how they purport to justify this.
The main issue seems to be this. Both plots make different choices as to which year/period you are aligning the models to the observations for comparison. Depending on which you pick, you get observations to be inside or outside the projection values. How ‘best’ to do this is discussed at Tamino’s and Lucia’s thread.
Using different choices for this can be superficially misleading, but doesn’t really obscure the underlying important point, which is summarized by Ross McKitrick on the ClimateAudit thread:
Playing with the starting value only determines whether the models and observations will appear to agree best in the early, middle or late portion of the graph. It doesn’t affect the discrepancy of trends, which is the main issue here. The trend discrepancy was quite visible in the 2nd draft Figure 1.4. All they have succeeded in doing with the revised figure is obscuring it.
JC deconstruction
Lets take a closer look to see why all this is so confusing. First, note the Figure 1.4 plots temperature anomalies, from some reference year/period. The ‘necessity’ for plotting temperature anomalies rather than the actual temperatures is evidenced from the figure below (from Mauritzen et al., see this previous post)
Pay attention the gray lines prior to 2000. These lines indicate the model temperature climatologies, many of which are running 1-2C above or below observed temperatures. To compare climate models with observations (or even with themselves), the model climatology at a reference period is subtracted to produce a temperature anomaly.
Forget for a moment your uneasiness about model climatologies that are 1-2C different from observations; your uneasiness might arise from wondering how these models produce anything sensible given the temperature dependence of the saturation vapor pressure over water, the freezing temperature of water, and the dependence of feedbacks on temperature parameter space. Thank goodness for tuning.
Back to the main point. Comparing the model temperature anomalies with observed temperature anomalies, particularly over relatively short periods, is complicated by the acknowledgement that climate models do not simulate the timing of ENSO and other modes of natural internal variability; further the underlying trends might be different. Hence it is difficult to make an objective choice for matching up the observations and model simulations. Different strategies have been tried (as per the debate discussed above); matching the models and observations in different ways can give different spins on the comparison.
How to make the comparison depends on the hypothesis you are trying to test. If you are trying to test the hypothesis that climate models have not predicted the pause since 1998, then you should be comparing trends between models and observations, rather than seeing if the observed temperature anomalies lie within a broad envelope of climate model simulations.
Using Figure 1.4 and this statement:
Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments.
to infer that the models have been able to simulate the recent pause is arguably an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Nor should this new version of Fig 1.4 lead you to think that “IPCC models are better than you think.” The problem is not so much with Figure 1.4, but with the statement above that interprets the figure. Nowhere in the final WG1 Report do we see the honest statement that appeared in the Final Draft of the SPM:
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
The following are the take-home statements about climate model-observations comparisons:
- many climate models do not reproduce the Earth’s observed average climate, with differences up to 1-2C.
- climate models do not simulate the timing of modes of natural internal variability such as ENSO, AMO
- climate models do not reproduce the trend in global surface temperature anomalies since 1998.
- climate models do a reasonable job of reproducing the century long trend, which depends largely on the selection of external forcing data sets in the pre-satellite era
Some skeptical sites are trumpeting the new figure 1.4 as a ‘hide the decline’, a new Climategate, etc. There may be nothing technically wrong with Figure 1.4, although it will mislead the public (and Dana Nuccitelli) to infer that climate models are better than we thought, especially with misleading accompanying text in the Report.
Of the diagrams, I like Ed Hawkins diagram the best: it does a good job of lining up the climate models and observations in a sensible way from 1960-1990, so as to show the growing discrepancy between models and observations over the last decade.
What is wrong is the failure of the IPCC to note the failure of nearly all climate model simulations to reproduce a pause of 15+ years.
Yes, Dana Nuccitelli, climate models are just as bad as we thought – and even worse than most people think, since the inability of most models to reproduce the Earth’s average temperature is not well known.
How much is that model in the window? I do hope that it is for sale.
==============================
As relevent today as ever! Go TEAM!
Climate models don’t do warm, other than with CO2 sensitivity. They basically have a ten thousand year long Hockey Stick.
I wonder if Judith has received a cease and desist on this one. It might be a good idea not to post this here, David.
I see this is back on Youtube. Did mikey give up trying to suppress it? Here’s another funny one:
Thanks for that Don, a really nice piece.
I don’t think Curry is responsible for what other people put on her blog in the comments but I could be wrong of course. If there’s a cease and desist she can blacklist some of the cryptic unique identifier in the youtube link but that wouldn’t work for anyone bright enough to use tinyurl.com to change the link address that wordpress’ backend examines for blacklisted strings. It’s a proverbial sticky wicket.
How the MSM sees it;
http://mrc.org/articles/networks-embrace-catastrophic-warnings-latest-ipcc-report
What kind of “politics” is Dr. Curry ever talking about and equalizing between sides?
Bless you, Prof. Judith Curry. You continue to give me hope that science and common sense will prevail.
Hope springs eternal Jim.
-.Some skeptical sites are trumpeting the new figure 1.4 as a ‘hide the decline’, a new Climategate, etc. There may be nothing technically wrong with Figure 1.4, although it will mislead the public (and Dana Nuccitelli) to infer that climate models are better than we thought, especially with misleading accompanying text in the Report.
So sorry, but I do think “hide the decline” was a method to “mislead the public to infer that Mann’s proxies were better than we thought”. In which case, this is a sort of a new “hide the decline”.
The curious thing for me is the psychological state which persists in believing that deception is the best course. In all these sadly repetitive cases, there is evidence that the deceiver was aware of the need for deception, from the ‘censored files’ on, practically endlessly, to this present case.
Well, it’s pretty sick, and seems pervasive. It’s certainly morbid enough to be lethal, but I guess we’ll see.
===============
Dearest Kim, have you not spent enough time with these Heroes? When you are out to save the world–especially from people far more stupid than yourself–then whatever you say is The Truth. If we have to adjust some inconvenient data from time to time it’s all just one more golden brick on the way to Oz.
Deception has been the only thing that has kept the cause alive, since Climategate. They can’t stop now. The trend is not their friend. The pause is killing the cause.
Very good, Don Don.
Take inspiration from the last thread
Please add some arrogance.
A bandwagon would be nice too.
Never audit the systematic deception. Why, the earth quakes at the thought.
===========
Thank you, willy. Your bucket has got a hole in it. But keep pretending that it’s OK. Try running faster.
That’s why I don’t want that bucket
You keep putting in my hands, Don Don.
Please show me your brand new bandwagon.
Are you living the life that a learned and formerly distinguished old gentleman should be living, willy? Think on it.
I find helpful to ask the question “is this confusing graph merely due ‘ineffective climate-communication’, or a willful attempt to actually obscure information that someone thinks should be ‘withheld for the greater good’?”
The greater good.
Precisely, Kim: “…the psychological state which persists in believing that deception is the best course” continues – as does the willful denial and projection of the IPCC-whores.
What too many here also persist in is failing to grasp that the ‘bootleggers and Baptists’ explanation from Public Choice economics that applies here, veridically explains disparate parties (in this case, scientists and bureaucrats) collusive behavior WITHOUT any need for a conspiracy. Too many economically illiterate Lefties (and scientists) on this blog (and elsewhere) who simply don’t grasp this difference. And they churlishly dismiss and deride this legitimate explanation as ‘conspiratorialist’ fantasy – while it makes perfect political-economic sense.
Many models have been run a rather large number of times over a period that starts decades in the past and extend to the present. One approach would be to pick from these runs those that agree best over some past base period, perhaps up to 1995 or 2000 and to check, how they behave after that period.
Has that approach been used in some analysis? That could be one rather objective way of fixing the temperature scale, when the criteria for best agreement over the base period are set properly.
Yes, this kind of approach has been used, but it doesn’t always produce better outcomes. If you select a model that accurately produces the warming say from 1975-2000, then look at its future projections, these are probably the models that probably produced the best agreement with very high sensitivity (and not from accurate portrayal of the natural internal variability).
I didn’t mean that those models would be chosen that produce best agreement but that those model runs would be used from each model that have the best agreement with base period, when all model parameters are fixed and only the initial state is varied.
Judith, is the grey shading in the original Fig. 1.4 due to the grey shading in the figure from Mauritzen? Or is it due to error ranges from the observed temperatures? If both the models and observed have errors of +/- 1-2 C, why do we believe predictions that are ten times smaller than the errors?
The gray shading was some attempt to estimate the range of natural internal variability, it didn’t come from these model simulations
Kosaka & Xie [1] do a variant of this in that they constrain parts of the simulation to capture an already known behavior, in their case, that of pacific ocean oscillation behavior. This then describes the hiatus very well.
I do a variation of this by subtracting out the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) from the GMST profile, which effectively removes the pause/hiatus, leaving the underlying warming trend in its wake:
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9159/hpi.gif
[1]Y. Kosaka and S.-P. Xie, “Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling,” Nature, 2013.
WHT,
They don’t do that. They add a “black hole” where they move a very large amounts of heat (to a lesser degree they also take heat from there over other periods). They don’t select among model realizations, they change the model.
Pekka,
There are probably two conflating issues going on here: (1) understanding the origin of global temperature fluctuations, and (2) trying to remove the fluctuations so as to get a better estimate of the warming trend.
Kosaka and Xie are trying to do both, and you are saying that they may be failing at (1). But they are not necessarily failing at (2). What they did in (2) is provide many of us motivation for seeking out better ways of removing the non-deterministic fluctuations, so that we don’t get completely confused by each hiatus that comes around.
Others should probably do what I do, which is to remove the fluctuations with an unbiased estimator such as the SOI. Check out the SkS post and discussion comments at the link below, and you can see how I am not the only one that is pursuing this approach.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pacific-ocean-global-warming-puzzle-Kosaka-Xie.html
It’s a lot simpler to implement as well.
Isn’t the “black hole” simply a representation of the ocean?
WHT,
I wrote one comment on your approach in another thread. In that I noted that being able to combine two time series to one of much less variability using only two free parameters (as I have understood that you use) is an interesting approach that’s likely to help in interpreting the significance of the time series.
I did, however, note also that any such operation leads also the risk of misinterpreation as the method cannot tell, whether some particular observation is representative of what appears to be the most straightforward interpretation or something that could better be described as an artifact of the method.
Kosaka and Xie observe that a change in eastern tropical pacific spreads out and affects surface temperatures over large distances in their model, but they cannot tell how much of that is due to the non-conservation of energy (they use the formulation “energy balance is not closed”).
I would refer you to the discussion at Isaac Held’s blog if that were not closed by the government shutdown.
Pierre-Normand,
That’s the hopeful interpretation. The problem is that the amount of heat going there is large corresponding to something like 30-50% of the estimated TOA imbalance. Whether such an amount of heat can be removed from the system over a limited area of ocean, and still consider the model representative enough, is the question.
It could be enhanced upwelling of cold water from deep ocean, but could that occur in a way that’s doesn’t affect ocean fluxes elsewhere doesn’t seem obvious.
P-N said:
That’s what I thought. Conceptually, Kosaka & Xie are using the ocean as a heat sink and/or heat source to lend and/or borrow heat to/from so as to modify the ocean surface temperatures. This was simply a part of their understanding of what is actually physically happening.
WHT,
The problem, as I see it, is that they must use a lot of brute force to reach the right temperature (i.e. just remove the heat without a place where to put it). Believing that what happens on the surface is then valid, but what happens underneath is of no consequence is problematic in spite of the large heat capacity of the deep ocean.
The study is extremely valuable in showing the causal connections leading from the areas they constrained. This, in turn, shows modellers a likely new avenue for tweaking their parametrizations: try to make them duplicate the observed behavior of that part. If the connections shown in Kosaka and Xie are duplicated in these “tweaked” model runs, the results can be considered much more likely to actually replicate the real world. If they don’t, the reasons can be explored, allowing defects in the models to be exposed and fixed.
Pekka said:
Pekka,
That is a kind of assertion that could be made against any hypothesis. Name some theory and I could say (1) it may be right or (2) there may be something that the theory overlooks (i.e. it is an artifact).
So, I ask you: What would be the “artifact of the method” when applied to the oscillation-correction approach ?
As an example, I could say since the SOI is based on barometric pressure differences and pressures don’t represent temperature, that there could be some unknown connection that is missing. But what could that missing connection be? It certainly isn’t a missing energy conservation piece, or could it be?
WHT,
You have two indices, GST and SOI. There’s clearly a connection, but both have also their features independent of each other. Combining two separate effects adds to the uncertainty in some respect even when the combination has less variability.
Reducing variability by data manipulation is useful but adds always also to the risk of misinterpreation. The reduction in uncertainty is often deceptively large.
Loehle and Scafetta on Climate Change Attribution
Loehle & Scafetta 2011 nailed it as far as curve fitting. Perfect frickin’ fit to HadCRUT4 from 1850 through present including the current pause and all the others.
Four simple components. The first three through the entire period and the last beginning in 1950.
1) A 20-year harmonic cycle about a mean of zero with a peak-to-peak amplitude of 0.1C. 1850-present.
2) A 60-year harmonic cycle about a mean of zero with a peak-to-peak amplitude of 0.27C. 1850-present.
3) A linear warming trend of 0.014/decade. 1850-present.
4) A linear warming trend of 0.066C/decade. 1950-present
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/loehlescafettawuwtfigures01_page_2.jpg
No one, and I mean NO ONE, has done better than this with components as simple.
wow a productive discussion. i was afraid when i started reading this but so far it has turned out ok.
It snows more when oceans are warm and wet and it snows less when oceans are cold and frozen.
This is what the models are missing.
They lower Albedo as waming occurs until it is all gone.
Warm times is when ice is replenished. Look at Oct of 2012 to may 2013. Much snow fell after the record open Arctic. This always happens. Warm oceans result in snow accumulation. Frozen oceans allow the sun to remove more ice than gets replaced.
Pekka,
The risk of some dunderhead misinterpreting this approach is a risk that I would gladly take!
The Loehle paper is a POS.
They don’t understand how to interpret the knee in the CO2 forcing function, and so mess up the sensitivity badly.
WHT,
Another point is that finding that the new index has less variability is an indication of strong correlation, not an explanation. It tells only that whatever is the cause of the variability affects both GST and SOI and that those influences are approximately linearly proportional.
Dear Judith Curry,
I’m a retired public school teacher in Toronto who has been following your advice for a few years by somewhat reluctantly engaging various climate change sceptics and outright deniers in online media blogs and comment threads but when I encountered your Oct 1 piece entitled “Kill the IPCC: …” in Canada’s Financial Post, I realized I had been following the advice of someone who has become something other than an impartial observer of the “climate change wars”. So I am now attempting to ‘engage’ you too.
I don’t know if you had a choice in that aggressive, sensationalist title for your piece which I see is also here on your website but entitled “IPCC diagnosis – permanent paradigm paralysis”.
No mention of “KILL” here. That “KILL” headline has been gleefully snapped up by hordes of conservative, business-oriented, pro-tarsands and pro-Keystone climate change sceptics and deniers here in Canada, most of whom know nothing about you or your work or the work of thousands of your fellow scientists who have contributed to IPCC reports. These hordes have found a new champion who happens to have a position of some standing in the climate science community … Judith Curry. Until now these Canadians have had to make do with “experts” like Ross McKitrick, Steve McIntyre, Tim Patterson and Tom Harris, none of whom are climate scientists, none of whom chair atmospheric science departments or give testimony at congressional hearings on climate change policies.
Needless to say this has been deeply disturbing to an “ordinary Joe” (with 5 grandchildren) who has made an effort to understand the science and the politics that underlie the climate change “debate”, especially since my country has become such an important player in the fossil fuel business with its tarsands and pipeline industries that affect us all, so I’ve tried to find out more about Judith Curry’s recent contributions to the debate, not so much the hair-splitting, angels on the head of a pin, esoteric dissections of graphs and stats that I see here on your website but the ethical stance that you take on the larger issue of “killing” the IPCC and all it represents. I have now read the 2010 Scientific American Lemonick “heretic” article about your evolving views and the Richard Harris NPR interview of August 2013 and have been mulling over them for a few days.
For example, in the NPR piece …
Harris;
Of course doing nothing to address climate change is actually doing a lot. Carbon dioxide levels are growing fast in the atmosphere and are destined to double or triple over pre-industrial levels. Curry acknowledges that.
Curry;
“I don’t know how concerned I should be about it — on what time scale that might happen, whether that’s 100 or 200 years, what societies will be like, what other things are going on with the natural climate,” Curry says. “I just don’t know what the next hundred or 200 years will hold, and whether this will be regarded as an important issue. I just don’t know.”
Harris;
Advocates for action say we shouldn’t run that experiment on our planet. Curry’s response?
Curry;
“Well, I think the experiment is going to happen whether people say we should run it or not. We’re not going to convince China and India and other developing countries not to burn fossil fuels.”
What you fail to mention in your “uncertainty” and your hopelessly pessimistic comment about China and India is that the carbon footprint of the average American is 19 tons of CO2 per capita. For China it is 4.5 tons p.c., for India 1.5 tons p.c.. (source; http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/)
Shouldn’t you be trying to convince the average American not to burn fossil fuels at a rate which is 4 times that of the average Chinese and 12 times that of the average Indian, instead of advising them to dismiss IPCC reports? You are a citizen of a country which is “running the experiment” FLAT OUT and here you are in this Financial Post article talking in NO UNCERTAIN terms of “killing” the IPCC! In essence you are telling your fellow citizens and mine (Canada; 17.3 tons p.c.) to ignore thousands of your fellow scientists who contribute to the IPCC and that we North Americans might as well keep on burning those fossil fuels at a vastly higher rate than any country in the world because the IPCC isn’t 100% certain that such action/inaction is causing global climate change! Your sense of entitlement is mind-boggling as it is in so many of the comments of your trumpeting, new-found supporters on the comment thread of the Financial Post article.
In the NPR piece you mention that you are a Prius-driving “fanatic” about energy use but that you don’t have any “big answers” for others. Very commendable. You have manged to compartmentalize your scientific work from your ethical stance, yet “killing” the IPCC you don’t see as a “big answer” or see it in any ethical light? With all due respect, as an educator, I find this kind of prevarication pedagogically and ethically bankrupt.
It is a great pity you couldn’t be interviewed by the late Christopher Hitchens who said …
“The argument about global warming is not whether there is any warming but whether or not and to what extent human activity is responsible for it. My line on that is that we should act as if it is, for this reason, which I borrowed from Jonathan Schell’s book on the nuclear question, The Fate of the Earth: We don’t have another planet on which to run the experiment. Just as we don’t have a right to run an experiment in nuclear exchange on this planet, we have no right to run an experiment in warming it either. So if it turned out to be that there was no severe global warming threat or that it wasn’t man-made, then all we would have done would be make a mistake in analysis – which we could correct from. But if it turned out that there was and we didn’t do anything about it, then it would be too late to do anything at all. And that would lead to disaster.”
Perhaps the next time you go to Lake Tahoe to cool off, you should sit, not on a chunk of granite, but under a tree if you can find one that hasn’t been burnt …
http://www.rgj.com/article/20130927/NEWS06/309270059/-450K-planned-restoration-American-Fire-area-west-Lake-Tahoe?nclick_check=1
… and meditate a while on the consequences of your most recent mainstrem media article.
Regards,
Frank Kelly
Frank Kelly – absolutely spot on, + a bazillion.
“It is not my fear that newspapers will die,” he said. “My only fear is that the craft of witnessing and reporting on the truth will die.”
It’s good news is that Mr. Kelly is retired. He won’t be indoctrinating any more Canadian children in progressive dogma as science. The bad news is that his colleagues who continue to teach, throughout western countries, are as brainwashed as he.
Funny how government paid employees are willing to experiment on a massive increase in government, at the expense of all those who are not.
The globe is cooling, Frank; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
======================
I sort of admire Frank Kelly and I’ll try to explain why. My first instinct was snark about run on sentences, and before I’ll finish we’ll both wish I’d constrained myself within the parameters of snide.
But Frank has something so few of the regular alarmists here have, and that is the stink of authenticity. No need for deviousness, here. He lays out the standard package of disinformation as if he has no clue to the errors in it.
This is the challenge for the skeptics, to acknowledge this vast pool of earnestly deceived folk, and to gradually address this glacier of ignorance. Too often, I’ve just caved and suggested that the person at the other end of the conversation just observe the thermometers.
On second thought, Frank’s just a bot, and should concern itself with thermometering.
===============
Just a just a just there.
================
surprise, a retired teacher is a moral scold.
Mr Frank Kelly,
I don’t know what kind of influence Dr Curry will have other than irritating those noble, saintly, and brave soldiers of the Climate Wars but I do know THEY are having an effect on public mental health:
http://www.examiner.com/article/climate-change-causes-meteorologist-to-cry-stop-flying-consider-vasectomy
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/02/09/climate_change_takes_a_mental_toll/?page=full
re “noble, saintly, and brave soldiers of the Climate Wars” or whatever …
You find suicides among farmers in drought-stricken areas of Australia grist for your sarcasm mill?
Nature has always been cruel to farmers; but no that wasn’t my intention. I had heard about the meteorologists breakdown and I remembered hearing there was a whole psychosis related to global warming so I quickly linked the Globe article. To tell you the truth I didn’t read the whole thing. My bad.
My point was is that all the name calling and scare mongering has produced a result. It is being done to advance a political agenda. The IPCC purposely tweaks their reports to enable the movement. If they succeed in rapidly taking away energy sources it will have far greater consequences and cause many, many more suicides and cause greater poverty. Real humanitarians that group!
The CO2 problem is real but it’s too late and too painful to stop it now. If they want to do something as suggested at the end of that article they should stop wasting millions on bogus scare mongering reports and insisting people go back to stone age living and start working (and using taxpayer money) on real solutions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal#cite_note-Global_Status_of_BECCS_Projects_2010-11
Sorry if I offended you and for that matter Mr Kelly with that flippant no context post.
> surprise, a retired teacher is a moral scold.
With CA’s janitor, that makes two data points.
kim,
“He lays out the standard package of disinformation as if he has no clue to the errors in it.
This is the challenge for the skeptics, to acknowledge this vast pool of earnestly deceived folk, and to gradually address this glacier of ignorance.”
Welcome to the world of default progressives. They make up about 40% of the electorate. Most “moderates” and “independents” suffer from a slightly less virulent form of the condition.
Frank Kelly,
I find it difficult to have a serious discussion with someone who would try to push this point of view:
“What you fail to mention in your “uncertainty” and your hopelessly pessimistic comment about China and India is that the carbon footprint of the average American is 19 tons of CO2 per capita. For China it is 4.5 tons p.c., for India 1.5 tons p.c”
Do you know why China and India have these lower “footprints”? It is called subsistence level existence. It is nost certainly not due to either nation having pursued superior technologies or policies. Nor it is a case of the average Chinese or Indian being more environmentally aware. Although I could make the case they are very aware of their current environment and living conditions, which is exactly the basis of Dr Curry’s pessimism. You see Mr Kelly, the average Chinese and Indian citizen desires the same level of existence as the average Anerican, European, Korean and Japanese.
By raising this point you are basically arguing for the US to adopt a lifestyle on par with the average Indian or Chinese. Not acknowledging this indicates you are either disengenious or simply lack sufficient intellect to discuss the issue.
timg56,
Being a default progressive means never having to think about what you say. You just regurgitate what you have been taught since preschool.
“Perhaps the next time you go to Lake Tahoe to cool off, you should sit, not on a chunk of granite, but under a tree if you can find one that hasn’t been burnt …”
What do teachers make?
Mistakes.
The American Fire, which wasnt caused by global warming, was miles from the Lake.
Perhaps the Canadian retired teacher needs a lesson in geography.
He should read read read.
tmg.
the problem with the moralizing canook is that he is looking at tons per capita.
photons dont give a rats ass about the tons per capita.
However, if the moralizing old coot, would like to press the point, canada is a worse sinner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
Frank Kelly,
US per capita carbon was 17.3 tpy in 2012, China was 7.2 tpy. The ratio is 2.4, not 4. And it is dropping fast. Explains Judith’s resignation re: future trends.
Just read Frank Kelly,
Don’t make eye contact, back away slowly.
yes, evasion, the M.O. of most ‘skeptics’ on this site
Frank Kelly says:
McKitrick testified before a Canadian Senate committee on Dec. 15, 2011. Here’s a link to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMQk-q8SpBU&feature=related
The WUWT thread on his testimony is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/01/canadian-senate-testimony-skeptic-side-now-being-heard-in-canadian-politics/
PS: Tim Patterson also testified at that Senate committee hearing.
Kelly missed Patterson and McKitrick re senate hearings but that only reflects the fact that the Canadian senate is filled with Harper appointees who support his muzzling of real climate scientists.
BTW you left out the link to McKitrick’s testimony.
Sorry, I see the link now on Judith Curry’s website.
The US has reduced its emissions more than the EU.
AR5 lists 800 contributors, down considerably from AR4. And only a fraction of those contribute to the WG1 portion, on attribution, which is the topic under dispute. The other two sections just take AGW as a given.
800 scientists in IPCC “working group”, yes, but surely there are thousands of scientists in all these bodies below, all of which endorse the consensus (oops, dirty word on this site?)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
list copied from …
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
#1 – Be careful about quoting SkS – they love dressing up in nazi uniforms. So they are hardly authoritative.
#2 – The ORGANIZATIONS endorsed it, not all the member scientists. Learn to tell the difference.
But the governmental representatives (from environmental departments) were the ones who ignored the scientists and rewrote their SPM, adding vagueness and dissimulation. THAT’s why the IPCC is no good. For more on the activists’ thumb on the IPCC’s scales,, see Canadian journalist Donna Lafromboise’s book, <The Delinquent Teenager . . ., here:
http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380773176&sr=1-1&keywords=the+delinquent+teenager+who+was+mistaken+for+the+world%27s+top+climate+expert
What you fail to mention in your “uncertainty” and your hopelessly pessimistic comment about China and India is that the carbon footprint of the average American is 19 tons of CO2 per capita. For China it is 4.5 tons p.c., for India 1.5 tons p.c.. (source; http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/)”
That appears to be older data.
Here is says, in 2010 China was 6.2 tonnes and India: 1.7. And US
17.6 tonnes.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
Also:
“China, the world’s most populous country, average emissions of CO2 increased by 9% to 7.2 tonnes per capita, bringing China within the range of 6 to 19 tonnes per capita emissions of the major industrialised countries. ”
And:
“In the European Union, CO2 emissions dropped by 3% to 7.5 tonnes per capita. The United States remain one of the largest emitters of CO2, with 17.3 tonnes per capita, despite a decline due to the recession in 2008-2009…”
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm?id=1410&dt_code=NWS&obj_id=15150&ori=RSS
And above appears to be 2011 data.
So in 2011 US is 17.3 tonnes and China is 7.2 tonnes per capita
compared to your numbers of 19 for US and China being 4.5 tones per capita. And: “the top emitters contributing to the global 34 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2011 are: China (29%), the United States (16%), the European Union (11%), India (6%), the Russian Federation (5%) and Japan (4%). ”
I think it’s a possibility that should considered is that US keeps better track of it’s CO2 emission than China.
This could due to incompetence, a general lack of interest, and motivation to suppress information- as, due to the fact of the Chinese government long term policy of censoring their entire population, only a fool would easily dismiss such a possibility.
And it simply can be difficult for that government to keep accurate an measurement. And there been reports of the difficulty of getting timely reports from China.
But any case, China is rapidly increasing it’s CO2 emission. And in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
US in 1990 was 19.1 and reach high of 20.0 in 2000, and 17.2 in 2009
Canada in 1990 was 16.2 and reach high of 17.5 in 2000 and 15.3 in 2009.
China: 1990: 2.2 and it’s high is 5.3 in 2009
[per capita]
“Shouldn’t you be trying to convince the average American not to burn fossil fuels at a rate which is 4 times that of the average Chinese and 12 times that of the average Indian, instead of advising them to dismiss IPCC reports? You are a citizen of a country which is “running the experiment” FLAT OUT and here you are in this Financial Post article talking in NO UNCERTAIN terms of “killing” the IPCC!”
Killing IPCC would an act of mercy.
I rather it twist in the wind.
Besides, it not as if US is actually going to defund IPCC, and US should defund EPA first.
The EPA cost tax payers far more money, and as wildly out of control as is the IRS. At least IRS does some things which could thought by rational people as of some use.
In terms of priorities, it should be killing the EPA, then the IRS, and then IPCC.
As for as attempts at brainwashing people, that not really doing at good in terms of reducing CO2 emission. If want to reduce CO2, get more natural production and enable more nuclear power use. It’s really matter of obvious government policy not being taken due to the political pressure from wacko environmentalists.
Oh frack!
“get more natural production”
Should be:
get more natural gas production.
So more fracking, and vigorously join Japan in there attempts
of getting natural gas from the ocean.
How about trying this: Plot global temperature (the one that best represents what the models try to predict) against all the models, where each model’s prediction is shifted up or down by a constant so that its predicted temperature matches actual temperature at the date the model was run.
Frank Kelly, stop “engaging” and start listening.
WebHubTelescope (@whut) | October 2, 2013 at 11:00 am |
You didn’t read the paper obviously. They don’t give a sensitivity and make no attempt to separate land use, aerosols, methane, CO2, chlorofluorocarbons, or any other individual anthropogenic forcings.
You’re very dishonest which is typical of warmists but you’re more dishonest than average for your kind.
What Frank, you dis on Ross and Steve, but fail to dis on that great Canadian climate expert David Suzuki??? Tell me again How Judy Curry shouldn’t have a say.
No problem with Judith Curry, McKitrick, McIntryre etc having a say as long as the public knows that theirs is a tiny minority view within climate science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png
I think it would make you sick to understand that these models are neither validated for purpose or verified for performance. They are playtoys, toy trains to run on circular tracks, puffing around the Knob of CO2 Control, and the embankments of steep water feedback.
=======================
Choo choo choo choo
Finding a good fit over a period longer than 30 years (typically 1970 to 2000) would be quite impossible.
Best proceeding would be to use a real Monte Carlo approach, with something like 10 000 runs.
I’m pretty sure that runs providing best fitting over a large period of time will only be those combing :
● Lower range of CO2 sensitivity
● Lower range of positive feedbacks / warming forcing
● Higher range of negative feedbacks
….
Yes models do not duplicate reality and natural internal variability perfectly– they are models! They are always wrong, and they are always evolving. What is grossly left out of the conversation (at least here) is how extremely inaccurate any model would be if the effects of anthropogenic warming over the past century are removed. Skeptics to AGW should understand this essential fact– you can’t come anywhere close to duplicating the actual temperature trends of the past 50 years without including the increased forcing from the human carbon volcano.
So, how cold would we now be without the effect of Human GHGs, and how much faster would it be cooling, now, than it is?
=========================
See:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
Skeptical Warmist:
Why does that plot go only to early 2000s?
Why is the “Zero” baseline different than say in figure 1.4?
The beauty of this is that the higher the sensitivity, the colder it would now be without human ghgs.
==================
So looking at Skeptical Warmist’s graph, and the AR4 trend above, the following is roughly what is shown:
Using the AR4 graph above shows an increase of .4 degrees “C” between 2000 and 2013 (roughly). As there has been no warming since 2000, the the temperature graph would be .4 degrees below the “Zero” baseline in that Warmist’s graph.
NOAA is offline, but using this wikipedia graph, the temperature dot on that graph would be at -.6 degrees “C”.
I think that’s down around LIA temperatures. Brrr.
Yup. For that I’ll take your next turn to go get a log.
==
The natural forcings only simulation will have to make an upside-down hockey stick in the next decades to make room for the anthropogenic forcings. If the AGW consensus lives that long. Interesting times.
So, the logic is: build a model around anthropogenic CO2, and it works just swell over some tuning period. Now, if I remove CO2 forcing it doesn’t fit reality any more. What a surprise!
In that same vein: if we spend 99% of climate research funds on projects looking for CO2 forcing feedbacks, then we find lots of CO2 forcing feedbacks! I wonder what happens if we dump all that cash into sunspot/solar wind/aerosol nucleation research?
Global climate models are absolutely not “built” around the effects of anthropogenic CO2. It is but one if thousands of physical dynamics put into these extremely complex simulations.
Odd, isn’t it, that exaggerated water vapour feedback, is so key to the wrongness of nearly all of them. Co-incidence? What else could it be?
================
Built for purpose…UNFCCC purpose!
Kim,
If you think water vapor feedback is incorrect, create the maths to take it out of the models and send your suggestion to NCAR in Boulder.
Gates-
If the UN had held out a carrot of $1 Billion 20 years ago to the research establishment to prove the hypothesis that the sun was the driver of climate, do you really think that we would be arguing about the forcing from CO2? No way. It would be game, set, match..it is the sun.
Dennis,
If you have the math to plus into the GCMs, I am sure they’d love to see your theory,
RG to Kim…”If you think water vapor feedback is incorrect, create the maths to take it out of the models and send your suggestion to NCAR in Boulder.”
Obnoxious and revealing.
None of you commenters is listening to what RG is saying.
There is no way that a model can predict any one instance of a non-deterministic outcome.
The non-determinism of the global mean surface temperature (GMST) profiles is evidenced by the fluctuations of the curves. These fluctuations are more than adequately described by a combination of the SOI historical record and the sporadic volcanic disturbances. Once the SOI is subtracted from the GMST instance (i.e. the current data), what is left is a truer measure of the warming trend.
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9159/hpi.gif
Most of the skeptical commenters here have been poisoned and indoctrinated by the garbage that people like The Chief and Tomas spew regarding how to interpret chaotic fluctuations. It just isn’t that hard to remove the fluctuation terms.
You are pretty amusing, RG; how come the modelers haven’t taken the exaggerated water feedback out for themselves. It’s been obvious for awhile that that is one of the biggest problems with the models.
======================
The answer, RG, is from A. Lacis, on a recent thread. He repeats that water vapour triples the basic sensitivity. There is a great need for this tripling in order to get to the scary scenarios.
So why do you all keep falling for it? Ease your needs and your fears with one easy step; acknowledge the lower sensitivity that is increasingly being observed. Can’t live with that? Well, I can, and so can the most of the rest of us.
====================
The tripling is not to get to the scary scenarios, but just to get to the mean model prediction and what comes out of the observational studies, both instrumental and paleo.
That number is 3C for an ECS.
Webster, ” It just isn’t that hard to remove the fluctuation terms.”
Nope, pretty easy. What is hard is “properly” removing fluctuation terms. You removed SOI assuming it is neutral without determining the causes of SOI which may not be neutral. Throw in a crap load of caveats, you have a smoothed curve the gives you a TCR of about 2C.
From 1900 to 2013 solar had at least 0.2C of impact by most estimates and there would be some albedo feedback to that 0.2C. Since CO2 doesn’t create energy, only improves insulation, it would have amplified that 0.2C somewhat as is fairly obvious by the 30N-60N land amplification. So you have between 0.2 C and say 0.4C of “other” in your 2 C TCR, plus some feedback to the “other”. If you add a CO2 dT curve to you plot using a 1951-2010 baseline you can follow the curve back to 1900 to 1880 etc. and see what the “initial” temperature should have been. Follow that back to 1700 and you have allowed only ~0.3C for recovery from the little ice age. The little age was definitely pre-industrial, but was it the best of all climate worlds?
So yes, it is easy to remove fluctuations, aka over smoothing data.
Cappy, you bozo, the SOI reverts to the mean and the mean is 0, ZERO, the big Nada..
The TSI is exactly what you would expect for a 1 W/m^2 change at the sun, about 0.05C
Take your scientific-sounding word salad to the dumpster in the back alley. It’s always just so much garbage.
Webster, The pressure differential between Darwin and Tahiti does not have to net zero, evah.
The National Climate Centre (NCC) have a revised SOI calculation although still based on the Troup formula.
The formula for calculating the NCC 1933-92 base period SOI is:10x [PA (Tahiti) – PA (Darwin)] / Std Dev Diff where: PA() = the Pressure Anomaly = monthly mean minus long-term mean (1933-1992 base period)
St.Dev.Diff. = Standard deviation of the difference (1933-1992 base period)
You can force it to zero by changing the baseline, but you are confusing absolute pressure with differential pressure.
As for a solar dF of 1Wm-2 being limited to 0.05C, that would be the major issue in the models :)
Warmist Sez: “If you think water vapor feedback is incorrect, create the maths to take it out of the models and send your suggestion to NCAR in Boulder.”
I’m pretty certain that with tens of billions of dollars in grant money, shutting down warming study funds and access to publishing, and zealotry among a set of like minded people who are strongly vested in an outcome of no dangerous C02 warming, it would be possible to create a consensus report over the next decade and a half that shows C02 is not dangerous.
In the end, I would expect it to not ask for trillions to re-engineer the base energy source for industry and transportation either, costing trillions.
Warmist, it’s fine to have theories, and the like, but if you are going to ask the world to spend trillions, you better have done your homework, and completely vetted it. And I’m not talking about by a bunch of like-minded advocates, but by people trying to poke holes in it.
Your flippant comment “Why don’t YOU write the model,” can be overcome by some of the approaches Judith C. is advocating. Red team Blue team/courtroom adversarial process. But warmists have instead used group think, bandwagon arguments, and other nefarious techniques to prevent real criticism. Now you have to live with it, and that’s regardless of whether CO2 is dangerous or not.
Cappy, you are absolutely delusional if you think you can project your ineptitude on to me. I am not confusing anything. The absolute pressure is 1 atm at sea level, and the differences between two locations will oscillate around zero over time.
Everyone has to realize that Cappy has no scientific education beyond a high school diploma. Why he wastes everyone’s time is known only to him. There is no way I can ever look good arguing against Cappy, because it looks like I am constantly beating up on him. Curry has it easy, all a professor has to do is flunk a student out of class that is a non-performer. There is no such mechanism on a blog that is read by a bunch of agenda-driven zealots looking for anything that would prove climate scientists wrong. They all just love Cappy, cuz Cappy feeds them FUD.
What really matters with the SOI is the cumulative values – for good physical reasons. The point is over what timespans the cumulative value sums to zero.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/stockwell_cox_soi_zps5adc832d.png.html
‘These analyses suggest that a contribution from ENSO-
e ffects to global temperatures, when expressed as the cumulative sum of the SOI, can potentially account for 50% of the variation in global mean temperature in the last 50 years { a ‘large part’ of warming, as claimed by
McLean et al. [2009].’ http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1828v1.pdf
Chief,
I used the technique of McLean and his co-author, the major-league AGW-denier Bob Carter, to estimate the TCR for the global surface temperature and it comes out to about 2C for a doubling of CO2.
If you don’t like the fact that I used McLean and the big-time AGW-denier Bob Carter’s technique to determine this number then I suggest that you take it up with Team Denier.
You’re a big fat nothing. In no sense did you did anything like McLean et al 2009. You again show yourself to be a liar and a fool.
Chief
Face it. That your Aussie denier hero Carter could not admit that his technique could be used to deduce the climate sensitivity.
He really went out of his way to obscure the truth, that the SOI only measures fluctuations not the complete warming, which is what his paper seemed to imply.
Others such as Lean and Rind applied it in a more correct fashion, and then Kosaka and Xie followed through.
Without your simplistic babbling, incompetent so-called analysis and intellectual dishonesty – there is very little left to any of your commentary.
Chief,
That’s all you do is commentary, of the bloviating kind. Others of us actually get down and get our hands dirty.
You really should try to emulate what the skeptic Clive Best is doing. He is really not that far off from my estimate. His TCR is 1.7C and I get 2C.
We are slowly converging and reducing uncertainty, in spite of your attempts to be a large impediment to any kind of progress.
Snacks.
http://thepioneerwoman.com/cooking/2011/10/caveman-pops-aka-roasted-turkey-legs/
Sensitive dependence and structural instability – pay attention modellers.
‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation (see ref. 26).’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
Climate sensitivity.
‘Climate sensitivity is then defi ned mathematically as the derivative of an appropriate functional or other function of the systems state with respect to the bifurcation parameter. This defi nition is illustrated by using numerical results for a model of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. ‘
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
‘…there is increasing evidence that natural decadal variability has been the major determinant for recent global mean surface temperatures…’
It is increasingly evident by the nature of decadal variability that there is centennial to millennial variability. It is also evident that natural variations added to warming between 1976 and 1998 – even if you simply remove the ENSO end states from the record and then calculate trend. You can safely project the resultant through for several decades to get a result that isn’t all that scary.
The real problem with this is that climate is nonlinear – it shifts at decadal and longer periodicities to emergent states dependent on the interplay of control variables and sub-systems.
In such a system sensitivity becomes sensitive dependence and we don’t know what that is. The sensible answer for climate sensitivity is …. wait for it… γ in the linked diagram.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=0
From – Michael Ghil (2013), A Mathematical Theory of Climate Sensitivity or, How to Deal With Both Anthropogenic Forcing and Natural Variability?
Unless we can do both – and in a coupled non-linear context – it is simply wrong. Beam me up Scotty – we’re gonna need a whole lot more more teraflops of computing power.
Your simplistic so-called analysis is simplistic – much, much too simple. Math for the real system is hard. You are really just very stupid webster.
Hey Chief Waterballoon, How is this for simple?
I am using the famed AGW-denier Bob Carter’s SOI correction term to estimate the TCR and ECS from global temperature anomalies. I am also using Carter’s value of SOI lag of 7 months to align the SOI to the fluctuations of the global mean temperature record
The top curve below is the Transient Climate Response (TCR) based on GISS, and the bottom curve below is an estimate of the eventual Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on Curry’s BEST data.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/831/d62g.gif
TCR = 2C
ECS = 3C
These are also the mean model estimates based on paleo and instrumental evidence.
Simple as a pimple, and you’ve been popped balloon-boy.
Chief Hydrologist | October 3, 2013 at 4:05 am |
Very impressive post. Undecidability is a key issue for the programmers who support the modelers. Apparently, the programmers have been unable to get the attention of the modelers.
I introduced you to the paper webster. Again – McLean et al took the differential of temperature and SOI – worked out multiple lags – took the best correlation.
You have smoothed the curve and assumed the trend is entirely anthropomorphic. McLean et al suggested that such a strong influence in a pattern that has decadal variability may have added to the temperature trend. This was followed by Stockwell and Cox who found that 50% of the warming was ENSO.
You ignore solar, ENSO and any other factor in your simplistic so-called analysis. It is utterly worthless as are you. You are dishonest and a fool. It has been shown definitively yet again that you are a liar – intellectually dishonest and an actor in faith – and all you can do is repeat your loser blog science and babble on with your usual pathetic whine.
Webster, ” The absolute pressure is 1 atm at sea level, and the differences between two locations will oscillate around zero over time.”
Right :) Differential pressure is the metric not absolute pressure. If put your thinking cap on you might consider that static pressure, that absolute sea level barometric pressure, varies with wind velocity. That wind velocity is related to the differential pressure aka velocity pressure. Since there is about 5 degrees latitude difference between Tahiti and Darwin, there will always be a difference in their velocity pressures which impacts the surface pressure, unless the Earth stops spinning.
How’s the word salad? You would know webb. You are a liar and a fool with no respect for science or truth.
The modelers know that most of the models run too hot and if the pause (cooling since 2000) continues or IF they find the heat is not really going into the deep ocean FASTER, then over the next few years they will eventually start throwing out the worst models and drastically modifying the others which has not been done in awhile. The science will eventually work through this. The problem is that it is in the political domain now and one side still wants to say we must act immediately even though it is clear that the real world is saying it’s ok to study it a bit longer and try and come up with improved models.
Well, it’s generous to postulate that political monkey business caused the models to all be wrong, less so to consider that the problem is intractable with present computer capability.
==================
The current average TCR is 2C, which means that around half the models run too hot, and the other (approximately) half run too cold. That’s the nature of Monte Carlo analysis. If the median was 2C, then the number that run too hot and too cold is evenly divided.
The issue is further complicated by the fact that the current GMST record is but one instance of nature’s roll of the Monte Carlo die. If this instance runs too cold, then the entire evaluation is biased hot.
So what one does is remove the potential bias by applying a non-deterministic correction to the current historical GMST record. This correction is conveniently provided by the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), which shows no long-term bias. The result of the SOI correction (and any volcanic disturbances) is this :
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9159/hpi.gif
Note how the hiatus is explained, revealing the underlying long term trend.
Bill, from what I read ( a long time ago) the Models all ran cold, they tried all sorts of things to get Co2 increases to make them run warmer, to match their hypothesis. Until they tied in water vapor forcing.
RG, it’s not my job to fix the Models, it’s bad enough I have to find proof they’re wrong, the climatologist should do their job and validate their models. It’s sad they are so biased even when others show the Models are wrong they can’t even see the error of their ways.
http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2002/mcgraw/
http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2001/mconk/
The servers appear to be down, but they’ll be back sooner or later.
Mi Cro-Magnon
Nice hole you dug yourself there. If it wasn’t for positive water vapor feedback, we would be closer to 1C rather than 3C for an ECS.
Own gooooooaaaaal !
“we would be closer to 1C rather than 3C for an ECS.”
Exactly!
Good, at least you understand why the water vapor is bringing the ECS up to the current value of 3C.
Noticed a bit of argy-bargy here
1. What is grossly left out of the conversation (at least here) is how extremely inaccurate any model would be if the effects of anthropogenic warming over the past century are removed.
2. Global climate models are absolutely not “built” around the effects of anthropogenic CO2. It is but one if thousands of physical dynamics put into these extremely complex simulations.
no conflict here then.
Model projections, hmm …don’t know why this song
has been runnin’ through me head fer days …
“You can’t come anywhere close to duplicating the actual temperature trends of the past 50 years without including the increased forcing from the human carbon volcano.”
Just to follow up on this. If you remove anthropogenic forcing of the past century (i.e. hold CO2 at the preindustrial level of 280 ppm) and do test runs, including all known natural modes of internal variability that actually occurred over the past century, including solar, ENSO, PDO, AMO, and volcanic forcing, no model run even comes close to simulating the climate after about 1960, with huge divergence occurring in about 1980. So if AGW skeptics have something else that is quantifiable and based on something that can be put into a climate model, they should send their suggestions (and math) to the NCAR in Boulder.
R. Gates, they have already run models with changes in heat transport. They started doing this decades ago. As you may know, if you bother to check my links, I have been showing a reconstruction of the Gulf Stream transport for some time now. It shows about a 10% volume increase from 1750 to 1950. According to some models this is enough to have caused all the warming since 1750 to the present. I noticed in the released final draft they state there is no evidence of a trend in AMOC or any of the AMOC components. Not that the evidence is weak or contradicted but that there is none. I am unaware if the authors have withdrawn their paper and I am also unawarre if the results have been disputed. I am waiting to see the references to this comment to see how they exclude the results of the paper I have been citing.
“It shows about a 10% volume increase from 1750 to 1950.”
—
Have all anthropogenic effects been removed from consideration? This coincides with the beginnings of the human carbon volcano.
Only AMO needs to be included. AMO of course doesn’t cause anything, it’s just a SST index for a specific world ocean region.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif
Yes, you said:
” If you remove anthropogenic forcing of the past century (i.e. hold CO2 at the preindustrial level of 280 ppm) and do test runs, including all known natural modes of internal variability that actually occurred over the past century, including solar, ENSO, PDO, AMO, and volcanic forcing, no model run even comes close to simulating the climate after about 1960, with huge divergence occurring in about 1980.”
But ¿how about those natural modes that you don´t know? You are just putting them aside, or you are saying that you know them all? How can you be sure about the effects human forcings, if you can´t list all natural forcings and ignore their effects?
Fact is that yoou are making models to prove what you believe, not to try to understand nature. And in order to do that, you are leaving behind facts that you ignore but that you pretend to know. In short, you are cheating.
For most of us, this is a straw-man. If Callendar’s model does a better job than most current models at reproducing the last century’s temperatures, at half the sensitivity to CO2, alarmists are out of business.
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for “lack of evidence to the contrary”), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
R. Gates, here is a graph that includes the Gulf Stream reconstruction. It doesn’t appear to match CO2 concentrations to me. What is your opinion? Take into consideration that recent measurements indicate there is currently no trend and the deceleration from the MWP.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n6/fig_tab/ncomms1901_F5.html
So, you are implying than all other non-human factors are included. Are you sure about that?
Nope, certainly all other non-human factors and feedbacks are NOT included in the models, only all KNOWN and QUANTIFIABLE factors. But even then, even if we could know all the factors, as Lorentz clearly displayed through his development of Chaos Theory, climate models would still diverge from reality over short time frames but that would not mean the dynamics are not correct.
Gates,
So what is the purpose of climate models?
Actually, never mind. Lets talk about limits. They are currently limited in their ability to provide regional forecasting or hindcasting. Yet this is exactly where they could of the greatest use. I am generally not a model basher. I believe some of the criticism have merit, but leave it to others to make those points. I don’t argue for getting rid of the models. What I do argue for is a refocus on how they are used. One does not have to be a climate specialist to recognize the benefits reasonable good regional modelling might bring. Yet despite asking the question many times, I have never gotten a response on what benefits GCM’s have provided us. I am not saying there are none. Just asking for someone to list a few.
I don’t think it is a very good defence to the charge that the models are crap to argue that it might be possible to make even crapper models.
Sort of misses the point bigtime. They are still crap.
You seem to not understand the limits and purpose of model simulations.
“R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
You seem to not understand the limits and purpose of model simulations”
The purpose is to stop humanity from burning fossil fuels and the limitations are self evident.
If you really believe that Doc you’ve gone a long ways down the rabbit hole.
That’s nonsense! If you assume that the actual temperature trends are caused by the ‘human carbon volcano’ and build your models around it, then if you remove the ‘volcano’ from the models, of course you can’t come anywhere close to duplicating the trends.
That’s not how the global climate models are built Edim.
That’s exactly how they are built R. Gates!
You are confused between built and run, take my truck for example and fill it with diesel, how will it run?
Good or crap?
Same model, initialized and run to show stability at pre industrial levels of CO2 and other forcings, then run with actual and projected CO2 and other forcings.
Same model, different inputs, different outputs.
Gates is on to something.
R Gates, there are people who believe global warming is just a Gulf Stream reconfiguration as we see here.
Global models are built with physics. Without the natural CO2 effect, they wouldn’t get the surface temperature even within ten degrees, and it would snow in places that we know it doesn’t for example. It comes from radiative transfer models where atmospheric composition is critical. Increase the CO2 by 40%, as we have, and obviously there is a big impact. It is, as Lacis keeps saying, just physics, and it is a control knob.
What an odd comment. What do you suppose heat transport models are based on, psycology? I’m guessing physics also but I could be wrong. Here is a presentation by Brian Rose from the NOAA. His degree may be in the psycology of ocean waves, I’m not sure, but his talk is interesting regardless.
“What is grossly left out of the conversation (at least here) is how extremely inaccurate any model would be if the effects of anthropogenic warming over the past century are removed.”
If the models are extremely inaccurate for the near past and present with the alleged warming effect added in, then the models with the alleged warming effect added in are extremely wrong.
If the models are also extremely inaccurate for the more distant past when the alleged warming effect is removed, then then the models without the warming effect are extremely wrong.
Taken together, this demonstrates that, irrespective of the alleged warming effect, the models are extremely wrong. This is likely because the alleged warming effect is extremely wrong, and the models were constructed around it.
“Skeptics to AGW should understand this essential fact– you can’t come anywhere close to duplicating the actual temperature trends of the past 50 years without including the increased forcing from the human carbon volcano.”
Nonsense. That you have not done something is not proof that it cannot be done.
And BTW, the problem need not be with the anthropogenic carbon forcing. It is with the assumed (positive) and neglected (negative) feedbacks, in addition to the other things that IPCC now admits are extremely wrong in the models, like solar factors.
JJ is on to something.
The silence is deafening. Thank you JJ but maybe you have to add an RSVP.
No, we get it, the models are extremely wrong.
there is empirical evidence for the positive forcings and feed-backs.
I could post it but it doesn’t matter, some people will stick with their groupthink no matter what.
Ice cometh,
ice goeth
sun shineth,
snow snoweth,
green shoots groweth,
cold winds bloweth.
beth
Not really, Gates. There’s a background trend since 1850 of 0.015C/decade that may be anthropogenic and/or may simply be rebound from The Little Ice Age. There’s a background trend since 1950 of an additional 0.066C/decade. This may be anthropogenic and/or caused by The Modern Solar Maximum which began around 1950 and ended around 2000. The next 10 years or should allow us to empirically gauge the import of the solar maximum.
David,
The recovery from the LIA was complete by 1900 at the latest (and that’s being generous). You can’t take the warming trend since 1850 without including some LIA recovery. The forcing from anthropogenic CO2 and it’s contribution to the energy imbalance of the planet slowly ramps up in the 20th century, becoming evident by 1960, and strongly influencing climate by 1980. Of course, as pointed out by many (including “warmists”) around 1980 (1976-77 to be exact) was the period of the so-called great “climate shift” whereby we saw a warm PDO mode kick in and more El Nino activity and more heat moving from ocean to troposphere. This undoubtedly contributed to the warming of the 1980-2000 period in the troposphere, just as the current cool PDO, along with the sleepy sun and increased aerosols are dampening the rise.
The big question now becomes how much is anthropogenic forcing affecting the natural internal variability that formerly (prior to the mid-20th century) was driven by solar variability and ocean cycles.
R. Gates – Just curious. What is the basis for the belief that the recovery from the LIA was complete by 1900?
stay tuned, LIA post coming shortly
R. Gates has unearthed a rock with a bronze plaque on it, proclaiming and celebrating the end of the recovery from the Little Ice Age. I’m negotiating to get it for my museum, but he’s awfully attached to it.
==============
Gatesy,
“becoming evident by 1960, and strongly influencing climate by 1980. Of course, as pointed out by many (including “warmists”) around 1980 (1976-77 to be exact) was the period of the so-called great “climate shift” whereby we saw a warm PDO mode kick in”
There’s no warming evident in the trend of daily minimum temps in 1960, it doesn’t show up in about 1973-1974 when the PDO kicked in.
there is no modern solar maximum.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/tsireconstruction_zps0ee199b5.png.html?sort=3&o=7
Phil, They need 1900 to get to 3C.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_NyNYk1bKpU/UgqK0nPXhVI/AAAAAAAAJMY/qiCfBK-8ahI/s640/Tropical+SST+with+three+forcings+Law+Dome+0+start.png
0.8 C keeps the pre-industrial mean temperature based on Oppo in line. 1.6 C keeps the pre-industrial in sight. 3C means all CO2 all the time nothing but CO2 baby!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s9UcLZabetQ/UgxFnv_AhXI/AAAAAAAAJNI/q6iyTSDS0B4/s640/BEST+CO2+Volcano+with+GISS.png
4 C is gone. They would have to completely re-write history for that, but they think they can eke out 3 C for a while.
I appreciate the response Captain, but R. Gates seemed to indicate there was a scientific basis for the claim. “The recovery from the LIA was complete by 1900 at the latest (and that’s being generous).”
I was just curious as to what science led to that statement. I have no idea when the recovery was complete, so I am searching for information.
Little ice age? I thought it was the regional pleasantly cool anomaly. It came shortly after the medieval climate anomaly, which was not global and definitely not a warm period, and probably didn’t even happen.
Mosher, no more you mean? Yes, the modern maximum is ending. Interesting times.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
Phil
Here is my chart of glacier changes over the last 3000 years
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image010.jpg
Generally the glaciers started melting again (this time round) around 1750 with a more general retreat firmly noted by 18/60. There were some further cold spells but these were not necessarily worldwide.
Giss started in 1880 which coincided with one of these limited downturns.
The LIA was intended by the originator of the phrase Francis Matthes to mean the last 4000 years of renewed glaciation following the warmest part of the Holocene some 6000 years ago not merely a 500 year epoch commencing around 1300. The LIA was somewhat intermittent and not a continuous cold period. For instance temperatures around 1730 were around as warm as today
See page 48 of link
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LwvkmXt5fQUC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=francois+matthes+little+ice+age&source=bl&ots=K32EjFDTsD&sig=A3lfCGezdDCPuGQJwHuv5o1PoV4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lF9NUtRSqJzRBcDggcAH&ved=0CGcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=francois%20matthes%20little%20ice%20age&f=false
tonyb
@TonyB – Unfortunately your last link did not work.
But I can accept that the effects of the LIA (as it is known in the current AGW debate as the 500 year period) were eliminated by 1900. I was just wondering what the science or suppositions are that went into that conclusion.
Mosh
Don’t know what you mean by “modern”, Mosh, but if you look at the max. Wolf numbers of the solar cycles during the 20thC you see that these rose by over 150% over the century, reaching levels that were supposedly the highest in several thousand years.
The highest were SC19 (1955-65) at 190, SC22 (1986-96) at 160 and SC21 (1975-86) at 158.
The two most recent, SC23 (1996-2008) at 120 and SC24 (now) at 67 (provisional) have slowed down considerably from the modern solar maximum levels seen in the 20thC.
Max
and MoshPup must believe in it because it was confirmed by Tree Ring data among other proxies!! 8>)
Mosh
Solar Cycles (dates) and max. Wolf no.
SC12 (1880-1890): 62
SC13 (1890-1902: 82
SC14 (1902-1914): 64
SC15 (1914-1925): 105
SC16 (1925-1935): 80
SC17 (1935-1945): 115
SC18 (1945-1955): 152
SC19 (1955-1965): 190
SC20 (1965-1975): 108
SC21 (1975-1986): 158
SC22 (1986-1996): 160
SC23 (1996-2008): 120
SC24 (2008-?): 67 (prov.)
Max
Soory guys, you keep relying on old data.
When the work is completed you’ll see that there is no modern maximum.
http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/1st_ISSI_Workshop
http://www.leif.org/research/ISSI/Svalgaard2.pdf
Phil
I just tried the link from my comment and it worked fine. It comes from Prof Brian Fagans’ The Little Ice age.’
As for the science, I think that is at the heart of all this, no one really knows why the MWP begun or ended or why the LIA begun or ended.
That is frustrating for scientists who like certainties, hence the minimisation (but not elimination) of these sort of epochs and in particular the desire to believe that they were local rather than global in their impact. .
tonyb
tonyb – it worked that time. I guess Google books was just off line for a short period (google came up, but the book window said it was an invalid link the first time).
I understand about the LIA, and yes, I know that it is generally accepted that it ended in the mid 19th century. What I do not understand is the statement that we “fully recovered” no later than 1900. First, recovered what? Second, what are the yardsticks that pick that year as the recovery?
I guess that is my confusion.
philjourdan,
See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5559/1511.short
Given TonyB and your responses, I think I see my confusion. What you are saying is that the LIA was over by 1900 (generally accepted it ended earlier), not that there was any “recovery” by 1900 (I am not sure what a recovery would be).
Thanks. Both links (I think) were saying that and were helpful.
Phil Jordon, “I understand about the LIA, and yes, I know that it is generally accepted that it ended in the mid 19th century. What I do not understand is the statement that we “fully recovered” no later than 1900. First, recovered what? Second, what are the yardsticks that pick that year as the recovery?”
It is kind of funny really. The fully recovered assumes that whatever energy the oceans lost during the LIA was full regained by 1900 to 1940. Since the paleo estimate of the LIA depression is ~0.9C and it takes about 316 years for the oceans to regain 0.8 C of average temperature lost, the surprising OHC that is so “unprecedented” and alarming is likely due to recovery from the little Ice Age if the LIA ended in 1900 to 1940. That makes “sensitivity” extremely baseline dependent.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-kKGtvGhrhoo/Uk1QwU3fwiI/AAAAAAAAJws/cSdeXiOqBAM/s712/follow%2520the%2520shifting%2520baseline.png
If you assume that LIA recovery is complete by ~1900 you can use 280 ppm CO2 as a reference. Notice how the no feed back sensitivity is not a bad match excluding all other factors.
Since 4 C is pretty much out of the picture, this chart compares 0.8C, 1.6C and 3C to the ERSST SST and an Indo-Pacific Warm Pool reconstruction by Oppo 2009.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_NyNYk1bKpU/UgqK0nPXhVI/AAAAAAAAJMY/qiCfBK-8ahI/s640/Tropical+SST+with+three+forcings+Law+Dome+0+start.png
So what Gates and his sources are saying is that 1700 AD was normal or there was some magic involved. Likely solar magic, but they haven’t progressed that far yet.
But then, I am not a climate scientist. I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once. :)
Capt – VERY educational. At least if you are correct in what R. Gates means, then the “recovery” is the ocean heat content. Which from your facts and figures was probably not done in 50 years. The surface may have recovered that quickly, but not the entire ocean content.
Well, thanks to everyone for the explanations. It has been very educational.
Steven Mosher | October 2, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
“there is no modern solar maximum”
You’re right. My apologies. It’s a Grand Maximum.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL035442/abstract
Geophysical Research Letters Vol 35 Issue 20
For how long will the current grand maximum of solar activity persist?
It’s so well known it’s encyclopedic at this point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682608000060
Yer a broken little toy, Mosher.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001SoPh..203..179R
Bottom line. The AGW narrative is in a vast state of disarray. It began with ClimateGate which made the public aware of the lack of integrity and foul play by the scientists behind the “science” who were obviously more advocates for global political change than scientists with reliable data and well tested hypotheses regarding anthropogenic global warming. The Pause, which has (pardon my French) put the vaunted Climate Model Ensemble’s collective dick in the dirt, is the capstone on the house of cards built by the global warming advocacy movement. The very data sources ballyhooed as proving the globe was warming betrayed the scientists waving it about as it now shows the globe hasn’t been warming for 15 years despite anthropogenic pouring into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate the whole time. The unwashed masses may be less than scientifically literate but they have an unimparied ability to become cognizant of someone lying to them when the lie and the damning evidence is so clear.
Steven Mosher | October 3, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
Interesting.
I see an M4GW video in Lief’s future entitled “Hide the Incline”.
AHAHAAHAHAHAHH!!!!!!!!!!11111
I kill me sometimes!
Mosher,
Regardless of whether modern sunspot counts are comparable with those from 60 or more years ago (I’m familiar with Svaalsgard’s objections without needing the links) the sunspot counts of the most recent fews sunspot cycles are comparable. So we know for a fact that there is a recent drastic decrease. Thus your assertion is moot because regardless of whether sunspot counts in the more distant past are accurate we know for a fact there was a recent transition of large magnitude so we will still be able to observe what happens when sunspot count changes radically. QED
Thanks for playing but you should spend more time thinking and less time writing if you want to play at my level otherwise I’m just going to mop the floor with you like I did above.
Ice extent has been retreating since the little ice age.
Albedo has been decreasing since the little ice age.
Temperature has tracked Albedo since the little ice age.
We are now warm and the polar oceans are warm enough that the snow is now falling and Albedo has stopped decreasing. Temperature has tracked Albedo since the Polar Ice Cycle started developing.
Consensus Theory says ice comes and goes because something makes earth cold and warm.
The don’t understand the Polar Ice Cycle. It does the temperature regulation.
Good comment!!! The continued focus on CO2, and almost exclusively CO2, has allowed the models to miss their target, and to do so consistently. Something like trying to hunt Quail and continuing to aim at the squirrels!
“They don’t understand the Polar Ice Cycle. It does the temperature regulation.”
This is my opinion as well, smaller ice extents increase heat loss from the Arctic ocean to space (it’s negative feedback, not positive feedback).
I think this cooling cycle is also in some way tied in with the AMO and PDO cycles, as the Atlantic and Pacific “control” the flows of water into and out of the arctic. And the currents of the Atlantic and Pacific are controlled at least in part by the AMO and PDO.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/science/earths-oxygen-a-mystery-easy-to-take-for-granted.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=0
One of the discussions not occuring is about the discrepancy of the models to the temperatue record with respect to the changes. Ross’s remark needs to be extended to include backcasting. First, to Dr. Curry’s point of having to use temperature anomolies means that some of the models are not of this world. The physics is TOA and the amount of heat transfer is determined by temperature; and some models have the wrong temperature to match Earth. So, not only anaomolies are used but there is a basic assumption that the mean of the models has cancelled out certain errors of the individual models and runs.
One can find this discussion in both Ch9 and 10 of AR4. Thus changing the offset has the potential to change more than just whether they appear to agree, this change appears to invalidate a major explanation and basis for confidence in model projections of AR4.
Part of the background to this is that the agreement of the model mean and the temperaute record, among other things, was that Browning and Kreiss’s work proving the exponential increase in error in physics models of atmosphere due to the step size of time and x,y,z could be ignored. In other words, the models are not pure physics models, they are more like engineering models of bulk properties with physics packages. Their ability to hindcast and forecast (at that time) temperature was a necessity for claiming usefulness.
Another part was that temperature and the models are not truly independent. Thus the need for the models to backcast and have close agreement with the temperature record. There is a section in Ch9 AR4 relevant to this.
The models and the basis were such that the modles and temperature record were close. However, around the 1940’s an aerosol estimate was used to help get agreement that was contested. The offset has worsened this. Even worse, the aersol parameter used in AR4 was found to be substantially off. This is in AR5 Ch 8. The problem with RGaSW’s comment “you can’t come anywhere close to duplicating the actual temperature trends of the past 50 years without including the increased forcing from the human carbon volcano” is one can’t change the offset or the aerosols without calling into question of do the models make an acceptable backcast.
The changes are material.
Well, yes, Mjm, we should hope natural dominates, else we’d be colder and getting even colder, instead of warmer and getting colder.
===============
Kim
This from a paper in 2005 (I Think) from Phil Jones and Keith Briffa
This extract demonstrates a remarkable non co2 warming (with the exception of winter 1740) It shows the largest Hockey stick in the entire CET record
“The year 1740 is all the more remarkable given the anomalous warmth of the 1730s. This decade was the warmest in three of the long temperature series (CET, De Bilt and Uppsala) until the 1990s occurred (warmer by 0.3C and has since dropped sharply back). The mildness of the decade is confirmed by the early ice break-up dates for Lake Malaren and Tallinn Harbour. The rapid warming in the CET record from the 1690s to the 1730s and then the extreme cold year of 1740 are examples of the magnitude of natural changes which can potentially be recorded in long series. Consideration of variability in these records from the early 19th century, therefore, may underestimate the range that is possible.”
So it seems that via CET we can see that variability around as warm as now and much cooler than now falls within natural variability.
the 1730’s is often considered part of the LIA and was probably not as warm as the early 1500’s and much of the period from 900AD to 1200AD.
tonyb
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist: Yes models do not duplicate reality and natural internal variability perfectly– they are models! They are always wrong, and they are always evolving.
The problem is not that they are wrong, the problem is that they are demonstrably too inaccurate to be useful for anything other than discrediting at least one assumption built into each.
All the temperature models that fit reasonably well include a monotonic trend for the rise since the LIA and some quasi-periodic residual. Whether the monotonic trend is or isn’t related monotonically to the monotonic increase in CO2 doesn’t matter very much. Vaughan Pratt had a nice model with a strong relationship of temperature to CO2, others get nearly equal results with a simple linear increase since the LIA.
The “pause”, should it continue, will discredit every model that did not predict it, including every model that included a strong functional relationship with CO2 without strong residual (“natural”) processes of hypothesized influences (the gravitational thingies of Scafetta, for example), or processes of unknown causation.
See JJ | October 2, 2013 at 9:48 am above.
More, please and thank you.
@MM: The “pause”, should it continue, will discredit every model that did not predict it.
Why do you need “should it continue”? It already discredits those that didn’t predict it. And if it does continue it will discredit my model, as I’ve said before—it will be back to the drawing board for me.
+1
Well, I guess I meant ‘MjM’ above, moshe.
=========================
It is no longer “hide the decline”, but now it is hide the reality. By suppressing the failure of the models, they can (as Nuccitelli does) continue to say how good they are. They magically turn an F into an A.
We have been Model gated.
+1
So, if I am understanding this, they took the entire spread of models, which run 1 – 2C above and below observed temperatures resulting in a 2 -4C spread, and showed the actual temperatures in the middle of the envelope. That’s like firing a shotgun at a target and saying you got a bulls eye.
The distribution of the model runs in the Mauritzen et al., figure are very interesting. The distribution, around the ‘real’ temperature isn’t Gaussian, most of the distributions are under the ‘real’. This looks very much like the fit has been tightly constrained during the hindcast period, the model is being pushed during this period.
My guess is that during the hindcast period the model is artificially forced, and then in forcasting it relaxes.
A plot of the distribution of model points at 1990, 2000 and 2010 would be really nice; I would expect the distribution to change, being less skewed in 2010 than in the previous ‘fitted’ decades.
I believe the models are trained to the period 1970-1990 then are free wheeling thereafter. They are running too hot an after 22 years since 1990 actual global average temperature fell below the lowest model prediction.
Final Draft Fig. 1.4 is a “Hide the Hindcast”.
I’m only reading between the lines, but all this talk of the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations leads me to the jaw dropping conclusion that to make the models better fit the 1990-2000 observations, they have dispensed with model fit to 1970-1990 by separate DC shifts of each model.
This is another “hide in plain sight” caper. Instead of erasing one inconvenient temperature decline curve, they minimize the saturation of all 39 models in the calibration interval to hide the decline in fit to historical observations.
It is time to demand the R^2s of Each of the Models to the observations, before and after the shifts made to create the Final Draft Fig. 1.4. There is a smoking gun here, with 39 shell casings.
@DocMartyn 8:07am
A plot of the distribution of model points at 1990, 2000 and 2010 would be really nice
I think a plot of the distribution of model points at 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 would begin to unearth the bodies. Plot the cumulative distribution of model runs with separate series for SOD and Approved versions. You will find that the median of the Approved is lower than the SOD and that the spread is wider for the Approved.
The purpose of the models – I’m sorry projections, is to determine what is likely to happen in the future. When they don’t most people would conclude that the models were wrong.
However, if you say that we are really going to use a different set of models, which include observational data, you are flouting the generally accepted rules of hypothesis testing and scientific logic.
Were one to do this in medicine or in the pharmaceutical industry, one would be ripped limb from limb and would be investigted for fraud.
The fact tht the IPCC can come up with such rubbish shows that is definitely not fit for purpose, if it ever was. I cannot understand how they thought they could get away with this unless they believe that they are invulnerable.
I don’t think that some of the climate community realise how their antics appall scientists who work in hard disciplines.
. . . your uneasiness might arise from wondering how these models produce anything sensible given the temperature dependence of the saturation vapor pressure over water, the freezing temperature of water, and the dependence of feedbacks on temperature parameter space.
It is not only these specific temperatures that require a good resolution. All energy, mass, and chemical phenomena and processes that are parameterized on a driving potential require that the temperature level in each of the interacting systems be correct. Various combinations of ‘too high’ and ‘too low’ can lead to significant departures from the actual physical world.
I suspect that missing the temperature level especially affects the critical cloud parameterizations.
“What is wrong is the failure of the IPCC to note the failure of nearly all climate model simulations to reproduce a pause of 15+ years.”
I wonder, if only as many as 3 in 114 CMIP5 historical simulations produce a trend that’s lower than HadCRUT4, and hence, possibly, an (at least) 15+ years pause, how many of them would show at least one such pause, or already have done so, over periods either (slightly) earlier or later than the 1998-2012 period.
Since the ENSO cycle is unpredictable, as was the recent low solar minimum, the question of the models ability to reproduce a 15+ years pause over the 15 years leading to 2012 is different from the question of their ability to reproduce such pauses at some time or another.
Pierre-Normand, you are absolutely correct when you say
The ENSO cycle as described by the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) perfectly captures the last 15 year pause.
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9159/hpi.gif
The beauty of the SOI is that it contributes no bias to observations, as by definition it reverts to a mean of zero over long time periods. So by applying the SOI to the up-to-the-moment data, the vast majority of the short term fluctuations are removed and only the long term trend remains.
Anybody that understands the statistics of predictions will appreciate this property.
WebHubTelescope: The beauty of the SOI is that it contributes no bias to observations, as by definition it reverts to a mean of zero over long time periods.
Why is that? If over a long period of time that portion of the ocean accumulates heat, then the index (a statistic calculated from temperatures and pressures) running mean will change over that time span. There is some vagueness here in the word “long”, but surely the index could increase/decrease in the mean over a span of 175 years, or over the entire time that the index has been calculated and recorded.
You had a good interchange with a bunch of commentators up above. I didn’t join in but I read much of it.
It reverts to the mean because the SOI is simply the difference between the sea-level barometric pressures at two remotely located positions in the south pacific..
Differences in pressures cannot be supported for long times, so that this value oscillates about zero pressure difference. And then in turn, the ptessure correlates to a global temperature difference.
That is why it is useful in removing the fluctuations in the GMST record. And it is also telling us that the pause can not last for long, as that would mean an unacceptably long duration for a barometric pressure imbalance. Something has to give if history is the measure.
ENSO increased in intensity over the past 130 years.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=86
This is spatial variability that can’t be captured by indices of sea level pressure or temperature at specific points.
Wubby,
It would be really nice if you had any idea what you were talking about!.
Try another direction:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N40/EDIT.php
Chief,
So you admit that I can explain some/much of the red noise variability. One small step away away from the road to denial.
webby – from memory ENSO explains 70% of the variability – 80% in the tropics – and this was determined some time ago now. Best elucidated in the McLean et al paper I showed you. Are you now pretending this is new to me? Yesterday you again showed yourself to be a liar and fool. I see you are maintaining the lack of standards.
But unless you include the Sun early last century and clouds in the latter part – which are related to SST decadal Pacific variation – then you are nowhere near explaining surface temperature changes.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/tsireconstruction_zps0ee199b5.png.html?sort=3&o=7
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=31
ENSO is not noise – the decadal and centennial changes are not noise – everything in climate is deterministic, Unless you understand the nature of the regimes – controls and interactions between component subsystems with different characteristic periods – you are as usual nowhere near understanding climate change.
It’s likely red noise, a random walk within an energy well. Get over it, Chief.
The issue is the underlying GHG forcing, which we can extract by removing the natural red noise (ocean) and shot noise-like (volcanic) fluctuations.
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9439/3zy.gif
‘The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems | atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus
give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
It is more likely bizarre and quite meaningless babble from a liar and a fool.
Hey Chief,
We know how to remove the fluctuations and the pauses from the GMST by compensating the raw signal with a measure that represents the fluctuation term. A subtraction of the raw signal with the fluctuation term reveals the underlying trend.
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9439/3zy.gif
This gives a TCR of about 2C for a doubling of CO2.
‘These analyses suggest that a contribution from ENSO-
e ffects to global temperatures, when expressed as the cumulative sum of the SOI, can potentially account for 50% of the variation in global mean temperature in the last 50 years – a ‘large part’ of warming, as claimed by
McLean et al. [2009].
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/stockwell_cox_soi_zps5adc832d.png.html
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1828v1.pdf
You understand nothing at all webster – you are an ignorant poseur and a liar. Your comments are simplistic and dishonest. A woeful combination.
Chief Hydrologist: http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=86
could you please explain how that supports what you said it supports? I don’t dispute you, but I don’t follow the graphs.
WebHubTelescope: Differences in pressures cannot be supported for long times, so that this value oscillates about zero pressure difference. And then in turn, the ptessure correlates to a global temperature difference.
You are hand-waving and fudging on the word “long”. That is a possibility, but that’s all it is.
Chief,
Note that I used the technique of McLean and his co-author, the major-league AGW-denier Bob Carter, to estimate the TCR for the global surface temperature. This number comes out to about 2C for a doubling of CO2.
If you don’t like the fact that I used McLean and the big-time AGW-denier Bob Carter’s technique to determine this number then I suggest that you take it up with Team Denier.
[1] J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter, “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 114, no. D14, Jul. 2009.
Marler said:
Why don’t you take this up with Team Denier, because the famed AGW-denier Bob Carter used this technique in correlating SOI to temperatures. All I am doing is removing the fluctuation terms, without having to use an ordinary signal processing filter. This is a more of a model-based Kalman filter than a dumb filter.
[1]J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter, “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 114, no. D14, Jul. 2009.
In no sense did you do anything but scale the SOI to fit by eye – and assume the residual was all CO2.
Patently untrue, not at all like the analysis of McLean et al and pretty pathetic overall. You have shown yourself again to be dishonest – a liar and a fool.
Chief,
Everyone is using this technique. Join the club. It’s not eyeballing as one can use least squares or Eureqa to find the best fit.
Uh oh, I forgot. You are all talk and no action. You can’t seem to be able to lift a finger and do some actual analysis. We like to laugh at your ilk, the wannabes.
Matthew – here is the Vance et al 2013 reference.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim
You are a liar and a fool webster.
What you do is assume a delay and scale the SOI to smooth the curve.
Unbelievable lies and babbling is all you are good for. You are an absolute disgrace.
Very funny, Chef.
I am using the famed AGW-denier Bob Carter’s SOI correction term to estimate the TCR and ECS from global temperature anomalies. I am also using Carter’s value of SOI lag of 7 months to align the SOI to the fluctuations of the global mean temperature record
The top curve below is the Transient Climate Response (TCR) based on GISS, and the bottom curve below is an estimate of the eventual Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on Curry’s BEST data.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/831/d62g.gif
TCR = 2C
ECS = 3C
These are also the mean model estimates based on paleo and instrumental evidence.
How do you like them apples, Chef ? Tell me when you wake from your beauty sleep.
WebHubTelescope: Why don’t you take this up with Team Denier, because the famed AGW-denier Bob Carter used this technique in correlating SOI to temperatures. All I am doing is removing the fluctuation terms, without having to use an ordinary signal processing filter. This is a more of a model-based Kalman filter than a dumb filter.
You are avoiding the question that I asked and, as far as I can tell, addressing some other question that I didn’t ask.
Over what period of time can you expect all the positive and negative excursions of the SOI to balance out, and how is this known?
ChiefHydrologist: Matthew – here is the Vance et al 2013 reference.
Thanks but it is behind a paywall.
You just keep repeating you loser blog science. It has nothing to do with anything rational.
e.g. ‘These analyses suggest that a contribution from ENSO-
e ffects to global temperatures, when expressed as the cumulative sum of the SOI, can potentially account for 50% of the variation in global mean temperature in the last 50 years – a ‘large part’ of warming, as claimed by
McLean et al. [2009].
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/stockwell_cox_soi_zps5adc832d.png.html
This Pacific system added to temps between 1976 and 1998 and have cooled things somewhat since following an abrupt shift in 1998/2001.
Anything to avoid the real point hey? Including lying and abuse. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being and a scientific inept.
I think I have answered your question somewhere in the following extended blog post, replete with analysis and figures for you to peruse.
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
What I find so interesting in this entire discussion is that postulating a TCR of 1.7C puts one in the Skeptic camp, while suggesting a TCR of 2C places one in the Warmista camp.
As far as I can tell, the distinction between these two camps is based on whether the zero-mean random wiggles are removed before doing a regression analysis.
Amazing that there is so much agreement apart from how to deal with the noise.
That is some spin!
Facts:
1) warming since 1950 (HADCRUT4) is 0.11C/decade
2) CO2 since 1950 has increased from 310 to 400ppm
2) warming predicted by AR4 in 2007 is 0.20C/decade
3) since AR4 (2007) the trend has been 0.00C/decade
4) CO2 since AR4 has increased from 384 to 400ppm
Conclusion. AR4 authors and editors screwed the pooch and every additional year of ‘pause’ makes them look even more incompetent.
A man who makes an excellent Dinky Toy model of a red Ferrari does not know much about Ferraris. He knows a lot about making Dinky Toys.
Similarly, a man who makes a model of global climate…
Mosomoso,
That is great!!!
Mosomoso, a guy that can’t discuss the science, likely can not do the science.
Get yourself a mirror, buddy.
Depends on what you would rather have, a computer capable of running the latest climate models or a red Ferrari.
Yah, they run the climate models, and red Ferraris come out of the computer for the modelers, and dinky toys for the rest of us.
==========
+ 100
Absolutely the case. All the yearly and decadal wiggles in the GMST curves are due to a combination of SOI (i.e. ENSO) and volcanic activities (with a slight contribution from TSI). Both the SOI and volcanic activity is impossible to predict. So what one does is subtract out the SOI after it occurs and use that compensated or corrected temperature as a comparison to the ensemble mean.
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9159/hpi.gif
This is an obvious approach once one understands how well the SOI characteristic describes the majority of the global temperature fluctuations.
This method is interesting WHUT, but I think it also has a virtue that many contributors here have failed to appreciate in spite of the fact the Judith seemed, at least initially, very enthusiastic about the Kosaka and Xie Nature paper.
Since this method is guaranteed, by design, not to remove *any* net contribution to the long term trend, then it is completely neutral as to the source of the this trend. It merely smoothes the historical temperature curve from ENSO short term effects in a manner Judith approved of (when it had been performed by Kosaka and Xie) and the result is completely independent of the underlying fitted curve that you traced. So, whatever the real cause (or combination of causes) of the rising trend, it must have this smoothed shape. If the main cause isn’t CO2, but rather some cloud effect, cosmic rays, or some multi-decadal unforced internal-cycle (including possibly residual ENSO/PDO effects, in a manner Bob Tisdale suggests, or some combination with CO2 being a minor contribution), then it just is a strange coincidence that the net effect is almost exactly proportional to the forcing associated with the historical CO2 increase curve over the whole instrumental temperature record.
Yes indeed Pierre. It is actually a “cause neutral” estimator. The fluctuations could be caused by anything (including that of CO2) but that the actual causal attribution is only made after the unbiased SOI (and the sporadic volcanic disturbance) corrections are applied.
What gets my goat is that this is a perfectly valid way of reducing the uncertainty in outcomes, which I thought was the purpose of this blog !
Yet only a few people, you included Pierre, seem to understand this.
Well done WHUT you’re eliminated the noise and detected the GISS data adjustments ;) …….
FadingFool,
If that is the case, they haven’t done a good enough job with it. Ha ha!
Btw, the denier Bob Carter got a paper out of noticing this correlation, and it was with a different data set that used satellite readings.
Take it up with Team Denier.
R. Gates,
Your argument is circular. You say,
“Just to follow up on this. If you remove anthropogenic forcing of the past century (i.e. hold CO2 at the preindustrial level of 280 ppm) and do test runs, including all known natural modes of internal variability that actually occurred over the past century, including solar, ENSO, PDO, AMO, and volcanic forcing, no model run even comes close to simulating the climate after about 1960, with huge divergence occurring in about 1980.”
Which says that the model was tuned with a factor for CO2 forcing. Then if you take out the CO2 it no longer works. Well obviously. That isn’t an argument for CO2 forcing. Try taking CO2 forcing out of the model and then tune it to the base period. There that proves that CO2 is not the cause. (I know it doesn’t actually.)
You want another model. Try just looking at the trend from 1850 (Caused by who knows what. The best I can tell the models don’t get that right either.) and add in the ENSO, etc… variations and I bet you get a better fit than the models.
Another problem in your argument is the phrase, “all known modes of variability.” This is just another version of, “We don’t know the cause so we assume it is CO2.”
Models have been run simply keeping CO2 constant at 280ppm in the atmosphere, and run “raw” as it were, even plugging in known modes of internal variability after the fact, and the ups and downs of the internal variability matches of course, but divergence begins about 1960 and becomes very large about 1980. Again, the natural variability is there but not the long-term forcing. Such runs indicate BTW that LIA “recovery” was complete by 1900 at the latest.
Well, if you exclude the warming after about 1960 from the natural variability, yes. It doesn’t make ANY sense, but yes.
An the long-term trend.
Everything that EDim says, you should logically negate. Only then will it make sense.
But in this case, his logical negation went recursive.
Noticed a bit of argy-bargy here
1. What is grossly left out of the conversation (at least here) is how extremely inaccurate any model would be if the effects of anthropogenic warming over the past century are removed.
2. Global climate models are absolutely not “built” around the effects of anthropogenic CO2. It is but one if thousands of physical dynamics put into these extremely complex simulations.
no conflict here then.
1. No s***, Sherlock! If you remove the Earth from the center and keep the geocentric model (and the epicycles), it’s extremely inaccurate.
2. The models are absolutely built around the effects of anthropogenic CO2. What causes warming in the models? CO2, mostly. Cooling? Volcanoes, mostly. Now the consensus is discovering significant natural variability too.
Having myself done some mathematical modeling/simulation modeling of physical systems, I have always held that an unvalidated model (if you believe its predictions) is worse than having no model at all.
Checking whether a model can produce past history in no way validates it as a correct model of reality – in a few minutes I could program a ‘model’ that would reproduce past global temperature with complete accuracy – but would have no predictive ability at all. Yet climate science seems to have a different view of this…
Are computer models reliable?
Yes. Computer models are an essential
tool in understanding how the climate will
respond to changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations, and other external effects,
such as solar output and volcanoes.
Computer models are the only reliable
way to predict changes in climate. Their
reliability is tested by seeing if they are able
to reproduce the past climate, which gives
scientists confidence that they can also
predict the future.
UK Met Office publication.
This is not a circular argument; this is circular cheating. Shame on them!
Nowhere in the final WG1 Report do we see the honest statement that appeared in the Final Draft of the SPM:
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
Isn’t that the other way around?
Is it an honest statement though?
Do the models produce trends withing the uncertainty of the 10 year trends of, for example HADCRUT4?
Which is from -0.254 to +0.170 C per decade.
Pretty hard to miss that range
Gosh … why not chill-out, Kim and Latimer and philjourdan and RC Saumarez? Embrace the climate-change 5-Step program:
• Accept that cycle-chasing statistical analysis is the weakest part of climate-science, and will *never* improve.
• Accept that the IPCC’s dynamic models are the mediocre part of climate-science, and large dynamical models improve only at a slow decade-by-decade pace.
• Accept that the energy-balance models are the strong part of climate-science, being founded on thermodynamics, calibrated by paleo data, and verified by the secular rise in global energy-balance measures.
• Join with the brightest young researchers in embracing the strong science, and join with religious and political leaders in focusing upon sustainment as the key issue.
• Let go of denialism’s willful ignorance and hateful rhetoric, which (like alcohol addiction) is intoxicating for individuals in the short run, yet horrendously destructive to families and communities in the long run. That’s the main common-sense reason why climate-change denialism is for losers!
The above is The Sensible Center Of Climate Change™
So give the Sensible Center a try, kim and Latimer Alder and philjourdan and RC Saumarez!
No thank you. I would rather stick with proper science than embrace your rubbish.
Actially, FOMD, you show remarkably little insight into the World at large. I can assure you that in many fields what the IPCC has done would be regarded as fraud because it is a selective use of modelling to give a post-hoc impression that their models work.
If this were done as a part of a clinical trial, the trial would be halted and the perpetrators prosecuted.
Why not go away and learn something about proper scientific conduc,t ethics and preferably shut up.
Fan’s remarkably insightful for a piece of computer code. I wouldn’t have been able to do that. Not in assembler, anyway.
We all appreciate your frustration RC Saumarez! So few Climate Etc folks appreciate your theory that:
Thank you for sharing your novel conceptions of the scientific enterprise, RC Saumarez!
This is an online textbook for school children
‘Climate Change Models Predict the Future’
Although differing in degree, these three climate prediction models show similar trends:
The projected rate of global warming in the future is much larger than the rate of global warming during the 20th century.
Predicted rates of global warming are greater than any seen in the past 10,000 years.
https://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/esu501/esu501page05.cfm
So FOMD, the writer of this piece is lying and the publisher is hosting false information, as Models do not predict, but project.
Fannie
:) At least you make being wrong humorous. What would we do without you.
Thank you, Dennis Adams!
Yes, strong science and strong coalitions embrace comedy as a flexible binder that reconciles incongruities.
Whereas denialists embrace unyielding and/or cruel and/or hateful language, and reject humor that facilitates compromise.
So let’s keep smiling, Dennis Adams!
+1 for energy balance models.
Because they work so well predicting obesity.
Yes, outstandingly well.
Thank you for this energy-balance insight, Harold!
What about that skinny chick in the cubicle three doors down who eats donuts all day long?, Fanny?
Show me the fulcrum!
============
This question is useless without pictures! Does she radiate a lot of energy? Does she dissipate a lot of heat?
Donut energy has to go *somewhere*, Harold!
LOL … sometimes seeing is disbelieving, kim!
Fixed the link (apologies to kim! `cuz I messed-up the funniest-ever ‘spinning’ reply!)
LOL … sometimes seeing is disbelieving, kim!
Harold
“Because they work so well predicting obesity.”
An energy balance model tells us in the simplest form possible that burning all the fossil fuel we have is not a wise option under a wide range of estimates for ECS.
That’s about all the information you need to begin developing policy options.
The mistake, in my mind, is the belief that more complicated models will tell us anything more of interest, the beleif that with better models we will be able to scientifically tune a policy. The decision to try to make GCMs into information sources for policy, even now regional policy, has put too much pressure on a developing science.
Put another way, a simple energy balance model tells you that you have future problems under a wide range of scenarios, so start developing policies. The mistake is thinking that a GCM can help you fine tune policy. It cant. There is no fine tuning the policy.
Here’s my concern with an Energy Balance Model, first presuming we can and are actually measuring to the necessarily accuracy, we don’t have data for a long enough period of time to understand if it doesn’t vary with time, so even if it says there is an imbalance, that may very well be normal. And with all of the talk of varying albedo, it won’t be constant.
The simplest model is to take the observational record of global temperatures over the industrial age, and then see if that maps to the energy balance model of GHG theory. This theory predicts an ECS of about 3C for a doubling of ECS — and lower for TCR because of the heat sinking of the oceans:
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/831/d62g.gif
That fits use a correction term for natural fluctuations which increases the R^2 and reduces the variance.
As you can see, the ECS is still 3C which happens to match the mean of other models that interpret the paleo and modern instrumental evidence.
+1 for energy balance models
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
The misuse of ensembles of opportunity is incredibly stupid or fraudulent – and stupidity can never be overestimated.
Chief, how is it that when we eat more, and exercise less, we inevitably gain weight?
The common-sense scientific point is, energy balance methods are predictively robust!
Thank you for this fine example, Steven Mosher and Harold and Chief Hydrologist.
‘Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=69
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=32
Not for the first time – FOMBS – I suggest that you are utterly clueless.
The lack of decadal fluctuations is strikingly evident in sea-level rise rates, eh Chief?
Why is that, do yah think?
http://www.nc-20.com/pdf/2012GL052885.pdf
The ARGO steric rise is 0.64mm/yr in a period when mass was leaving the oceans. Why do you think that is so radically different to the altimetry – aye FOMBS?
Are there some actual rules about what data should be fed to a model and what the model has to do for itself? Surely there can be no discretion in fudging the starting point and reference period for normalization.
I have asked Ed Hawkins, but the answer was not entirely clear.
If a model claims predictive/projective capacity, then the model should have NO input data beyond the “reference period”. But what seems to happen is that the temperature data is normalized to observations over the “reference period” and the models are still fed parameters based on observations beyond the reference period and permitted to run as if giving a projection into the future, but actually being guided by input parameters other than temperature.
Perhaps someone closer to the models can answer.
Judith writes: “Comparing the model temperature anomalies with observed temperature anomalies, particularly over relatively short periods, is complicated by the acknowledgement that climate models do not simulate the timing of ENSO and other modes of natural internal variability…”
Models do not simulate ENSO….period. They create noise in the tropical Pacific, but it is not ENSO. See Guilyardi et al (2009):
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/guilyardi_al_bams09.pdf
Additionally they wrote:
“Because ENSO is the dominant mode of climate variability at interannual time scales, the lack of consistency in the model predictions of the response of ENSO to global warming currently limits our confidence in using these predictions to address adaptive societal concerns, such as regional impacts or extremes”
And there has been little improvement with the CMIP5 models. See Bellenger et al (2013):
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1783-z
Interesting paper (Bellenger et al). Thanks Bob.
Very well said and very important. Thanks.
Trite. The only guest post I did on this site was to describe the generic climate system as a potential energy well. The climate can fluctuate within this well according to statistical mechanics but the excursions can never get too large. That is a negative feedback on both the low and high extremes.
Thus we have the situation where the climate will revert to the mean, and the way that the climate fluctuates can be described by red noise.
Well, this is about as close a description to what the Southern Oscillation Index represents and to anything you will ever.find.
This is trite as well, but it is a great working hypothesis to build from.
The SOI explains nearly all the fluctuations and none of the trend. Take that to the bank.
WHT; “The climate can fluctuate within this well according to statistical mechanics but the excursions can never get too large.”
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard an alarmist such a thing.
Then you go and say; “The SOI explains nearly all the fluctuations and none of the trend. Take that to the bank.”
Yes, we are taking it to the bank, To the tune of billions, and your masters are asking for an additional option on trillions.With that in mind, you might want to be very precise, accurate, fully vetted with ALL questions asked by ALL. Fully discussed and agreed upon by ALL, without FOI malfeasance and obfuscation, gate keeping. lying, character assassination, ad hom, IRS, DOJ and EPA harassment, etc, etc.
Explain all trends in the known geologic record or STFU before your handlers ask for any more money.
The red-noise-only view – via artificial assumptions that fail simple diagnostics – ignores fundamentally-informative statistical properties of well-constrained observations.
John said:
Tough guy, eh?
Since you asked, I wrote this piece up:
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
Dr. Curry writes:
‘Using Figure 1.4 and this statement:
Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments.
to infer that the models have been able to simulate the recent pause is arguably an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Nor should this new version of Fig 1.4 lead you to think that “IPCC models are better than you think.” The problem is not so much with Figure 1.4, but with the statement above that interprets the figure. Nowhere in the final WG1 Report do we see the honest statement that appeared in the Final Draft of the SPM:
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” ‘
The IPCC behaves as if each graph that they publish is subject to change so long as the change is one that IPCC statisticians would recognize as reasonable. They never provide commentary on the graph that would rule out all such changes. Thus, the graphs that they publish are systematically ambiguous; that is, a graph published by the IPCC along with its commentary does not add up to one claim that is unambiguous. Therefore, the IPCC’s practice in effect reserves the right to substitute any new graph for a published graph so long as the IPCC’s statisticians find the change reasonable.
Any such practice that promotes a systematic ambiguity in published graphs is deceptive. The IPCC must adopt some standards that can eliminate this systematic ambiguity. My favored approach is to invite independent statisticians to approve each graph and its commentary before publication. Otherwise, the IPCC must attach to each graph a disclaimer that reads: “This graph and its commentary constitute a scientific claim only within the evolving framework employed by IPCC statisticians.”
Why the unsanitary impulse to deceive about the level of ignorance? It would seem that the repeated yielding to that impulse, and the repeated failure of that deception as seen in one Annual Review after another, is insane. They marginalize themselves, and for what? For power that couldn’t be kept anyway? For money, as if there were enough? For validation of a faith? Maybe that’s it.
==============
I do not have a ready answer now. In fact, let me add a question. Why do all of them behave as if they have no life beyond the IPCC?
In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/
For sure, first two motivate Big Carbon oligarchs and the later motivates Randian libertarians
But as for the science, perhaps it’s as simple as sober acceptance that “Nature cannot be fooled.”
That would make a lot of sense, eh kim?
Ummm, some of them are science and weather geeks ?
Fanny
You wrote to kim
Indeed!
Nature stopped warming despite unabated human GHG emissions, because Nature was not fooled into believing the climate models and their predicted climate sensitivity.
Now IPCC is trying to fool us into believing that the models were right.
That’s what this whole thread’s all about, Fanny, in case you missed it.
Max
Manacker, why does the sea keep rising?
Manacker, your spirit of inquiry is commendable. It is a continuing pleasure to help increase your appreciation of global measures of Earth energy-imbalance!
Fanny
Nature is showing us that it has stopped warming, as the globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature records tell us.
It is reasonable to expect that there will be a time delay until this starts to show up in reduced or reversed glacier and icecap melt / or rates of SL rise.
Let’s see what happens.
(Contrary to you), Nature cannot be fooled, Fanny.
Max
Here’s the von Storch link: http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
When Hans von Storch writes, “…we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level” (see, Ibid.)…
… I think what he is saying is that that only one in 100 projections could be said to be consistent with reality (i.e., adding 1 to the one projection found to be consistent and dividing by 100 equals 2%).
The present controversy, caused by the IPCC’s changes in published graphs, is serving the purposes of the IPCC. This controversy protects the IPCC from much greater difficulties associated with their latest collection of speculations, such as Trenberth’s “missing heat in the deep oceans,” which they are trying to pass off as substantive science. I respect the efforts of experts such as McIntyre who are trying to get to the bottom of changes in graphs but revealing the IPCC’s feckless commitment to systematic ambiguity in its publications is a much more important matter.
What I find most interesting about this is that we are even bothering to discuss, or consider, what Dana Nuccittelli has to say on this issue. This is a person who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as a climate scientist, and one who I’m sure many climate scientists would not wish to think of as a champion of their profession.
Is there no one in the higher echelons of the AGW climate scientist community willing to put their head above the parapet and nail their reputation/career to this particular graphic. There appears to have been a peculiar silence from individual credible climate scientists willing to defend this particularly egregious statistical sleight of hand.
When discussing ‘spin’, DN is a good person to bring up
Scooter is also a good person to bring up should the discussion be about helmeted, arrogant clowns who, apparently tired of the hum drum existence of environmental consultant, long for the glories which acrue to being a “Climate Scientist”.
I believe they are close to providing a name for this. John Cook Syndrome.
Helmeted? That is a nicer way of putting it.
Yes I completely agree, but the thing with spin is that in order for it to stand any realistic chance of working it should come from someone credible, otherwise it usually just raises even more suspicion.
For the pro AGW lobby to allow someone like Nuccittelli to spin their story suggests to me their heart is not in this one. Richard Betts made a half hearted attempt on the Met Office site, but appears to have wisely retreated when the case he presented was so lame.
The short answer to your question is “no” jbenton2013.
For the common-sense reason that model-based climate science is mediocre climate science.
Even the IPCC appreciates that model-based climate science is mediocre (at best).
Whereas plenty of scientists and scholars are willing to “put their heads above the parapet” to defend “the best available climate-science“ and its implications for the future of the planet
It is a pleasure to answer your excellent question, jbenton2013!
Your post may have had some credibility Fan except that what you appear to consider to be the “best available climate science” has also failed to convince a very large section of the populace that it is credible science. However, it’s always good to know even you draw a distinction between model based climate science and empirical climate science. We can agree on that.
Richard Betts has posted n explanation on the Bishop Hill blog. OK, he’s a civil servant working at the Met Office, but what he has to say is anti-scientific and embarassing to read.
Until it dawns on people that what the IPCC has done is tantamount to scientific fraud – it would be considered as such in Medicine or Pharma, and the people responsible are made to account for themselves under public questioning, the IPCC will set up a wall of bureaucratic denial.
The antics of these people bring their respectable colleagues and science in general into disrepute.
RC, you talk about disrepute. As long as the RS and APS support the IPCC, then “science” supports the nonsense. That is where the trouble lies.
Had this been a deliberate attempt to destroy the public’s faith in science, it wouldn’t have been more effective.
Now, now, no need to go there with this. It was an earnest enough effort, importantly.
=============
Linnk?
Thank you kim, for reminding Climate Etc folks that
`Cuz it’s the strongest available climate-change science that counts for sustainability in the long run!
Thank you for sharing your common sense kim!
Not only in medicine and pharma. In my profession engineering we use models frequently, but if I were to engage in this sort of behaviour I would expect to get fired, and fully expect to get struck off from my profession.
Search all the faces,
Dismay at cackling fiend.
Honest, it’s earnest.
================
+1
What we see is that stochastic forecasts of The Old Farmer’s Almanac are more accurate than the deterministic projections of the Global Climate Modelers of AGW. The Almanac predicted cooling.
“Estimates of the observed global warming for the recent 15-year period 1998-2012 vary between 0.0037°C/year (NCDC), 0.0041°C/year (HadCRUT4) and 0.008°C/year (GISS). These values are significantly lower than the average warming of 0.02°C/year observed in the previous thirty years 1970-2000. Can models explain the global warming stagnation?” ~Hans von Storch
GCMs cannot explain the lack of global warming. Everything else is dogma. And, when you consider the warming bias in the surface temperatures (the UHI effect), it smells like the Left’s dogma really cut the cheese.
It’s curious how the Almanac does their forecasting.
“Predictions for each edition are made as far as two years in advance. The Farmers’ Almanac publishers are highly secretive about the method used to make its predictions, only stating publicly that it is a “top secret mathematical and astronomical formula, that relies on sunspot activity, tidal action, planetary position and many other factors.””
How much is a bazillion?
What is the equation representing the Uncertainty Monster?
Because I think I’m Uncertain about how much a bazillion is, but can’t say for sure because Dr. Curry won’t tell me what Uncertainty is in a mathematically rigorous way so I can check her spin against the facts, the way she attempts to do for climate models.
Is a bazillion more, or less, than $60 million dollars?
And what, if anything, does it have to do with Morgan Bazilian, the banker who manages the UN’s $400 million venture capital fund for coal burning projects in Africa?
Is his venture capital fund bazillions?
For perspective, his fund is three times the size of all the money ever collected to fund the IPCC over the past quarter century.. so I’m Uncertain where Dr. Curry gets her numbers from on those things, and must suspect her of spin far worse than anything she alleges above with her colored graphs.
Yes, but Dana.
Who? This Morgan Bazilian?
From his blog:
From Here.
Same guy, from here: http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/morgan-bazilian/
Look under the hood. Kick the tires. Find out how much money Bazilian projects have provided to burning carbon, and how much money Bazilian projects have provided to all other sources of energy combined.
He talks a good game, but I remain sceptical.
OK, I’ll look here and here. If you have links to numbers you think contradict his studies, or the positions they imply, why not post links?
AK | October 2, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
Shhhh. If you let on that Bazilian’s saying things I find sensible, you’ll ruin his chances here! In the past, he’s said some pretty silly things squarely on the opposite end of the carbon scale, because his models (eg http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/MDGs/IVC_Diagnostic_Tool.pdf ) focused on cost per unit of installed coal vs. new alternatives, and not total lifetime cost of new installation taking into account projected price drops.
I’m glad that he’s evolved, and I think Dr. Bazilian does excellent work, other than that proviso.
Much like I think Dr. Curry does excellent work, except in fields she knows nothing, like Finance, and won’t demonstrate rigor, like Statistics or Mathematics, and doesn’t go to source material before making up her mind, like the IPCC Guidelines for Uncertainty, or the IPCC budget.. or, y’know, most things that aren’t geophysics as taught circa 1970.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/433862/Knocking-on-wood-and-throwing-salt-over-your-shoulder-can-reverse-bad-luck-says-study
Are we not a little bored with nasty little dweebs with negligibly justified complaints, rambling sleights and unctuous self aggrandizements?
We might not expect any more from Bart given the lack or any intellectual honesty or capacity – but perpetually plumbing the depths of inane whining is just a tad tedious, repulsive and pathetic.
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/intergov/unido.pdf
Bart,
Where have you been?
More importantly, when are you going back? To borrow a term I recall someone using, your critique of Dr Curry’s use of the term bazillion is “weak sauce”. Surely one is allowed to use a little literary license from time to time. Gates likes his human carbon volcano license. I think he may be trying to trade mark it.
> “weak sauce”
There may be something a bazillion times less “weak sauce” in the that contains “bazillion”, Timg:
If you prefer a stronger sauce, you may try to help Judy to spice things up.
In the sentence that contains “bazillion”, that is.
Willard;
If anyone could explain “what Uncertainty is in a mathematically rigorous way” would it, by definition, still be uncertain?
That depends if adding confidence level to a statement increases your confidence level, Just Another.
YDNAWTTWWTWB
H/t the irony hibbed boy.
====================
John another | October 2, 2013 at 11:17 pm |
Mathematicians and Statisticians do it all the time. It’s routine. Dr. Curry’s been talking about her Italian Flag Model without setting it down in mathematically rigorous terms for three years.
A little latitude for a beginner working out a novel idea is great. But three years is just too long dragging around a dubious notion without formalism. It’s embarrassing to still have this undeveloped chimerical hybrid of half-formed thoughts kicked around as if it means anything, without formal definition.
You merely demonstrate yet again that you you are a nasty little dweeb with nothing of any interest to say.
How much is a bazillion?
Wrong metric.
Try Rosenfeld eg
One Rosenfeld is equal to 3 billion kilowatt-hours per year, which represents the electrical output of one 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant under a set of standard assumptions. In reference to such a standard coal plant, one rosenfeld of saved electricity also avoids emissions of 3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year
Now tell us how many Rosenfelds have been saved in BC by legislative changes and does it exceed the reward of doing little.
http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/article3687
Almost 19% of BC’s ‘Rosenfelds’ were saved in the 70% of CO2E covered by the BC Carbon Tax, so a bit over 13% savings in Rosenfelds (this would be more effective than any other single measure anywhere by a wide margin), and the economy of the province remained as strong as before the legislative changes so far as analysts can determine, which is pretty freaking amazing, given that the changes happened just before the largest global economic downturn in over half a century, and pretty much 95% of the planet’s economies tanked in that time.
And it didn’t even take doing all that much: one simple change in VAT rules, and one simple change reducing income tax rates to match.
Chief Hydrologist | October 2, 2013 at 10:53 pm |
I admit, I stay out of Australia as much as possible, but every time I do look that way, I’m told with increasing certainty that the Great Barrier Reef is dying rapidly, and more and more blame is being laid at the feet of governments’ and businesses’ bad hydrology practices with less and less uncertainty.
Say, isn’t your line of work chiefly directing the hydrology practices of governments and businesses in Australia?
Why do you hate the Great Barrier Reef so?
How many bazillions were you paid to destroy the most magnificent natural wonder on the planet under cover of uncertainty?
You merely demonstrate yet again that you you are a nasty little dweeb with nothing of any interest to say.
THE GBR is the best managed coral system on Earth.
http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about.aspx
Hans von Storch observed that, “model overestimation of the global warming in the period 1998-2012 could be partially corrected by a reduction in the assumed model sensitivity to radiative forcing.”
Why would the Global Climate Modelers of AGW be loathe to adjusting downward the assumed sensitivity radiative forcing of their models? There I think we have to consider what Dr. Spencer says, as follows:
“For the last 10-20 years or more, a few of us have been saying that the IPCC has been ignoring the elephant in the room… that the real climate system is simply not as sensitive to CO2 emissions as they claim. Of course, the lower the climate sensitivity, the less of a problem global warming and climate change becomes.” ~Dr. Roy W. Spencer
Judith,
As Ross pointed out, the focus should be on the trends, not whether or not the observations are falling within the model variability envelope. The latter is a diversion, in my opinion.
Lucia is doing a lot of good work on the CMIP5 trends, and we have assembled the noise about the CMIP3 model mean trend in this work (that was, unfortunately, never published, as you pointed out–but the pdf is still valid). The key to assessing model performance is whether or not the observed trend fall within the modeled trend pdf.
-Chip
Chip,
You are all down the rabbit hole.
Anthropogenic sources are causing all of the trend, and the noise from natural sources, apart from volcanic, is contributing zero.
My own studies agree with this slide by Thomas Stocker
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVgh7Q4IcAA_6tV.jpg
Thanks to David Appel for finding this one.
Webby
Looks like you’ve climbed into the rabbit hole, as well (along with Thomas Stocker).
“Most of warming” since 1951 does NOT mean ALL of warming. It literally means “more than HALF of the warming”.
And this would put TCR at 0.7C and ECS around 1.5C (as several recent, independent, observation-based studies have shown).
Max
Max,
I like to compare my analysis with a climate skeptic that I respect, Clive Best. We both presented our bottom-line analyses on another comment thread the other day. Clive estimated the TCR from the observational evidence as 1.7C, and I estimated 2.1C.
Depending on which is closer to the true value the differences between these two values is 19% to 23%.
Is it not remarkable that we are arguing over numbers this close together?
Yet you come in to the executive washroom and lay a floater claiming that the TCR is 0.7C.
That is the claim of a person with an agenda, not an actual scientist.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Maxwell.
“Yes, Dana Nuccitelli, climate models are just as bad as we thought – and even worse than most people think, since the inability of most models to reproduce the Earth’s average temperature is not well known.”
Its so funny how few people know this. The first time I pulled up GCM absolute temps, my reaction was WTF???. Tim Palmer has talked about this a bit as part of a grand challenge of sorts. With so many processes that are temperature dependent I would think this would get pushed to the top of the stack of modelling concerns. I mean seriously if you cannot get the lowest dimensional BULK MEASURE correct you’ve got little hope of getting any higher dimensional measures correct
Hmm, I may have a short post for you on this showing some results for a regional model and our new 1/4 degree field for CONUS
Steven, whatever happen to the concept of starting at the beginning? If you are going to use temperature as a metric, would be kinda nice to figure that out from the git go.
Mosh
We were having an interesting discussion a couple of threads ago regarding the changing of historic temperatures (in this case Hansen and the 1940’s) as more data was collected for current temperatures.
You mentioned there was an algorithm involved.
Can you provide a link to it please, as whilst it is counter intuitive to me that old temperatures can be changed in this way I do not want to dismiss it before having it looked at more closely.
Thanks
tonyb
I can remember 7 or 8 years ago when the shoe was on the other foot, skeptics at CA were arguing that enthalpy was a better measure of heat balance than surface temperature, and the usual suspects were all arguing that surface temperature was the be all and end all.
Funny how that all changed.
Steve, is there any good model for finding when the night time temperature fall to freezing?
I would have thought first/last frost would be a rather useful metric
“natural internal variability”
On what basis is this certainly asserted by a passionate uncertainty advocate to be “internal”?
Let’s put aside for a minute the proof that it’s external and just focus on why an uncertainty advocate always asserts with such certainty that it’s “internal”.
I’ve never seen so much as an attempt to justify calling it “internal”, yet it gets asserted multiple times daily, right alongside the contradictory assertions that everything’s uncertain. (((WTF???)))
Is everyone else here prioritizing union-style unconditional loyalty, collegiality, & solidarity so highly that they dare not call out this gaping hole? It’s a rather important gaping hole. This isn’t something to be shy about.
And why not just drop the word “internal” and call it “natural variability”? Wouldn’t that be simpler and more practical than trying to defend the indefensible??
Effortlessly drop the word “internal” and lost credibility is instantly restored. What could be easier and more practical??
It seems a little impractical sacrificing credibility to go some other more twistedly-challenging route — and it raises the question of why that other route is so motivating… Why is it worth a fight defending the indefensible?? (For example, are the semantics designed to avoid alienating naively-assumptive colleagues? Is it that simple?)
Natural variability can be externally forced, e.g. solar and volcanoes.
Internal variability isn’t obviously tied to external forcing, but is rather a manifestation of the nonlinear interactions between two chaotic fluids (ocean/atmosphere).
In simplest terms, the difference between El Nino and a volcanic eruption.
What about internal variability from an internal forcing like GHG, aerosols, landuse changes, etc. I find it hard to believe that any significant “forcing” change on this planet would not cause a oscillatory response.
Also, what is the definitive science on internal variability timescales. 12K yr bp was a fairly huge perturbation. Is that bell still ringing?
Judith
I am not sure I am seeing the distinction here between the two definitions, unless you are saying that ‘internal’ natural variability (oceans/Atmosphere) can be affected by man’s activities, in which case its a bit of a misnomer to call it natural. Surely that is a ‘hybrid’ variability?
tony
It seems like the distinction is between two types of “natural variability” — one which is “forced” by events of nature not humanity (e.g., solar, volcanoes) and another category/type which is “internal” to the system being studied??
So really
forced = external
and
unforced = internal
both terms relative to a specific system, but either is “natural variability” not driven by human activity.
For all the non linear interactions there is a simple summation. energy In equals energy out from a black ,white or gray body. At the end of the day [sorry] whether clouds are in the way or some heat does a dipsy doodle into the depths, the same amount of heat that came in from the sun goes back out. internal variability dictates where some heat changes in the ocean, land and sea occur but if it is hotter say in the atmosphere then there will be an equal amount of heat lost from the earth or the sea reservoir at exactly the same time..
The word “internal” has to go as it is strictly not consistent with well-constrained observations. Hopefully years of online misunderstandings will not have to drag on tediously before this is understood. We’re talking here about a geometric proof, not wild speculation. We have on our hands a severe cross-disciplinary communication gap and the responsible thing to do is find a way to bridge it (even if that entails some awkward exchanges, some in full public view). I propose that we leave it at that for today and for this discussion thread, but this has dragged on for 3 years already and that is already far too generous. This is not only about geometric proofs; it’s also about social justice. Let’s wrap this up by no later than the end of November.
Internal variability seems to be code for doesn’t change the energy budget at TOA. Not true at all.
Natural variability, internal variability, external forcing, internal forcing, feedback effect – they all require some self-consistent definition. But then, by the way these terms are used, people are not exactly on the same page when it comes to their definition and meaning. Usually the meaning is clear from the context, but not always. Sometimes the ambiguity in definition is important. So there is a point for having clear and self-consistent definitions.
I recently wrote a review-type paper on the role of CO2 in global climate change where the question arose on radiative forcings, feedbacks, and natural variability. I came to think of solar radiation as being the ultimate (and only) external forcing of the climate system, which, except for the orbital seasonal changes and the 11-year sunspot cycle, has been essentially constant over the past several decades of precision solar irradiance monitoring. Everything else is simply the result of Planck response to internally imposed and internally induced climate system structural changes.
The internally imposed structural changes to the climate system include the injection of the non-condensing greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs, etc), volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols, and episodic contact to the deep ocean cold temperature reservoir (this is responsible for the ‘natural’, ‘internally forced’, or ‘unforced’ variability of the climate system). Note that the terms ‘natural’, ‘internally forced’, or ‘unforced’ variability of the climate system have been frequently used to refer to the same phenomena.
The internally induced climate system structural changes refer to changes in water vapor, clouds, surface albedo, and some aerosol changes (e.g., sea salt, mineral dust) that occur in response to various meteorological changes that take place in the climate system. These are the processes that make up the climate feedback effects.
It is the combined effects of solar heating and greenhouse warming that establishes the atmospheric temperature structure and water vapor and cloud distribution. Radiatively, the only thing that distinguishes a ‘forcing’ from a ‘feedback’ is that injection of the forcing constituent into the climate system does not depend on the atmospheric temperature, while the feedback constituents are temperature dependent in response to local meteorological conditions.
Thanks, this comment site gets quite a bit of contrarian explanations from the likes of The Chief and the Captain and other folks with fake authoritarian titles. So it is nice to have a measured explanation and definition of the terms.
Looking forward to reading your review article, Dr. Lacis.
You’re such a dweeb webster.
We are not talking feedbacks at all – but secular shifts in conditions independent of greenhouse gases.
‘The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal vari-
ability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’ http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
@ A Lacis
( October 3, 2013 at 12:58 pm )
Request:
By the end of October please analyze the following for centrally-limited cyclic ~decadal volatility at annual & semiannual timescales:
A.
http://ftp.aer.com/pub/anon_collaborations/sba/aam.ncep.reanalysis.1948.2009
B.
ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now
You will find a crystal clear attractor, the existence of which cannot be denied by sensible people willing to admit 1+1=2.
This is step 1 of a 2 step elimination of cross-disciplinary misunderstandings.
I can outline step 2 another day.
(One step at a time.)
Thank you.
“And why not just drop the word “internal” and call it “natural variability”? Wouldn’t that be simpler and more practical than trying to defend the indefensible??”
It seems to me that you might be complaining about the peculiar use of the phrase ‘internal variability’ that is found in “modeler-speak.” They will refer to ENSO as showing “internal variability” by which they mean that ENSO can run warm at some times and cool at others but that these temperatures must sum to zero, or approximately so, over longer periods of time. They are actually referring to a constraint that they place on ENSO in their models rather than temperature measurements taken in nature. This use is very annoying because they do not seem to realize that it is not the same as natural variability.
Feynman, therefore.
Don’t forget Popper.
Steve McIntyre does a good job of showing how this bit of IPCC “chartmanship” has fogged up the discrepancy between the AR4 models and observed temperature.
With this approach (as also seen in other examples) IPCC has clearly chosen to sacrifice the scientific truth in an attempt to spin its CAGW premise (as outlined specifically in AR4 and apparently being parroted in AR5).
Too bad for IPCC.
It is always best to admit to a mistake than to lie about it in an attempt to cover it up – because one lie requires another and yet another, until finally you are tangled up in a web of lies and exposed for one and all to see.
It will be interesting to watch the critiques of AR5 as they roll in – and the ensuing demise of IPCC.
Max
Sorry, Max, we are in for no early demise of tne IPCC. As long as the RS and APS support this organization, it will continue to thrive. The science can be complete and utter garbage, but if the learned societies say otherwise, no-one, and I mean no-one who matters, is listening. We need an acedrmic establishment to support us.
The IPCC did in the AR 5 exactly what it did in the 4 prior ARs. It gave a scientific gloss to the political CAGW movement, as it was created, funded, staffed, and now we can see ordered, to do.
Nothing will happen to the IPCC because it simply did as it was told.
The only way to change what the IPCC does, is change the people who control it.
Lukewarmwers, “moderates” and “independents” are no better at understanding the workings of the CAGW movement than the consensus scientists are at understanding the climate. The difference is, we have all the data necessary to understand the purely political workings of the CAGW movement. But admitting them means admitting that the “they both do it” argument is hogwash. And lukewarmers et al. are no more ready to do that, than the consensus is ready to admit the GCMs don’t work.
But this time, they turned it up to 11. Literally.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/02/the-ipcc-flip-flop-on-year-2100-temperature-projections/#comment-1433860
The IPCC circulates a second order draft, the politicians tell them to change it, and the IPCC changes it. They change not just the wording, but the actual data presented – substantive changes to the “science”, dictated by politicians.
Somebody tell me again how those awful, evil scientists are misleading those poor progressive politicians.
Then tell me again how the IPCC is not a purely political PR operation.
But don’t tell me until I am ready to go to bed. I like to hear fairy tales right before I go to sleep.
“What is wrong is the failure of the IPCC to note the failure of nearly all climate model simulations to reproduce a pause of 15+ years”
The latest climate science spin on this is that the models should never have been expected to predict the pause, because they are not predictions, they are projections, you see, it’s all a misunderstanding…
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/ipcc-5th-assessment-report-in-the-news/
I like this part:
“Whilst the last decade has seen a rapid increase in good observations of the surface and upper ocean, thanks to Argo floats, we have very few for the deep ocean.”
Very few in the deep ocean? I thought we had such complete coverage of the deep ocean that we had found the missing heat there?
Fan? WHUT? R. Gates? Are you all gonna take this climate denialist propaganda lying down? We need to find out how much the Koch brothers are paying the Met Office to publish these skeptical attacks on science.
@GaryM: I thought we had such complete coverage of the deep ocean that we had found the missing heat there?
As they said in the days of Louis X, il nʾest si mavais sours que chuis chʾoër ne voeilt. (Google it.) It’s no less true today.
Makes sense. Predictions are about the future. They’re hard. Projections are about your enemy. They’re easy.
Premonitions are about you. They’re everywhere about you.
===================
What’s funny is that little dana thinks that he is advancing the cause with his anti-denier blog. But enough well-informed and articulate dissenters always show up to shoot his lameass articles to pieces, despite the one-sided moderation and the piling on of dana’s resident team of rabid SkS yes men.
In all honesty, one should be impressed with how far Scooter has travelled on his journey from unknown environmental consultant to “Climate Scientist”. While I think he’s an unpleasant clown, he has made a name for himself.
I repost this from AR5. Check Box 9.2 in Chapter 9 for the figures. The trend for the last 15 years was overestimated by the model, and for the 15 years before 1998 was underestimated just as much. Why does this set of graphs not destroy the pause argument?
“During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a), whereas during the 15-year period ending in 1998, it lies above 93 out of 114 modelled trends ((Box 9.2 Figure 1b; HadCRUT4 ensemble-mean trend 0.26°C per decade, CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.16°C per decade). Over the 62-year period 1951– 2012, observed and CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend agree to within 0.02 ºC per decade (Box 9.2 Figure 1c; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.13°C per decade). There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show long-term GMST trends consistent with observations, despite the disagreement over the most recent 15-year period. ”
Jim D.,
IPCC AR5 Box 9.2 Figure 1 is starting to get at the heart of the issue.
Part (a) shows that the distribution of CMIP 5 trends from 1998-2012 barely contains the observed trend. Part (b) shows that the observed trend lies comfortably within the model distribution of trends from 1984-1998. Climate model performance is thus worse in the period 1998-2012 than in the period 1984-1988. Part (a) is the figure that is much more important (and telling) in analyzing model performance than is Figure 1.4.
Earlier this summer, I had a poster at the AGU’s Science Policy Conference, looking at CMIP3 model performance. It was as bad as the CMIP 5 performance. That poster presents an analysis, which includes elements of Box9.2 Figure 1a, that is a far better way to assess model performance than what is being pushed by Dana Nuccitelli, and shows that, contrary to Dana’s claims (which are often unjustified by proper application of the facts), climate models are doing pretty much as bad as you think.
-Chip
If you look at the lower two images of the second column of our AGU poster, the proper question is not whether the observed sequence lies with the envelope of the variability from all model runs (which is what IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4 and Nuccitelli’s analysis gets at), it is whether the trend through the observed sequence can be found in any of the individual model runs (which is what IPCC AR5 Box9.2 Figure1a as well as the top figures in column 2 of our poster gets at).
-Chip
93 of 114 models are below the trend from 1983-1998, so I don’t know how you define that as “comfortably within”. This was the point.
Chip
Thanks for the poster. HOw about a graph of temperature projectsions vs actuals that go back to 1850 or so? The models hindcast that and you have the actuals.
Scott
Scott,
The graphs on the poster assess model performance in a projection mode (i.e., during a period for which the model builders had no prior knowledge). If the models performed that poorly in hindcast mode, I can only assume that they would not have been released in the first place.
-Chip
Chip, I have asked, many times, if the models have the same statistical properties in forecasting as in hindcasing, w.r.t. distribution around the mean. No one has been able to give me an answer. So if you did a 1,000 runs of one model, would the distribution in 1990 have the same lineshape and variance/mean as in 2010 and 2030?
DocMartyn,
I don’t know your answer.
I assume that they do, after considerations of the variance influence of different forcing sets, historical and future.
-Chip
“Why does this set of graphs not destroy the pause argument?”
Why do you think it would?
Try arguing based on 1983-1998 that the models overestimate the trend. They underestimated. The pause didn’t consider that the previous 15 years warmed faster than expected, and the net 30 years ended up about right.
“…the net 30 years ended up about right.”
Wrong.
See Lucia’s analysis (here for example).
-Chip
Jim D
Try arguing based on 1983-1998 that the models overestimate the trend. They underestimated.
And? Fascinating how some folks’ confidence in a particular analysis increases when they are shown that it has additional error. Does your learning of the fact that the models were wrong earlier as well as later happen to increase your confidence in them from 90% to 95%, by any chance? If so, you might want to consider a career in “climate science”.
The pause didn’t consider that the previous 15 years warmed faster than expected,…
15? Why not 16? The HadCRUt4 dataset has the same “low trend ending in 2012” if you go back 16 years to 1997. IPCC’s choice of 1998 as the break point instead of 1997 has a couple of effects:
1) It shortens the ‘pause’ by a full year, and
2) It gins up the “previously warmed faster than expected” meme by putting the start and end points of the previous period in a trough and on a peak, respectively. Vs using 16 years, that overstates the “previous period” trend in the observations by ~ 50%. They’re picking cherries the size of basketballs.
Now, why would they do that?
… and the net 30 years ended up about right.
Uh, no.
JJ, I think of it in terms of natural variability that the models don’t precisely match, but it is self-canceling in the long term as seen over the last 30 years, so it doesn’t matter for the big picture, but what matters is that the average warming is represented.
Jim D,
I think of it in terms of natural variability that the models don’t precisely match, but it is self-canceling in the long term as seen over the last 30 years,…
You continue to believe that for reasons that I have just demonstrated to you are false.
* The trend in the CMIP5 ensemble over IPCC’s picked 1951-2012 period is 0.13C per decade.
* The trend in HadCRUt4 over the period 1983-1997 is also 0.13C per decade, precisely matching the IPCC’s CMIP5 ensemble average for the long term period. You will note that this trend in the observations is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the 0.26C per decade that IPCC gins up by cherry picking endpoints. There is no “the models grossly underestimated temps prior to the ‘pause'”. That is complete and utter BS.
* The trend in HadCRUt4 over the period 1997-2012 is 0.059C per decade, effectively the same as the trend from 1998-2012 (0.053 per decade).
So, change the period that IPCC acknowledged for the ‘pause’ by one year and the following things happen:
* The period of the ‘pause’ gets longer.
* The trend of the equal length period prior to the ‘pause’ is cut in half vs IPCC’s claim.
* The trend of the ‘pause’ stays the same.
Your ‘pause destroying’ argument is a lie. And even if it weren’t, this:
… so it doesn’t matter for the big picture, but what matters is that the average warming is represented.
Would still be absolute BS.
The pause is very delicate to any extension because you run into the step around 1996. Recognize that the pause implicitly assumes the step because extended back it is discontinuous with previous temperatures. Take two ten-year periods, my preferred method, as seen in the SPM, and you get that the last decade was 0.15 C warmer than the previous, and that the last three decades have been getting warmer at a steady non-slowing rate. Also take the last 40 years and you find that we are only 0.1 C below the long-term trend of 0.16 C per decade, and that this has happened briefly many times before including just before periods when it rose by 0.2 C in the next few years. The 12-month running mean temperature bounces within about 0.1 C of the mean trend in the whole 40 years, and what we have now is no exception.
Jim D
Take two ten-year periods, my preferred method, as seen in the SPM, …
But of course that is your preferred method. Insisting that trends in global temperature by analyzed by calendrical decades is nothing more than an egregious example of cherry picking dates to alter the results of those analyses to your political favor. And as we have seen above, Jim D LOVES his cherry picking.
The start date of the Gregorian calendar, and thus the start dates of its decades, have no climatologic or other scientific basis. They are simply an artifact of a religious belief intersecting with the fact that most of the people who hold that belief have ten fingers.
Insisting on analysis broken out by Gregorian calendar decades allows you to discard the last three years of the current 17 year long flat trend, and it also allows you to lump the first four years of that trend in with six prior years that you freely admit lie on the other side of a discontinuity in the temperature record. Seventeen years of ‘pause’ magically becomes ten under your odd insistance that analysis of climatological trends honor the birth of Jesus. It’s a cherry picking miracle!
It is also a fine example of goal post transport. How long must the current flat trend in global temps last before it can be held to invalidate ‘global warming’ dogma? NASA said 15 years. When it became plain to all that 15 years of flat trend was firmly in the bag, Santer et al came along and bumped that to 17 years.
You turn that 17 into 20 years with your insistance on comparing ten year periods against each other. Then you also demand that the endpoints of those those ten year periods coincide with the 0 years in the Anno Domini reckoning. As the current flat trend started in the middle of such a decade, this means that this current trend will need to be a minimum of 24 years in length before you are forced to acknowledge the inconvenient truth.
From 15 years to 24 years, in the blink of an eye and a lie from the lips… Global temps might be slowing down, but warmist goalposts sure are accelerating. Your ‘preferred method’, indeed.
Using data up to July 2013 the latest five 120-month averages of HadCRUT4 temperature anomalies are
-0.074
-0.020
0.135
0.346
0.474
The latest change in 10 years is a rise of 0.128 C. That’s very close to the average over 50 years, which is 0.137 C.
JJ, no I do not insist on decadal ends to the 10 years. You can take 2003-2013 and 1993-2003 if you want, and you get the same result. It is robust to shifts in the starting point, which is a sign of a good method for climate trends. Ten years is good also because it eliminates most of the solar cycle, and maybe 11 years is better. For short ranges the solar cycle can’t be ignored, and using 1.5 cycles is not going to be robust to starting points. This is why I prefer my method.
Judith Curry:
”What is wrong is the failure of the IPCC to note the failure of nearly all climate model simulations to reproduce a pause of 15+ years.”
curryja; http://juditcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-pause-logic/#comment-390491 :
”This fox news report is really interesting, check the quotes from Tsonis:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/30/un-climate-change-models-warming :
‘Mann goes so far as to say that if you remove the “noise” from the recent pause in temperature rise, human activity is to blame for 100 percent of the global warming
Tsonis strongly disagrees. He acknowledges that human activity is likely having an impact on climate, but adds “Nobody has ever proven for 100 percent that the long-term warming is man-made. In my educated guess I will think something like less than 30 percent.”
Judith Curry believes the approach the IPCC takes to climate change is fundamentally flawed. Consensus-seeking, she says, introduces bias into the science.’”
I agree with the ‘educated guess’ of Tsonis that less than 30 % of the recent long-term warming is man-made; in so far as I understand the man-made warming is indistinguisible from zero:
1) On the basis of climate model calculations IPCC states only what kind of assumtions are needed by means of which the recent warming is made seem probably to be caused by antropogenic CO2 emissions, without any proper, empiric evidence.
2) The hindcast and forecast warmings simulated by climate models do not agree with empiric observations. The standstill during the last over 15 years is an explicit evidence on that: an increase of global CO2 content does not control a global long-term warming.
3) All CO2 emissions to atmosphere and all CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to other parts of environment together control the CO2 content in atmosphere. All CO2 sinks together control how much from total CO2 emissions from all CO2 sources stays in atmosphere to maintain the atmospheric CO2 content. As the anthropogenic share in the total CO2 emissions to atmosphere is about 4 % the anthropogenic CO2 emissions control only about 4 % of CO2 content in atmosphere at the most, and further, in the same way, the anthropogenic CO2 emissions have controlled only about 4 % of recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere at the most.
This all proves that the influence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on the global temperature is so minimal that it can not be empirically observed.
The worst part is this:
Previous AR reports posted these graphs as projections. The starting point is part of any projection. There was no mention of using a “mean” to determine the start value of the projection (in part because the IPCC were explicitly projecting temperatures to rise, there was no expectation that temperature measurements would drop so much that years later it makes the difference whether the models can be considered accurate).
Now, years after the fact, they are pretending that the projection was different. Because it suits them, they are now changing the projection start point. You cannot do that and continue to claim it is the same projection. This is selection bias, an elementary statistical bias – you cannot, after the fact, change a given element of a projection or prediction, because any change will be influenced by the performance of the projection so far. Any methodology must be disclosed prior to the prediction/projection.
In the caption to the diagram, they claim that the diagram shows the performance of their models’ projections. This is false. They have changed the methodology of the projections. This is fraudulent. It makes me angry that they will be allowed to get away with this deception.
The text states: ““Figure 1.1. Yearly global average surface temperature (Brohan et al., 2006), relative to the mean 1961 to 1990 values, and as projected in the FAR (IPCC, 1990), SAR (IPCC, 1996) and TAR (IPCC, 2001a).””
This statement is false. The graph does not show what was projected. Regardless of whether the technique they use now is better or worse, it is fraudulent to change the starting point, and then to include the new starting part in a graph claiming to show projections from previous ARs.
“This statement is false. The graph does not show what was projected. Regardless of whether the technique they use now is better or worse, it is fraudulent to change the starting point, and then to include the new starting part in a graph claiming to show projections from previous ARs.”
You are correct. No question about this. However, the IPCC will argue that any changes found reasonable by their statisticians are acceptable.
I find this all to be very depressing. The hockey stick, climategate, all that stuff was bad, no doubt, but this one is really getting to me for some reason. The more these shenanigans go on, the more it diminishes my faith in humanity. This kind of fraud differs from climategate in that even laymen with an introductory statistics course can understand this deceptive trick. It’s not just the change to the starting point, they’ve also changed the enveloped in the graph so that even if the temperature remains flat for 50 years they can still claim they were right, which is outlandish. They are trying to turn their predictions into something that can never be falsified. Yet there is not a nation on earth willing to stand up to this, nor is there an academic institution anywhere willing to call them out. We are left with random individual heroes like McIntyre, Lindzen, Pielke, Curry and Spencer to battle this onslaught of deception. I find it depressing.
Nature is Nemesis.
==============
Scf, when mediocre-model IPCC science is attacked by flimsy slogan-shouting cherry-picking denialism … the argumentation *is* depressingly irrelevant.
That’s why climate-change depression can be lifted by joining “The Sensible Center Of Climate Change™.”
A happy scientific and political awakening is wished for you, sch!
Be of good cheer. You know where reality is found and your opponents do not. Dust yourself off and get ready for the next round. You listed the “big guns for science” but there are many others posting here, on WUWT, Bishop Hill, and elsewhere who are as clear-eyed as you.
It is depressing. Only a few individuals with the knowledge to stand against the onslaught. The worst part is changing the data in the oast to make it cooler so the models can simulate the past. Leave the past temps alone.
Scott
past
It would appear to me that the IPCC already admitted their problem:
“n summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.
emphasis: “is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence)”
Aside from the volcano it seems to me nature conspired against the models with a particularly strong dose of variability* and forcing**. You could easily explain it in the abstract of trends but 15 years is a long, long, l-o-n-g time to the general public. Question is will nature’s conspiracy continue as seems indicated by ENSO and Solar phases would indicate. And will this cause the IPCC to adjust the models? Or is it conservative enough or adjusted already? Or will CO2 once again kick ___***
*http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/pause-tied-to-equatorial-pacific-surface-cooling/
**http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model
***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
I’ll take the 95 to 5 (IPCC) odds nature wins the next 15 year round.
I hope it keeps cooling so everyone can go back to science based modeling where observations drive teh climate models. Too bad aabout the crops .
Scott
Forget for a moment your uneasiness about model climatologies that are 1-2C different from observations; your uneasiness might arise from wondering how these models produce anything sensible given the temperature dependence of the saturation vapor pressure over water, the freezing temperature of water, and the dependence of feedbacks on temperature parameter space. Thank goodness for tuning.
heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.
I dye myself Laughing Ash.
=====================
“…climate models do not simulate the timing of modes of natural internal variability such as ENSO, AMO…” – Dr. Curry.
Perhaps the above is a main cause of their current problems. Earlier they rode the 70s through 90s trajectory and everything seemed fine. But when asked to handle the 98-01 break, what they did is follow their same logic I imagine.
I’d guess what they don’t do is, use set length in years, cycles for something like the PDO and AMO. And I understand their not wanting to take that approach. What are their options for capturing index changes and intensities?
Yesterday Milanovic below:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-solar-variations-dont-matter/#comment-390955
Talked about: dF/dt = Gµ(F). I do not know to what extent the GCMs are using such an approach, put it seems that the arrows are pointing to doing that, despite the difficulties.
‘I’d guess what they don’t do is, use set length in years, cycles for something like the PDO and AMO. And I understand their not wanting to take that approach. ”
yes that would be tuning. go read the code.
‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
Do you ever have a point mosh?
yes.
Thanks for the link Chief.
Chief, at your link:
“Nevertheless, there is a persistent degree of irreproducibility in results among plausibly formulated AOS models. I believe this is best understood as an intrinsic, irreducible level of imprecision in their ability to simulate nature.” – James C. McWilliams
Key word being irreducible. The wall. But let’s be optimistic and believe they will push the wall further and further out, and have breakthroughs.
Try letting someone in on it.
I just did.
Prof. Curry, this was a good post.
‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
There are several fundamental ideas here. Chaos, regimes, abrupt change, probabilistic forecasts and the centrality of determinism in climate. These key ideas demand a new way of thinking about both models and climate.
But if we are looking at causality.
Solar intensity amplified through the system.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/tsireconstruction_zps0ee199b5.png.html?sort=3&o=7
Increasing El Nino intensity over the past 130 years that cannot be captured by indices of sea level pressure at locations or sea surface temperature in small regions.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=86
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim
Cloud radiative forcing over the satellite era.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=31
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2440039/The-13th-Century-volcanic-explosion-triggered-Little-Ice-Age-created-Far-Eastern-Pompeii-just-waiting-discovered.html
tonyb will like this
mosh
I saw this elsewhere but your link is much better.
This ties in to the Hockey stick of course which recorded this sudden downwards lurch with a terrible summer in 1358. The trouble is the medieval texts record this deterioration actually occurred from 1254. This from my research;
“1254 cold weather in jan and feb ceasing on march 12th. ‘ Mathew paris notes ‘also on this day march 12th the bitter frost ceased which had continued nearly the whole winter that is since the night of the circumcision. ‘
Much north and easterly wind continually blowing in the spring for three months and several days which blasted the flowers and fruit about the calends of july namely in the time of the solstice quite suddenly inundations of rain broke forth with very violent hail of a kind not seen before which lasted for an hour or more breaking off tiles and parts of houses and stripping branches of trees.
M paris notes; Very unseasonable summer from the day of ascencion to the feat of all saints hardy two or three serene days passed without continual disturbance of the air.
In the autumn all the ground bounded by and in the neighbourhood of the sea which they had sown diligently was saturated by salt and found to be devoid of crops as the sea had occupied the land during the winter time
1255 gales in feb and march. From the feast of st valentine for a month a violent wind with heavy rains day and night both by land and sea caused unheard of disturbance.
There was then very unsettled weather the north wind blowing nearly the whole spring which is very inimical to the flowers and sprouting trees. And through the whole of april neither shower nor dew moistened the dry earth or gave it any warmth. The air was parched by the blowing of the north and east wind.
In this summer there was a drought due to the east winds continuing from mid march to the calends of june.
Rain followed and on the third of the ides of july a great tempest of hail in the trent valley marvellously beyond the ordinary nothing like it had been seen before with widespread destruction of crops by floods of water in the valley of the trent such as had not happened for a long time
1255/6 a great gale and rain the whole winter from the feast of all saints until whitsun-this is likely to refer to nov 1st 1255 to june 4th 1256
1256 severe thunderstorms july 25 gales on oct 5th and oct 26th which was unprecedented overturned houses and shook down stones. Possibly duplicates a great storm from oct 26th 1254
Another thunderstorm on nov 16th and on dec 28th, this latter one was very severe with much flooding it was accompanied by a fierce whirlwind. ‘the thunder sounded a sad prophecy for it was in the middle of winter and the cold was more like that of February. Unsettled weather then lasted for three months.
1257 from the first day of February until the first of may the whole of england was turned into a bog and a quagmire by the turbulent winds and the foul storms. (this description might refer to 1256)
Excessive rains in summer with much flooding destruction and loss of hay. Another chronicler noted that before the octave of st benedict there commenced such floods of rain that the earth was downed bridges houses and mills borne away, roads made impassable. Probably lasted until august as some crops were saved.
Mathew paris notes; the past year was sterile and meagre whatever was growing was choke by the floods of autumn for there was neither a temperate nor a serene day nor was even the surface of the lakes hardened up by the frost as is usual, nor were icicles hanging but there were continued inundations of rain until the purification of the blessed virgin
1258 the serene air of autumn and its temperateness continued until the end of January so that nowhere and at no time was the surface of the water frozen up. But from that time to the end of march the north wind continually blew frost snow and intolerable cold prevailed the face of the earth was bound up cultivation was suspended ad young cattle were killed.
The north wind blew continually, when april may and the principal part of june had passed the flowers of plants had scarcely germinated.
Great tempest of flooding rain, snow ice thunder and lighting on the 12th of june causing great flooding on the river seven around bristol and Shrewsbury. Much loss of life. Note; This might refer to 1259.)
General scarcity and expense of wheat due to inundations of previous year. In 1258 autumn crops nearly rotted by autumn rain. Very late and tedious autumn on account of the continual and persistent rains.
Matthew paris notes; now this past year was very dissimilar to all previous years that is it was unhealthy and mortal stormy and exceedingly rainy so much so that although in summer time the harvest seemed promising by the time of autumn continual heavy rains choked the crops .
Terrible thunderstorm on december 1st.
1259 everything grew in moderate abundance and the dry weather presented an unexpected sufficiency.
1260 great and prolonged summer drought so that barley and oats remained hidden in the ground even until autumn . however showers then caused germination but they didn’t ripen due to lack of warmth.
Great thunderstorm on june 23.
MP noted, in this summer great and enormous portents happened in the air so that some people said the last judgement was near.so many continuous thunderstorms that hardly anyone was bold enough to leave his house. (the London annals confirms these storms)
During the christmas period there was such continued fine weather and serenity of the air that one would have said that it was pleasant summer time rather than winter.
—— —-
tonyb
Now the IPCC will claim that if it ever existed, the little Ice Age was started by a circumcision.
tonyb,
thanks for persisting in anecdotal examples of little ice age. Models can’t show temperatures but scientists can change them. Like a model says dogs not permitted on beach and you persist in pointng to paw prints in the ssand.
Scott
Fascinating! Thanks for the link. But I noted it said “started”. Which still does not explain what maintained the LIA for 600 years.
Climate change deniers. No volcanoes, no climate change. They know only two knobs: CO2 and volcanoes. The rest is noise.
In addition to Lucia’s evisceration of the Tamino bogue (which might account for the roughly 0.18C drop in the FAR,SAR, and TAR envelopes between the SOD figure and the final, there are at least two other cheats in the finale. The AR4 envelope expressly includes scenario B1. That is plainly lower emissions than what happened,mince Kyoto failed. And the CMIP3 model spaghetti is expressly individual runs rather than ensemble averages, including for B1. That allows cherry picking individual model runs for the lowest temperature predictions. All three actions are disreputable.
The spun graphic is an indelible reputational suicide note.
“The spun graphic is an indelible reputational suicide note.”
You folks really don’t get how the game is played. And make no mistake, it is a high stakes political game.
The IPCC just did what it was told to do. Its reputation will not be hurt in the least for continuing what it has been doing since 1990. Not among those who matter to the IPCC.
Michael Mann and Peter Gleick paid no price for their patent dishonesty. Steven Schneider outright advocated lying and there was no backlash, among the people who mattered to him. Al Gore got rich in part off a dishonest piece of climate agitprop. Nothing, absolutely nothing adverse will happen to the IPCC because of anything in the AR5.
The IPCC’s reputation has been in the gutter among those who view the debate objectively for a long time. But they will be defended in every particular by their fellow CAGW advocates, by the politicians who control their budgets and futures, and by the media that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the progressive movement.
Bill Clinton lied under oath in a federal court proceeding to protect himself from civil liability for sexually harassing a female employee while he was governor of Arkansas. Progressives from all walks of life jumped to his defense, from Senators to the low rent pornographer Larry Flynt.
Progressives don’t give a damn about lying – by other progressives. It is one of their favorite tactics.
Gary, I certainly respect you. But I’m afraid you’re wildly mistaken in your apparent belief that progressives are morally inferior to conservatives. Of course the grand irony is that most liberal warmists are absolutely convinced that they’re on the side of the angels.
Two groups of people, equally certain they’re better than the other. No wonder we’re in such a mess.
pokerguy,
You are getting your cause and effect backwards. It is not that progressives are morally inferior to conservatives. It s that conservative principles are morally superior to progressive “principles”, to the extent they exist.
Read the writings of Wilson, and Margaret Sanger, Alinsky, Bill Ayers, and Hillary Clinton (before she learned from Bill to tone it down). Then read the scholars whose work they have built on, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao.
Progressivism is a real ideology, Since 1968 it has been the dominant ideology of the Democrat Party. It is the underlying ideology of most of the leftist parties in Europe.
First you have to know what it is. Then you have to know how is presents itself. Then you have to know what its goals are. Then you have to know what its tactics are.
Virtually none of which you will learn in any western university or primary or secondary education system.
pokerguy,
“Two groups of people, equally certain they’re better than the other. No wonder we’re in such a mess.”
Were the western powers and the Axis moral equals in WW II? Were the communists and the democrats in Russia moral equals? Is Hezbollah the moral equal of Israel? Were the Democrat Party’s creatures the Klu Klux Klan morally equal to the freedom riders?
On a smaller scale, are Peter Gleick, Michael Mann and Steven Schneider in the climate debate morally equal to Lindzen, or Lomborg?
Moral relativism is a cancer, and one encouraged by the very progressives you claim to have left behind.
When the dogma justifies the ends, It’s noble cause syndrome.
Plato justified the ‘necessary’ ‘noble’ lie.
http://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/the-serf-under_ground-journal/#more-6
“The AR4 envelope expressly includes scenario B1. That is plainly lower emissions than what happened,mince Kyoto failed.”
And yet the scenarios up to 2020 are pretty identical. Also it doesn’t make any difference to the observed vs the model trends, so what’s your point?
“And the CMIP3 model spaghetti is expressly individual runs rather than ensemble averages, including for B1.”
Sure, and if they had just put an ensemble you’d probably be complaining they hadn’t shown all the individual runs.
This whole thread seems remarkably well titled.
Skeptics trying to spin the climate model-observation comparison PART 2!
Everyone understands that the GCMs overestimated global warming going back to 1998. If AGW model-makers were running a business – like for example, The Old Farmer’s Almanac — they would do what is necessary to correct the models. A partial reduction ‘in the assumed model sensitivity to radiative forcing,’ would at least be a correction in the right direction, as Hans von Storch schools us on the matter (i.e., itwould reproduce the recent global warming slow down while still satisfying… other major constraints. ).
That leaves us with two things of interest to consider and discuss, as follows:
► First, AGW model-makers refuse to change their assumptions about the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 – natural or otherwise — no matter what reason dictates; and,
► Second, if the AGW model-makers were do what is necessary, reproducing reality may only be possible when the ‘true sensitivity’ is in fact essentially set to zero and that is not something they want to know, the science be damned.
Real Climate does a model/obs comparison every new year. Always worth a look. I think the important thing to do with ‘comparisons’ is to be ‘consistent’…..
That means picking a standard, and sticking with it. That said, there is always room for improvement, so new techniques are welcome, as long as the old technique is continued along side. That is quite shocking if that has not been done, who are the reviewers?
Richard Betts commented at the Auditor’s:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/#comment-441730
Any comments, Judy?
No, not beyond the response that SM gave and also the issues raised over here
Thank you, Judy.
That’s too bad, because I’m not sure what was the Auditor’s response to
Here Richard links to this:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/19/met-office-hindcast/
that one is for SteveM to respond to, I don’t have time to dig into those weeds
Indeed, but then I’m not sure if our case falls under being “superficially misleading”, amounts to the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, or else.
Which is it, in our case?
It also seems to me that “falling within projections” is a weaker sauce (h/t timg) than “do not reproduce”. In fact, both seems compatible. But then perhaps one could reply, as the Auditor told Richard Betts:
> Perhaps, in your opinion, [etc.]
Judy,
I forgot to ask. You said at the Auditor’s:
> Steve, brilliant post by the way.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/#comment-441591
Does that constitute an endorsement?
Many thanks!
Why don’t you go over to CA and take it up with the Auditor, willyboy? Badgering Judith doesn’t seem to be working for you.
brilliant comments willard.
no really.
Steve Mc. – The Rock – No Consensus Needed
But Tufte!
Steve provided a brief response within the comment:
Hope this helps.
Figure 10.26 in AR4 was a tiny image covering 200 years of data. Steve has blown the image up and focused on a short period of data in it. Therefore any significant error in alignment for short-term periods becomes relevant when it wasn’t before.
Steve’s comment is basically using the excuse that some other graph from AR4 was wrong too and then using that to argue it justifies doing it wrong in AR5.
Watch the pea indeed.
Thanks, Reny Madigan. That brief response seems to respond to the last point Richard Betts said:
> So in both aspects, the published AR5 figure is scientifically better than the SOD version, as the model-obs comparison is done like-with-like.
And only in a dudist way:
http://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c
Focus bad, Obfuscation good.
Willy Wonka, why did you forget to post SteveM’s response to Betts. You know ,the one where the IPCC plagiarized Tamino’s bodge.
“Steve: perhaps, in your opinion, it would have been “better” for AR4 to have done Figure 10.26 using a different method than the one that they selected. Nonetheless, that’s what AR4 elected to show and comparison to Figure 10.26 is a natural starting point. Nor did the AR5 authors have any compunction about comparison to AR2 Figure 19, which is constructed from a single energy balance model. Tamino misrepresented its construction in his blogpost – a point that IPCC appears not to have adequately considered when they adopted the Tamino bodge.”
Yeah, Bob, well, that’s just, like your opinion, man.
Look! Natural! Tamino! Authors’ cumpunction! Misrepresentation! Bodge!
Wee Willy, Betts is probably right and McIntyre wrong on this point. McIntyre’s more important points about model trends vs obsessed since 1979, and Lucia at 20 year trends still stands. It’s always easy to pick at small points while ignoring the more important ones.
Sorry, spell checker strikes again. Vs observed
No, obsessed works just fine.
Frank Kelly | October 2, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
Dear Mr. Kelly,
By following the political policies that you support, millions of children around the world will die. How many lives are you willing to sacrifice on the Altar of Global Warming?
And there was me thinking only warmists were alarmists.
https://twitter.com/dougmcneall/status/385406085995048960
No-one has explicitly admitted that figure 1.4 from the SOD, the figure that skeptics were promoting in the media, contained an error.
There’s lots of passive admissions that this was the case, but I guess it is somewhat inconvenient to discuss how so many skeptics didn’t spot the error in the graph.
If you were serious about engaging with skeptics on this point that you have raised you would explain the error in your own words and stand ready to defend your explanation. All you are doing is insinuating some vague error by skeptics but you cannot articulate exactly what it is.
Skeptics preferred the old 1.4 figure because it was better for their message. The new 1.4 figure, not so much.
There is now a presumption by skeptics that the old figure was better and shouldn’t have been changed, because, well the old figure was better for their message.
And to argue this skeptics are, to use your own phrase “Insinuating some vague error” in the new graphic over the old. But nothing concrete and the fact they’ve started out presuming there’s something fishy going on is surely a sign of motivated reasoning.
lolwot:
I didn’t care for either figure (they both are misleading in different ways), but the new one is worse than the old. IMO, the proper model-data comparison is trends, projected versus actual, like in this figure by Lucia.
Putting the model projections on the same graph as the data during the validation period is misleading because the model projections are made use forcing scenarios that diverge from the actual forcing scenarios.
The old figure pinned to 1990, a warm year, which wasn’t optimal by any means. The new one appears to use different baselines for model and data. And by showing the total spread of models, especially without any color coding, a false level of agreement between models and data is represented in the graph.
You are also totally missing the point regarding the problems with this swapping of figures between drafts without full review. Large collaborative efforts typically are comprised of an “inner circle”, which is the group of people who actively write most of the text, and an “outer circle”, which is the remainder of the people whose work is represented by the text.
Making major changes without running a figure through the “outer circle” poses the danger that the inner circle misrepresent the positions of the remainder of the collaboration, something that I think happened here. I would be really surprised if, given the opportunity, the community would have agreed to the inclusion of this figure into the final report. So “stealth edit” is a good description of how figure 1.4 made it into the report.
Tamino’s criticism of the old figure 1.4 in my opinion was “outcome driven”…. he didn’t like what the figure said so he, in classic Tamino fashion, tortured the data and twisted the language until he got something he liked better. Your acceptance of Tamino’s criticism is to me more indicative of your own biases than a substantive understanding on your part of actual issues with the original graph. Since you’ve not been able to succinctly explain what the error is you think was present in the original graph, this just increases my suspicion that bias rather than reason is driving your perceptions here.
While I admit the original figure wasn’t perfect, it was still less misleading, less an apple to cherry pie comparison than the new graph. But as I said above, I really like neither graph.
As I said on another blog, what would be an interesting comparison would be a comparison of data to output from (e.g.) unmodified AR4 codes run further forward to 2013 (or as recent as is practicable) using the actual forcings, starting with the exact run states of the models at the end of the verification period for AR4 (that is the end-point where “known” forcings were used, rather than scenarios).
Once again, you fail to articulate your claim. What is the error that you and others find in the old graph? Why does its existence justify all and only the changes that produced the new graph? Once you have articulated these matters, you will be in a position to argue for your claim that skeptics prefer the old graph because it was better for their message. However, I am confident that if you do the work of articulation that I describe then you will reject the position that you hold at this time.
This is how Tamino “tortured the data and twisted the language until he got something he liked better”
“The flaw is this: all the series (both projections and observations) are aligned at 1990. But observations include random year-to-year fluctuations, whereas the projections do not because the average of multiple models averages those out. Using a single-year baseline (1990) offsets all subsequent years by the fluctuation of that baseline year. Instead, the projections should be aligned to the value due to the existing trend in observations at 1990.”
from his blog
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/
If that’s a bodge, then I’m all in favor of bodging, after all we like a nice chair to sit, and very apropo to “spinning the climate model observation comparison”
Carrick is right about this.
“The old figure pinned to 1990, a warm year, which wasn’t optimal by any means”
Wasn’t optimal. Was wrong.
Carrick your defense might work if skeptics hadn’t promoted the incorrect 1.4 graph without spotting the error.
What if the error had been to start the models from a colder year? I bet skeptics would have spotted it then, and the IPCC would be blamed for doing it deliberately. They’d ask “how come these errors always go in the same direction?”
I am busily re-organising my life. No debt – no need for a job – only business plans. Throwing away – well recycling – decades of photocopied materials. Forgot all about this – seemed germane to the stationarity (not) of ENSO.
‘ We document low-frequency changes in the base state, amplitude of interannual variability, and extremes in El Niño, as well as in the global pattern of ENSO variability. Recent anomalous behavior in both El Niño and the global ENSO is interpreted in the context of the long-term
reconstructed history and possible forcing mechanisms. The mean state of ENSO, its global patterns of influence, amplitude of interannual variability, and frequency of extreme events show considerable multidecadal and century-scale variability over the past several centuries.’
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/tools/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/ENSO-recon/chapter-diaz.pdf
Ross “Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph.” McKitrick seemed keen to promote figure 1.4 from the SOD. So did a lot of skeptics.
Skipping over the fact they missed an error in the graph that was convenient to their cause, these skeptics were happy to promote a graph as evidence the models were running below model projections.
Of course they aren’t happy when the graph gets fixed either. No, they must desperately try to find a problem with the new graph, or even call into question the use of such graphs altogether.
So far I don’t think they’ve found a thing. A lot of noise sure, a lot of complaints about subjective, a lot of detailed discussion about what was changed. But no actual cigar. And no admission the original graph was wrong either.
The tell is that no skeptic has come forward and explicitly stated that figure 1.4 was correct, and that it didn’t contain an error.
lolwot,
Nice dodge. Skeptics think the models are wrong, the temp records are wrong, and the IPCC’s comparison of the two is wrong. But their complaints are meritless unless they admit one of the graphs was right?
Nice try.
What matters is the IPCC changed the graphs for the same reason they changed the language regarding the failure of the models to predict the pause. They were told to do so. THEY thought the SOD graph was correct as to the divergence between the models and observations, and the politicians did not like what it showed. So they changed it.
You can’t pretend skeptics weren’t promoting the 1.4 draft figure. The evidence is all over the internet.
lolwot,
Careful, you’re going to give yourself a cranial hernia trying to lift the enormous intellectual baggage already falling out of the AR5.
What skeptics were promoting was a crystal clear example of the IPCC manipulating the “science” in the AR5 in accordance with political dictates.
Something is certainly crystal clear, and it’s more to do with the behavior of the skeptics and their promotion and now defense of a draft graph containing an error.
If at first yer don’t succeed, try, try again …
and change the graph
A serf.
Here’s something I posted on CA & WUWT on this topic:
The IPCC has left itself open to a deadly counterpunch. A (Republican) House committee on the environment could invite critics and supporters of the chart to testify. Witnesses should be asked to remain in town to be available for second and third rounds of questioning, to respond to the testimony of other witnesses. (Second-round testimony could be taken by videocam, if allowable.) In addition, experts on statistics and chartology should be asked to testify.
This event could decisively turn things around, by authoritatively discrediting the objectivity and trustworthiness of the IPCC, and by enhancing the credibility and newsworthiness of climate contrarians.
As a necessary (?) prelude to getting this hearing scheduled, our side should start calling for one, organizing, petitioning, demonstrating, publishing a large ad in MSM papers signed by a lot of scientists, etc. Someone with a good talent for summing things up like Monckton should write a first draft of an appeal to congress for an inquiry and post it here.
Warmists have been blinded by the easy ride they’ve had so far and by their own hubris into failing to foresee the trap they’ve laid for themselves.
Incidentally, someone with chart skills should create a chart that shows only the IPCC’s Business-As-Usual projections. This would be more realistic–and more damning to alarmism. Witnesses at the Congressional hearing (that I suggested above) should present such chart and all other witnesses should be asked to comment on it.
One tactic the hearings should employ would be to show the IPCC chart alongside the contrarian-corrected chart and ask each side’s witnesses to citique the other side’s chart.
Contrarians should volunteer to offer the committee members questions that IPCC participants should be asked, etc.
Interesting, you really don’t even consider the possibility that the draft 1.4 figure was the one that was wrong do you?
your “deadly counterpunch” would likely in reality be a shot in the foot.
It is dishonest of the IPCC not to admit there was an earlier pause, 1940 to 1970 during which global temperature actually fell. My guess is that if they had tried to simulate that period and obtained any correspondence with real life measurements they would have trumpeted it from the rooftops.. That they didn’t try was probably because they had no confidence in a successful result. They would have to admit that all the bombs and missiles and tanks and aircraft of WW2 failed to prevent the temperature from falling, What a con !
Four Awkward Questions
1. Did the draft version of figure 1.4 contain an error?
2. Given it did contain an error, should that error have been fixed?
3. Given the error should have been fixed, and the figure was a draft, would you have expected the graph to have changed between the draft and the final version?
4. Given we can all agree the graph should have changed, why are so many skeptics acting butt-hurt about it?
1. Did the draft version of figure 1.4 contain an error? Yes, someone bodged the plot. Nothing like having a highly skilled and intelligent staff at your disposal.
2. Given it did contain an error, should that error have been fixed? Yes, we are just wondering why it still has been.
3. Given the error should have been fixed, and the figure was a draft, would you have expected the graph to have changed between the draft and the final version? Yes, but it would have been nice to see a corrected graph.
4. Given we can all agree the graph should have changed, why are so many skeptics acting butt-hurt about it? I don;t think the skeptics butss are in any danger.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9ycU6rg0Ceo/UkzCgn1sIqI/AAAAAAAAJwM/y0RLRltN4rE/s580/ar5%2520maybe.png
Perhaps the highly skilled and intelligent chart maker that offset the multi-model mean by a 0.1 C might get his butt chewed, but the skeptics just did what skeptic do, question things.
lolwot, btw, the 0.1C fudge is still in the GISS error margin. That can be considered a “typo” where some note saying that the data was shifted to include the data error was inadvertently deleted during the rush to publish. You know how hectic things can get. Pooh pooh occurs as they say.
The models were out of it before they were in it.
Go check out the Sea Ice page on WUWT. The sea ice extent is going parabolic up! Pretty impressive. It’s tracking 2005 levels.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Yes, and check out this death spiral:
http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/snow_files/BIGglobal_snow_and_ice.gif.gif
That’ll put a chill in ya from your toque to your toes! Scary!
Maybe Jimbo H. should read this study. Other climate scientists also.
” Another study looked at 140 Americans who read a piece on climate change and adopting “sustainable lifestyles.” One third of the participants were told that the author liked to “hold rallies outside chemical research labs”; another third were told that the author was “involved in organizing social events”; the final third were told nothing about the author. The first sub-group was least likely to adopt the recommendations made by the author.
The study states, “Unfortunately, the very nature of activism leads to negative stereotyping. By aggressively promoting change and advocating unconventional practices, activists become associated with hostile militancy and unconventionality or eccentricity.””
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/01/Study-environmentalists-feminists-activists
The CAGWers are going to defend that graph to the death, just like the hockey stick, Hansen 1988 and “there is no pause” (which our resident Kool Aid tasters are still defending around here).
Exactly. It is their only link to sanity. What else do they have. If it goes poof all is lost.
The ”models” on the catwalk don’t reflect the people on the street / nature
“Forget for a moment your uneasiness about model climatologies that are 1-2C different from observations; your uneasiness might arise from wondering how these models produce anything sensible given the temperature dependence of the saturation vapor pressure over water, the freezing temperature of water, and the dependence of feedbacks on temperature parameter space”
Nope, one can’t possibly be so forgetful ever. As there is no “theory of climate” other than that embodied in computational models at the moment, it means in fact we have a bunch of competing theories, not a single one approximated by each model.
In cases like this the standard procedure in physics is to throw out failed theories and proceed with the rest.
Are there studies that do just that? Has anyone ever tried to identify root causes of failure? Is average trend of models running close to actual absolute temperatures different from those running too low or too high?
These are legitimate questions any scientist concerned more with science itself rather than its political consequences would ask immediately.
‘AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior.‘ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
The real problem is that there are multiple solutions within the range of feasible inputs. Literally many solutions.
e.g. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F8.expansion.html
The solution sent to the IPCC is literally on the basis of it looks about right – a posteriori solution behaviour.
“AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best”
Uh oh, that hurts.
Any definition of “plausibility” that fails to exclude theories in plain contradiction with observations is surely a failed one, is it not?
Pingback: ABC: time to shoot a furry animal « Australian Climate Madness
Climate science’s billion dollar journey is heading down a cul de sac.
Canons not in Concord.
==========
So how seriously could a GCM feasibly make any sort of projection???
There are squillions of parameters that feed into a GCM. Presumably to make a projection, one has to predict for each parameter what it is going to do in the future. I’m guessing the end result is a close to linear trend for each parameter. Anyone know????
So while a GCM is sucking in real data, the temperature output will fluctuate. At the time the real data runs out, well it’s like riding on a horse driven cart over a bumpy road aiming a slingshot and when you let the slingshot go, that’s the direction it travels. But that could end up looking like a straight line or some gentle curve. (Haven’t managed to find the code that does that part yet in modelE.) The net projection should be the result of numerous parameters projected in various directions, but it’s still going to look close to a straight line.
To make it look a bit more realistic, throw the projected numbers through a random number generator.
If the owners properly trained any GCM to stick to the present trend data, the end result would be a century-long projection of zero warming. Well that wouldn’t do would it?
!!! Breaking News !!!
Steven Mosher nails it
In the most lucid comment ever posted (arguably) on Climate Etc, Steven Mosher concisely dissects the scientific anatomy of climate modeling.
Words by Mosher, links by FOMD.
Steven Mosher, that comment was well-reasoned, and was stated with outstandingly concision and clarity, and did not hesitate to draw tough-minded conclusions.
Why not extend it/expand it/submit your comment, to Judith Curry as a full-fledged Climate Etc guest essay? Or even to the national media?
In short, your analysis was terrific. Thank you, and keep it up.
Hah, straw dog fan afternoon; the fossil fuel we’ll likely burn will far more likely be net beneficial than net ‘problematic’.
==========================
Fanny
The words you ascribe to Mosh tell an imaginary negative half of the story on the threat/benefit of fossil fuels for humanity: namely the hypothetical future threat imagined by the climate models.
What they do not tell us is the immense benefit humanity has enjoyed as a result of a reliable source of inexpensive energy resulting from the availability of fossil fuels.
If one compares the quality of life, standard of living and average life expectancy at birth of those of us who are fortunate to live in nations that have profited from this access with those poor, unfortunate souls in the nations that have not done so, it is clear that inexpensive energy from low-cost fossil fuels have brought us far more benefits than the damage, which climate models could imagine for the future, even in the worst CAGW incarnation.
So Mosh (and you) are only telling one half of the story (the negative half) – and it is an imaginary half at that – while ignoring the real, positive half.
Sorry, Fanny, NO SALE.
If you want to tell a story – tell the WHOLE story.
Max
Kim, please have confidence that we Big Carbon oligarchs will continue to embrace climate-change denialism.
Obviously, *nothing* must diminish the $100-trillion-dollar value of our in-the-ground carbon reserves. Your denialism is immensely valuable to our hyper-wealthy class, kim!
— Sincerely, with our best regards,
Big Carbon Oligarchs
Fanny
Even though it has become quite clear that you are a “climate change denialist” (denying that the climate has changed from warming to slight cooling since the turn of the millenium), I had no notion that you were also a “Big Carbon Oligarch”.
Drill, baby, drill!
Max
Looking for help
I’ve compiled a table which contains what I think is the essential differences between the “two sides” in the climate debate.
I would very much appreciate comments both from sceptics and those favourable to the IPCC interpretation.
The article is here: http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/sceptics-vs-academics/
And comments may be left on the article.
Scottish sceptic
Good summary, but you are missing a key differentiator:
Basis for validation/falsification of hypotheses
Skeptic:
Empirical data derived from real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation
Warmist:
Model simulations based on theoretical considerations supported by interpretations of selected paleo-climate proxy data
Max
Yeah, and I prefer skeptics vs alarmists, because the degree of alarum is another key differentiator, perhaps the key one. Well, it is from my alarmist perspective, the contrast, the contrast, horrors.
=====================
Max
I made this observation over at WUWT.
“Several months ago I compiled a chart of glacier retreats and advances over the last 3000 years and graphed over it the Hockey stick and reconstructed CET to 1538. This demonstrated that climatic variability was far higher than claimed by DR Mann.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image010.jpg
In it I made the observation that it appeared that changes in glacier direction (retreat/advances) occurred around the plus 0.2 to zero Centigrade CET anomaly. Of course glaciers don’t change direction overnight, but IF the current trend continues and CET falls even further towards the zero anomaly line it will be interesting to see the effects on glacial movements (if any) Generally the glaciers in Switzerland and Austria seem the most responsive.”
So, you are our eyes and ears on the ground in Switzerland regarding glacier change and need to justify the large sums you no doubt receive from BIg Oil by reporting back any apparent trend change.
tonyb
Otzi, the Oil Spy, tryin’ to get a message to Garcia.
============
Kim
We all get loads of money from Big Oil so perhaps we can all organise a fact finding tour of Switzerland and Austria that just happens to coincide with the skiing season?
I then need to do an in depth climate research project in Australia that coincides with the next series of Cricket Tests.
What we do for science eh?
tonyb
I just had a vision of the Melbourne Cricket Ground in an era of global cooling.
The horror, the horror.
tony b
Yep. I’ll keep my eyes on glaciers and snow cover for you.
The local version of the Farmers’ Almanac tells us we’ll have another cold and snowy winter, so skiiers should be happy.
BTW, I’m sure you are aware of the independent studies in the Swiss and Austrian Alps (Schlüchter 2005, Patzelt 2000), which have shown that
a) glaciers have gone through several periods of expansion and retreat over the past several thousand years,
b) they have receded to much lower extent than today in the past (most recently in the MWP and Roman times,
c) they were at lower levels than today for over half of the past 10,000 years,
d) they reached their highest extent for 10,000 years around 1850, and
e) they have generally been receding since 1850.
All points to the fact that AGW has little to nothing to do with the current glacial retreat here.
But c’mon over anyway and bring your skis!
Max
mosomoso. the Melbourne Cricket Club in an ice age? Ice hockey
I suppose. Tony b and faustino will be in denial.
Scottie, Your classification system is overly simplistic. There are an infinite number of reasons why intelligent people disagree on CAGW.
Comparison of rates of change are better: Models increasing, reality decreasing.
James G
Confidence increasing, trust dwindling…
Max
How could the IPCC provide an estimate of human contribution to temperature changes if they did not also provide an estimate of climate sensitivity? Wouldn’t one depend on the other?
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/yellowstone-supervolcano-alert-the-most-dangerous-volcano-in-america-is-roaring-to-life
Problems that are apparent in the NEW version of 1.4 (as well as the old one, as well as related figures and discussion in AR4.
a) We are not told how the individual GCM results were selected for inclusion into this figure. The opportunity for cherrypicking was there, since (as is evident in the figures above) a single GCM produces many possible traces from small perturbations of starting conditions. The RANGE of these is quite large, permitting one to select particular traces or particular model averages for inclusion if one wishes, unless rigorous steps are taken to ensure that the individual model results were “randomly” selected (selected without human bias, which basically means without human action beyond starting a selection algorithm with a random number generator in it).
b) The spaghetti graph and assertion that the data is now included is a spectular, new, method of “data dredging”. To use the jelly beans cause acne example, just because SOME red jelly beans, SOME green jelly beans, SOME purple jelly beans were associated with acne in SOME part of the general population does not not not mean that “jelly beans cause acne”! The fact that a red curve in the snarl above spends SOME time as low as the real data, while SOME green curve spends SOME time (a different time) as low as the real data, SOME purple curve spends SOME of its time as low as the real data (different from the red and the green times) does not not not mean that “the data can be explained by GCMs” as a null hypothesis.
c) The correct application of hypothesis testing is to each GCM result, one at a time. If one looks at (say) the orange GCM result at the very top that spends NONE of its time anywhere near the real world data, the probability of the data given the null hypothesis “the orange GCM is a correct model with predictive value” is basically zero. The correct action to take in this case is to REMOVE the model from the ensemble of GCMs used to study or forecast the climate until it is fixed (which may be “forever”.
d) One cannot apply the central limit theorem to an ensemble of climate models because there is no such thing. GCMs are not independent and identically distributed samples randomly drawn from a common distribution of “physically correct and numerically accurate climate models”. This means that:
i) The mean of 30+ GCMs is utterly meaningless as a potential predictor of the real climate as far as STATISTICS is concerned. Either it works or it doesn’t but there isn’t the tiniest shred of reason to think that it will on the basis of statistics and regression to mean behavior and so on.
ii) The standard deviation (and higher order moments) of 30+ GCMs is equally meaningless as there is no reason to think that the model mean of e.g. GAST will be normally distributed compared to the true mean. It is quite literally impossible to assign a meaningful probability that “the GCMs are correct” or “the mean of the GCMs is a meaningful predictor of the true behavior” based on some sort of envelope or standard deviation of GCM results.
To summarize this more succinctly, the mean of 100 incorrect models of ANYTHING is rather likely to be incorrect, especially when the models share a lot of common code and concepts (which may be incorrect/inadequate code or incorrectly computed concepts). The mean of just one correct model is rather like to be correct. Einstein had a pithy way of saying this too; it is a general precept of science that numbers don’t matter, being right matters.
e) There are many other measures of correctness besides GAST. For example, take autocorrelation — the scaling and distribution of fluctuations and their autocorrelative decay. EACH model with egregiously incorrect autocorrelation or variance of the anomaly (say, diving down to the bottom of the curve above, then rocketing back to the top) can be rejected even if it spends more than (say) 10% of its time below the actual real data simply because the real world data basically almost never does that, and when it does it is due to a specific, identifiable forcing e.g. Pinatubo or ENSO. Models that produce the wrong NH vs SH warming are wrong. Models that produce the wrong rainfall distribution, or that predict more and more violent storms (where the opposite, if anything, has happened) are wrong. Models that get the LTT or cloud fraction egregiously wrong are wrong. Models that (as Judith points out above) get the wrong absolute GAST by two degrees C are wrong, very wrong indeed because if the Earth were 2C colder or hotter, I assure you lots of very different things would be going on — the anomaly would not be expected to remain unchanged.
The correct application of statistics to the GCMs in AR5 SHOULD have been to first, apply hypothesis testing to each GCM in the ensemble, one at a time, in several dimensions and not just the GAST anomaly. Second, reject all the models that fail the hypothesis test, using a rejection criterion that is designed to PREVENT data dredging (that is, with MORE stringent p-values because with 30 shots at getting a decent one, it can’t be too surprising that even incorrect models will sometimes produce one). Honestly, the p-values should be generated by constructing a Monte Carlo ensemble of model results, per model, and looking at the actual distribution of (and variance of, autocorrelation of, etc) the ensemble of outcomes where the outcomes ARE iid samples drawn from a distribution of model results, and then use a correctly generated mean/sd to determinea p-value on the null hypothesis. This works, one model at a time with a randomly selected ensemble of results.
Third, ONLY THE SURVIVORS should be retained in AR5. I’m guessing that perhaps three or four might — and I say might — make the cut, and none of the survivors is going to have a GREAT p-value, they’ll just have p-values that aren’t too tiny to overtly reject.
The survivors would, of course, necessarily tell a very different story, one with warming that is a lot closer to the 165 HADCRUT4 linear trend of roughly 0.5C/century (that is, the warming trend without any consideration of CO_2). “The pause” is the least of the problem — the real problem is that if one rejects the obviously broken GCMs from inclusion in an “ensemble” on the basis of imaginary statistical juju, the evidence of warming in the UNbroken GCMs is in line with a continuation of natural warming that has persisted (very likely) from the LIA to the present, modulated by other natural forcings like the PDO. The evidence for a POSITIVE climate sensitivity becomes suspect — it could be anywhere from neutral to weakly positive and still easily fit the data (indeed, it would fit the data better).
rgb
Spinning the climate model . . .
What are climate models, and what is their purpose?
What can climate models be used for?
What are climate model capabilities and limitations?
What is to be learned from a comparison of climate model results to observational data?
What conclusions can be drawn from the comparison?
Those are questions that have been raised above.
Climate models are physics/mathematics-based computer codes designed to model the behavior of the terrestrial climate system. The first order objective is to acquire a practical capability (coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulations climate modes) to model the seasonal and geographic variability of the climate system in terms of physics/mathematics-based processes.
The terrestrial climate system is very complex; not all physical processes can be modeled from first principles; some physical processes remain too computationally intensive to be included directly. So, numerous parameterizations need to be used, and not all relevant processes can be adequately included.
Nevertheless, present-day climate GCMs are able to successfully model the seasonal variability of the climate system. The basic climate forcings and feedbacks have also been identified and quantified. The coupling of atmosphere and ocean models enables realistic modeling of the time evolution of climate changes.
This climate modeling capability made it possible to perform a real-time climate change prediction (verified by subsequent observations) of the global cooling and stratospheric heating (and return to normal) following to the 1991 Pinatubo volcanic eruption.
At the same time, there are some things that climate models are not able to simulate. This includes the so-called ‘natural’ or ‘unforced’ variability such as the El Nino, La Nina, and decadal oscillations. Note also that it was global cooling, not regional cooling, that was predicted for the Pinatubo eruption. Regional climate changes, which depend on complex horizontal transports of energy, are far more difficult to model than the global changes in temperature.
Present-day ocean models do have some rudimentary capability to model El Nino-like variability, but they are not yet able to reliably simulate decadal-type variability, even though 1000-year climate runs exhibit variability over a broad range of time scales.
Comparison of the observed global-mean temperature record with climate model simulations serves to validate (and better understand) climate model performance and ability to simulate the global-mean temperature component of global climate change in response to radiative forcings. The model-measurement comparison over the time period compared is quite good.
Much is being made of: “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
The reference is presumably to the so-called “pause” that has been seen in the global-mean temperature record. It is totally nonsensical to look at this “pause” and jump to the conclusion that somehow climate models failed to predict the pause. That reaction is indicative of individuals with unrealistic expectation that climate models are supposed to be able to predict everything that can change in climate, or those having inadequate understanding of how climate model work, or what their capabilities are.
There was no decrease in the non-condensing greenhouse gas forcing over this same time period, or in the solar illumination, that could account for the pause in the business-as-usual global warming temperature increase, indicative of a cold water incursion (from the deep ocean) into the ocean surface layers.
Why would anyone expect climate model simulations of the global temperature record to predict the “pause”, when ocean models are not specifically set up to have the necessary capability to model such large-scale incursions of deep-ocean cold water.
Meanwhile global warming (the build-up of the non-condensing greenhouse gases) continues unabated. When this “pause” related blob of cold water is heated up to the equilibrium surface temperature, the rise in global temperature will resume to catch up with the built-up greenhouse forcing.
‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
There are are course multiple divergent solutions to climate models.
e.g. – http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F8.expansion.html
Forecasts are only possible as probabilities from perturbed physics ensembles. Even then – this is still something in it’s infancy. There may not be reasonable solutions at all.
As James McWilliams said – ‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation (see ref. 26). ‘
The spin on models is that they can be believed over longer scales. It is simply not demonstrable.
‘In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
In the usual way we don’t suspect duplicity when ordinary stupidity can provide a perfectly adequate explanation.
The question to resolve is what the limits of natural variability are. The world seems likely to cool – and there is no little to suggest that a return to a warmer natural mode is guaranteed.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/negotiating-the-ipcc-spm/#comment-392550
Chief said:
What bizarre language are you speaking? I read it as cowardly hedging.
No, Web, cowardly hedging is: We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
============
Dr Lacis, I agree with everything you have said, but I have been on this site long enough to know that the host and many denizens are not convinced by this line of argument. They seize on statements like models don’t do El Ninos or PDOs, and extend that to say therefore how can we be sure that more than half the warming since 1950 was GHGs and not just another such oscillation that the models did not do well with. I believe your argument is, and mine would also be, that the magnitude of the greenhouse effect is known well enough from physics to be very certain of this, but that is where they disagree with the certainty. Anyway, I am just giving you the next thing to think about in terms of convincing people here from the perspective of someone who has had many arguments on this site.
I am well aware that there are people with opinions different from mine. It is not my goal or objective to engage in changing opinions. People have to decide for themselves how they want to interpret the changes that they see taking place in global climate.
I am merely expressing what I have learned from doing several decades worth of climate physics research. I am fully aware that the terrestrial climate system is very complex, and that there are many things about the physical processes of climate that are poorly understood. But there are some basic aspects about the global climate system that are so robust that they simply cannot be ignored.
The most fundamental of these is the conservation of energy. We may not know in detail how energy is transported through the climate system, or what energy conversions take plane where. But from several centuries of measurement, theory, modeling, and experimentation, we can be sure that energy must be conserved, and that the world operates according to the laws of physics.
The Planck radiation law is also very fundamental. It is the physical basis for calculating and analyzing the radiation energy balance of Earth. We also have precise measurements of the documented increase in non-condensing greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs), and of line-by-line absorption cross-sections of the absorbing atmospheric gases. All this shows why the strength of the greenhouse effect is increasing, and why this keeps pushing the global equilibrium temperature to ever higher levels.
If people can’t or don’t want to understand these basic concepts, that is their privilege. My retort is that they can always go look at the basic facts and physics for themselves.
JimD and Andy, Most of the people I read here accept pretty much everything Andy says about radiative physics and conservation of energy. The issue, I think, for most is the feedbacks and the dynamics and also other possible forcings that are currently neglected. The sky dragons will fade away as time goes on, I think.
Old forgotten far off grapes and ivories. And apes long ago.
==============================
That is a poor argument, Young. You should really say what these “neglected’ forcings are. The classic strawman is to argue that something was missed in a calculation. If you know what it is, spit it out.
As an example, the TSI sunspot cycles certainly do not show in the temperature data as any kind of stochastic resonance, and it barely shows up as a Planck response:
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
Webby, Well apparently something is going on. As Fred Moulton pointed out at Real Climate the ocean heat uptake numbers imply a TOA imbalance of 0.3 W/m2. Model estimates are about 1.0 W/m2. There was no response to this. which surprised me. What is your explanation?
Here is the comment
Gavin or Stefan – The cited data suggest that the rate at which the Earth has been storing energy recently does not greatly exceed 0.30 W/m^2. Other OHC estimates have suggested a larger quantity. How are these data reconciled with estimates of the planetary energy imbalance from a variety of model sources that are closer to 1.0 w/m^2? This is of particular interest in relation to “effective climate sensitivity” estimates that rely heavily on OHC uptake data.
Moolton hears a Who.
========
The OHC is gaining heat at ~0.7 w/m^2
Some people like to spread this over the entire earth’s surface so that effective number is closer to ~0.5 w/m^2.
A number like 0.7 w/m^2 explains a lot, especially why the SST record is not heating as quickly as the land temperature record. It’s at about half the rate.
David,
Wouldn’t you agree that if the seasonal and geographic distributions of atmospheric temperature, water vapor, and clouds distributions of climate model simulations are a reasonably close reproduction of current climate conditions, that atmospheric dynamics is not a major obstacle or source of bias in the modeling of atmospheric effects. All that establishes the temperature, water vapor, and cloud fields upon which the radiative transfer modeling is performed.
Modeling fluid dynamics in the ocean is another story. There is some modicum of success in modeling El Nino-type variability, but not yet the decadal type fluctuations. It is the ocean that affects, and determines, the unforced natural variability of the climate system. This may produce “pauses” in the temperature record, but does not appreciably affect the long-term equilibrium temperature of the climate system
So, in the long term, there is an equilibrium temperature?
===============
Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture. http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=interdecadal+Paciic+oscillation
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=33
Energy balance is of extreme relevance – data less so it seems.
JimD, You are just spouting the simplistic party lines. The system is a tad more complicated than just CO2 and there are some extremely long lags when dealing with a planet.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/10/what-is-actually-in-pipeline.html
Before you leap to conclusions you need to know where you are starting from. The biggest problem with the models is they do not get absolute surface temperature right and everything, absolutely everything, depends on that surface temperature.
captd, the surface temperature in the models is a free variable that depends on things like the cloudiness of the model and surface albedos. A 1% change in albedo can lead to a degree in surface temperature, so if they assign an albedo to forests of 0.16 instead of 0.17, or some other seemingly minor choices, this would affect their overall temperature. It is no surprise to me that they could be variable in surface temperature, given the number of parameters they have to use to represent physical properties like this. They can also play games of tuning these parameters to get a more accurate global average surface temperature, but it would surely be making some regions worse and others better, so it would just be cosmetic.
JimD, “captd, the surface temperature in the models is a free variable that depends on things like the cloudiness of the model and surface albedos”
I Know that, but if the initial conditions are wrong the models will be wrong. If the models are supposed to use SST as a free variable without initial “training” then they should be able to find the right SST. They don’t.
Without the correct SST, nothing works and with a low SST the models would all tend to have a warming bias, require stronger aerosols to match anomaly, pretty much everything that the models just are not getting.
That is what the modelers should be pointing out.
captd, it is not only the ocean initial conditions, it is the parameters that determine climate and its response. Being off in global temperature by a couple of degrees is not a big deal when diurnal and seasonal cycles and latitude variations are 30 degrees. The models have to get local variations more importantly than the global mean. Yes, the ocean SST is tricky because you need all the surface and deep currents just right to get it, and I am fairly sure they are not there yet.
JimD, “Yes, the ocean SST is tricky because you need all the surface and deep currents just right to get it, and I am fairly sure they are not there yet.”
No they are not and there is no problem with them not being there yet. The problem is thinking you are there and over confidently assigning BS error margins. As more and better data is available the TCR estimate reduces which should mean, “Hang on gang. We may have overestimated things a touch.” But when you have advocates using the models to advance causes, things can go to hell in a handbag quickly.
captd, now you have shifted from discussing an offset to discussing a trend. Why would the trend from forcing change depending on your ocean state being slightly off? Land, we know, trends faster anyway, and the ocean doesn’t trend so linearly with forcing, so ocean differences can be put down to natural variability that weren’t expected to match at a given time.
“Why would the trend from forcing change depending on your ocean state being slightly off? ”
Basically there is no trend (none, nada, zip) in regional minimum daily temperatures. They are flat, until their western ocean goes into a warm phase. They all do this.
I’m trying to get our gracious hostess to post an analysis I did of this :)
JimD, “Why would the trend from forcing change depending on your ocean state being slightly off?”
Slightly off? The northern hemisphere average SST is nearly 20 C degrees and the SH average SST is nearly 17C degrees. If you limit the oceans to 70S to 70N to avoid estimation for ice temperature, the average SST is between 19 and 20 C versus 16 to 17 C used to estimate ECS. That means there was more H2O in the atmosphere to begin with reducing the H2O potential feedback to warming. That resulted in a ~10 Wm-2 underestimation of latent heat. 2xCO2 only increases forcing by ~3.7 and there is more than 10Wm-2 error in the initial conditions. Do ya think that might matter?
captd, it won’t matter because it starts in balance and is forced out of the balance by 3.7 W/m2 per doubling. The sensitivity is not very sensitive to the temperature you start at because the water vapor feedback and CO2 effects are linear with forcing. That is, you double the CO2, forcing goes up by 3.7 W/m2, temperature goes up by a degree, water vapor goes up by 7%, temperature goes up again, water vapor feeds back, and finally you get the sensitivity. The 7% is slightly sensitive to initial temperature, but otherwise this sequence does not rely on a perfect global average temperature, only the forcing.
“captd, it won’t matter because it starts in balance and is forced out of the balance by 3.7 W/m2 per doubling. The sensitivity is not very sensitive to the temperature you start at because the water vapor feedback and CO2 effects are linear with forcing. That is, you double the CO2, forcing goes up by 3.7 W/m2, temperature goes up by a degree, water vapor goes up by 7%, temperature goes up again, water vapor feeds back, and finally you get the sensitivity. The 7% is slightly sensitive to initial temperature, but otherwise this sequence does not rely on a perfect global average temperature, only the forcing.”
Besides the fact that surface station temps show this can’t be true, if it was true, what you’re describing is a positive feedback loop, we wouldn’t be here to wonder about it, Earth would be dead and dry or dead and a steam sauna.
JimD, ” The sensitivity is not very sensitive to the temperature you start at because the water vapor feedback and CO2 effects are linear with forcing.”
They can only be approximated as linear for a small range. The further you are off with the initial conditions the less valid the linear approximation is. Water vapor is much more nonlinear than CO2, so missing the initial conditions blows that approximation out of the water :) So “sensitivity” is much more sensitive than the no feedback “sensitivity”. If you look at where the models miss the most, you can see that pretty clearly. If you don’t care to look, then you are like most alarmists :)
Mi Cro, I could leave captd to explain to you why these positive feedbacks don’t run away. I think he understands this concept, and he likes explaining things. Short answer is they don’t because if each step is for example 0.6 times the previous temperature rise, the series converges to 1/(1-0.6)=2.5 times the CO2 effect alone. The climate feedback is about this much or 0.66 which gives 3 times the CO2 effect alone, not 1 degree for each degree which would run away. Luckily water vapor is limited by Clausius-Clapeyron and its condensation level.
captd, it is a 1% change in forcing. This is in the linear range. It takes a lot of warming to reduce that 7% to 6%, but luckily it goes in that direction rather than towards 8%. Perhaps the Ice Ages were a little more sensitive due to this nonlinearity, even apart from the extra ice feedback.
JimD, it is a 1% change in forcing if you are starting at the “equilibrium” condition. The problem is that there are other factors that have different lag times which tend to amplify(de-amplify) that forcing. Adding 3.7Wm-2 of forcing will produce a surface temperature increase of about 0.8 to 1.2C degrees. All the water vapor amplification is assumed based on flawed pre-satellite era data. When you leap to water vapor feedback that is not only not evident but increasing unlikely to occur, that is where we part company.
captd, indeed we part company at Clausius-Clapeyron that I consider part of basic physics, and a first-order term in the feedback.
A Lacis October 3, 2013 at 8:29 pm
A Lacis October 4, 2013 at 2:29 am
Conservation of energy and a global radiative energy transport equilibrium temperature for the earth are two unrelated concepts. The former is always attained by Mother Nature in the real world. The latter is a hypothesis that is being tested. The Earth’s climate system is an open system relative to energy and energy is conserved whatever the state of radiative energy transport at the TOA.
JimD, “captd, indeed we part company at Clausius-Clapeyron that I consider part of basic physics, and a first-order term in the feedback.”
Two problems with the application of CC,
first with 398 radiant, 88 latent and 24 sensible surface fluxes and 340 Wm-2 DWLR, adding 3.7 Wm-2 of DWLR requires increases to 402 radiant, 89 latent and 24.2 sensible energy fluxes. That is a 0.72C increase in the average surface temperature with a 1% increase in latent and sensible surface cooling which would offset a portion of the water vapor feedback.
second, water vapor feedback in the dry portion of the free atmosphere is dependent on the condensation temperature not the surface temperature. Once water vapor reaches super saturation, the deal is done. The water vapor envelope can expand poleward, but we are running out of poleward.
captd, the temperature of saturation is the cap that governs the water vapor in the atmosphere. Raising the cap permits that much more (7% per degree.) It’s kind of like considering water vapor as a gas expanding into more space that it is given when it is warmer because the condensation level rises higher. Water vapor can do this effectively because the ocean is an infinite reservoir covering much of the surface.
JimD, “It’s kind of like considering water vapor as a gas expanding into more space that it is given when it is warmer because the condensation level rises higher. Water vapor can do this effectively because the ocean is an infinite reservoir covering much of the surface.”
The large portion of that near infinite reservoir surface didn’t get the memo. That surface latent and sensible energy flux increase tends to promote convection stabilizing the condensation temperature. If you stop that convection or increase the density of the air you can increase altitude of the condensation layer, but as it is, the cloud base will lower and there will be an increase in mid level convection. That is why I often mention the Atmospheric Boundary Layer. You don’t average across boundary layers without increasing the odds of being bitten in the a$$. .
captd, the other useful concept for the troposphere is the lapse rate that links the whole tropospheric temperature to the surface temperature via convection. Warm the surface, warm the troposphere, add water vapor, etc. This whole AGW thing fits together, and nothing I have said would have been beyond Arrhenius to understand a century ago. In fact he came up with it.
captd,
“340 Wm-2 DWLR”
Middle of a clear 50 degree F day @41 Lat, if you measure a -40F zenith temp, how many Wm-2 DWLR is that? I calculate 159, maybe 340 is a global average, of course I’ve not been impressed with their ability to calculate GAT, so who knows.
JimD, Yes, the lapse rate is interesting and likely why Arrhenius revised his estimate :)
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-0mH_rMjAgo8/UiyYE_54LJI/AAAAAAAAJbI/pcmH_LVp_SA/w968-h575-no/1+Saturation+is+saturation.png
MALR is the Moist Adiabatic Lapse Rate. If you increase saturation temperature you lower the cloud base. Since the Marine Atmospheric Boundary layer is just a touch turbulent, it has pretty complete convective mixing producing an entrainment capping zone that serves as base for those nifty Hadley and Ferrel Cells. Decrease the temperature gradient and you increase the vertical convection rate, deep convection, which is like the lid on the pot rattling. That causes all those Brewer-Dobson circulations Gates reads about plus tends to reduce tropical ozone and Arctic ozone. As long as you stick to a one dimension model, every thing would work just like you think. In three dimensions though, things get more interesting. .
You might remember something about a missing tropical troposphere hot spot, tropical ozone depletion and a less than expect rate of stratospheric cooling. Those are things that would be happening had the CC application been right. Assuming anything to do with water vapor is constant is not all that smart.
captd, the hot spot is something that comes with tropical ocean heating, which is actually a slower process than expected, possibly because elsewhere is warming faster than expected (land, Arctic). This is a nonlinear part of the transient response that is fooling those getting ECS from short records because they are not factoring in the eventual catch-up of tropical ocean response and its water vapor feedback.
The Clausius-Clapeyron equation indicates that, under equilibrium conditions, air at a higher temperature has a greater water vapor carrying capacity than at a lower temperature. It says nothing about how much mass exchange occurs at a water-air interface. That process is governed by the limiting phenomena in either the air or water side of the interface. Meta-stable thermodynamic states, sub-cooled vapor for example, are usually allowed for in the GCMs relative initial appearance of liquid from vapor.
This Google Scholar will give many citations.
This paper in the introduction says:
34 [2] Early interest in the subject of air-water gas transfer
35 arose from the need to understand the aeration of anoxic
36 waters, and has continued due to the need to track dissolved
37 pollutants, greenhouse gases, and other geochemical com-
38 pounds. A large amount of literature exists on the subject,
39 including recent reviews [Banerjee and MacIntyre , 2004].
40 In spite of this body of work, the mechanisms that drive the
41 process remain poorly understood and consequently pre-
42 dictions have large uncertainty. For example, widely used
43 predictive models of the gas transfer process commonly
44 differ by factors of three or more, and contain poorly
45 understood non-linearities [Banerjee and MacIntyre ,
46 2004]. This translates to uncertainties of at least 300% in
47 recent attempts to calculate a net oceanic CO2 uptake
48 [Donelan et al. , 2002; Takahashi et al. , 2002]. Such
49 uncertainty is due to the highly variable nature of correlat-
50 ing factors, e.g., wind, waves, surfactants, and thermal
51 convection or stratification.
which indicates that commonly used correlations ( aka parameterizations ) can differ by factors of three or more.
NB that the modeling approach used in the paper focuses on the fluid motions at the gas-liquid interface, not the difference in the concentration between the gas and liquid. A very much improved approach, in my opinion, as shown by the several successful applications of the approach. These applications will be among the hits that Google Scholar will find.
Mi Cro, actually measuring DWLR is a PITA. When you use a non-contact thermometer you have to allow for the spectrum of the instrument and adjust for water vapor. They pretty much just let you know there is a temperature greater than space. Even the high tech ones are off by 10 to 20 Wm-2.
” actually measuring DWLR is a PITA. When you use a non-contact thermometer you have to allow for the spectrum of the instrument and adjust for water vapor.”
My understanding is that most use a sensor that operates much the same as a pyrometer, a blackbody surface that warms when exposed to ~6-14u ir. That should be close enough(but yes it does not have the accuracy of an ir camera)
JimD, “captd, the hot spot is something that comes with tropical ocean heating, which is actually a slower process than expected, ”
LOL no doubt! it is so slow its backing up :)
captd, aka OHC
JimD, Yep, the OHC produces a very slow increase in the average ocean temperature. Kinda like watch paint dry it is.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GWmrTvV8FsA/Uk76ws-yNDI/AAAAAAAAJy8/wlxfW5iraH4/s640/Webster%27s+Fast+and+Frivilous+Follies.png
Takes hundreds of years :)
captd, yes, either the land will continue to rise at 4 C per doubling, doing all the surface warming by itself essentially, or the ocean will start to catch up and give some relief in the land heating rate. It’s an either-or that is not very comforting.
Andy, Can’t get this in the right location but I saw your response about atmospheric dynamics patterns. (Thanks for responding) I haven’t seen the details, but is this qualitative or quantitative metrics? Qualitative metrics are the famous “colorful fluid dynamics” metric which is the cause of the worthlessness of half the CFD literature.
Paul Williams had a video on The Newton Institute site about time marching methods showing how the leapfrog scheme is in fact first order in time and how that can affect the “climate” in a simple case. It’s old, but its convincing to me anyway. I think you guys use more modern methods, but the point is that numerical dissipation can affect the climate in the GCM’s.
We have some papers on this (see James’). The reason no one documents it is because everyone is constantly trying to reduce their excessive dissipation, a task that never ceases for the conscientious.
The GCM results for the GAST reported in AR5 are consistent with projections made in the peer-reviewed literature in 2001.
Long-range correlations and trends in global climate models: Comparison with real data
Abstract
We study trends and temporal correlations in the monthly mean temperature data of Prague and Melbourne derived from four state-of-the-art general circulation models that are currently used in studies of anthropogenic effects on the atmosphere: GFDL-R15-a, CSIRO-Mk2, ECHAM4/OPYC3 and HADCM3. In all models, the atmosphere is coupled to the ocean dynamics. We apply fluctuation analysis, and detrended fluctuation analysis which can systematically overcome nonstationarities in the data, to evaluate the models accordingto their ability to reproduce the proper fluctuations and trends in the past and compare the results with the future prediction.
ooops, I forgot. From the conclusions:
From the trends, one can estimate the warmingof the atmosphere in future. Since the trends are almost not visible in the real data and overestimated by the models in the past, it seems possible that the trends are also overestimated for the future projections of the simulations. From this point of view, it is quite possible that the global warming in the next 100 yr will be less pronounced than that is predicted by the models.
Andy, I appreciate you showing up here and your civil tone. I don’t know whether you have followed my discussion of models and simulation of the Navier-Stokes equations at James’. More on that sensitivity paper I think is a place to start. Basically, I believe based on 30 years experience that the numerical dissipation in these models causes the trajectories to be quite wrong in the short term, say weeks to years, and almost certainly that causes the long term dynamics to be damped. This is a really well known fact in numerical PDE’s. Anyway, I would appreciate your comments on my references discussed there. I don’t have the time to reproduce the large volume of information here.
Indeed Dr Lacis you acknowledge :
● Inability of climate model to simulate some large scale patterns of climate natural variability such as El Nino, PDO or AMO cycles.
● That climate natural variability is powerful enough to fully compensate manmade global warming (if any) and long term pause (as observed since 1997) or even slight cooling periods as observed from 1880 to 1910 or from 1940 to 1970.
● That models are basically flawed and therefore unable to provide any useful information for policy makers.
You state
“Why would anyone expect climate model simulations of the global temperature record to predict the “pause”, when ocean models are not specifically set up to have the necessary capability to model such large-scale incursions of deep-ocean cold water.
Well… I guess this is just because when you pretend urging policy makers making decisions about climate evolution, with heavy political and economic consequences, those decisions being fully based onto climate models’ outputs, then you have to prove that those climate models are able to faithfully simulate “real world climate”. This includes of course the ability to reproduce all major trends, pauses or even slight cooling periods as discussed above. This also mean that those nice climate models should be able to reproduce the same warming rate as observed over 1910 – 1940 period, i.e. +0.15°C/decade. But they are not.
Comparison of the observed global-mean temperature record with climate model simulations serves to validate (and better understand) climate model performance and ability to simulate the global-mean temperature component of global climate change in response to radiative forcings. The model-measurement comparison over the time period compared is quite good.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/graphics/figure33.pdf
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/graphics/figure34.pdf
Steven you need to teach that iphone scare quotes. I was taken aback for a moment.
nexus 4.
Steven, How do you square this with McIntyres and Lucia’s evaluation of model vs. observation trends over 1979-2012 and over the last 20, 15, and 10 years? The disagreement is a lot larger than shown in your plots, if I am interpreting them correctly.
Im just showing two versions of the same model .
plus we are looking at how well the spatial field matches. Its one thing to get lower dimensional measures correct ( ave temp of the whole field )
Its quite another to get the spatial patterns right and then the spatio temporal patterns right.
You can also look over the entire time series, at least back to 1880, and do the noise correction (SOI, volcanic, TCI)
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
The thing to remember is that a TCR of 2C (which is what I get) and a TCR of 1.7C (which is what Clive Best gets) is what separates a “warmist” from a “skeptic”. Isn’t that ridiculous ?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/#comment-390802
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4923
We’re getting closer to the warm.
=======================
‘…there is increasing evidence that natural decadal variability has been the major determinant for recent global mean surface temperatures…’
It is increasingly evident by the nature of decadal variability that there is centennial to millennial variability. It is also evident that natural variations added to warming between 1976 and 1998 – even if you simply remove the ENSO end states from the record and then calculate trend. You can safely project the resultant through for several decades to get a result that isn’t all that scary.
The real problem with this is that climate is nonlinear – it shifts at decadal and longer periodicities to emergent states dependent on the interplay of control variables and sub-systems.
In such a system sensitivity becomes sensitive dependence and we don’t know what that is. The sensible answer for climate sensitivity is …. wait for it… γ in the linked diagram.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=0
Michael Ghil (2013), A Mathematical Theory of Climate Sensitivity or, How to Deal With Both Anthropogenic Forcing and Natural Variability?
The new paradigm needs a whole new maths – and some people may never get it.
A Lacis, you say, “There was no decrease in the non-condensing greenhouse gas forcing over this same time period, or in the solar illumination, that could account for the pause in the business-as-usual global warming temperature increase”
Wow, you mean CO2 is not the Control Knob.
Bob, you need to keep in mind that the global climate trend consists of two components. One component is the increase in greenhouse strength (global warming) due to the continued increase in non-condensing greenhouse gases. The other component is the ‘natural’ variability component due to deep-ocean cold water incursions which produces periodic fluctuations in global temperature about a zero reference point. (This natural variability can’t produce a long-term trend since global energy needs to be conserved when integrated over a time period that is longer compared to the time scale of the fluctuations.) So, if you have a large enough influx of cold water from the deep ocean, it can cause the global temperature to decrease temporarily, even while the greenhouse component is acting to push the global temperature to be warmer. With time, the global temperature has to converge to the greenhouse equilibrium temperature. To decrease the global temperature long-term, you need to decrease the atmospheric concentration of the non-condensing greenhouse gases.
Andy, like the vast majority of GAGW skeptics, I know and understand the GHG meme. I also believe it. Your response is not the least convincing, at least to me. It is well stated, and similar to other alarmists, but just not convincing. The data do not yet exist that unequivocally proves that CO2 is the control knob. Thanks for your response.
Bob,
Read this and weep:
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
If you can’t see how the fluctuations are simply noise, as the bear is kindly explaining to you, I don’t know what else I can add.
A Lacis ignores the millennial at his perennial.
============
David Young and Chief Hydrologist emphasize continuously a couple of points. The issues they raise are relevant. I’m sure that these issues have been considered by climate modelers but I join with them in observing that the points should be discussed more in public as the answers are not at all obvious.
The point of David Young is that discretization leads always to various problems related to dynamical behavior of the model, most commonly to numerical dissipation, but in some cases to instabilities. He has been promoting methods that are much more efficient in a wide class of models and asking why these methods are not used in GCMs. He has also been asking, how seriously the deficiencies of models in handling dynamical behavior affect the results. Personally I’m most worried on the importance of these issues in modeling the oceans.
CH has raised a couple of points. One is the role of Lorenz type chaos and state shifts like those discussed by Tsonis. I don’t add anything on that here. Another point emphasized by CH is the variability in TOA balance from albedo. This point seems very relevant to me, and I would like to learn more on what the modelers think about this point. The basic idea, as I interpret the point, is that variability in the state of oceans does not affect climate only trough heat transfer between deep ocean and surface/atmosphere, but also trough albedo. It appears fully plausible that the slowly varying changes in the surface state of oceans affect clouds and through that TOA energy balance. The decadal (and multi-decadal) variability in the temperatures could through that mechanism be related to variability in the overall energy balance of the whole Earth, not only to the internal distribution of heat within the Earth system.
I would welcome all knowledge on, how well these issues have been covered. If it can be shown that the issues are not important, that would be very useful, if not then reasons for that would also be worth learning.
Well, Pekka, there are four paragraphs worth reading three or four times. Thanks.
================
“The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate. In our study, we were able to identify and realistically reproduce the key processes for the two abrupt climate shifts,” says Prof. Latif. “We have taken a major step forward in terms of short-term climate forecasting, especially with regard to the development of global warming. However, we are still miles away from any reliable answers to the question whether the coming winter in Germany will be rather warm or cold.” Prof. Latif cautions against too much optimism regarding short-term regional climate predictions: “Since the reliability of those predictions is still at about 50%, you might as well flip a coin.”
Although the IPCC in the next post mentions Dakos et al., 2008 and Scheffer et al., 2009 for picking abrupt change from chaotic mechanisms – again you may as well flip a coin in any practical sense.
However, the key event in 21st century climate remains the 1998/20001 climate shift.
Of course natural variability can produce long term trends, Lacis. Don’t be an imbecile. Even kids are supposed to realize that. See here for trends lasting tens of thousands of years:
http://www.wmich.edu/corekids/images/icecoredatahistorical02.gif
Ah – 1998/2001. I am still waiting to see whether the 1998/20,001 climate shift pans out.
I think David Young’s point can be addressed by looking at how much of the transport of heat and moisture is resolved by the model, and it turns out it all is very well accounted for. If there had been a problem with too much dissipation, you would not get the correct equator-pole temperature gradient or jet streams, for one thing. I think the success of GCMs in simulating the general circulation speaks to this issue. If systematic errors in their model global climate can be shown, that would indicate a problem, but none have been specifically mentioned by David Young or others, so it makes it hard to answer except in general terms, like validation with plenty of global data has been done on GCMs. The mean climate is known, and the GCM mean climate can be compared together with diurnal, seasonal and interannual variability.
Springer needs to know the difference between natural variability and forcing. The Milankovitch cycles are forcing. I see them as albedo forcing driven by systematic orbital changes. We are currently in a Milankovitch phase that favors Arctic sea-ice and a consequently cooling Holocene, but another forcing has now clearly overwhelmed that.
‘AOS models are widely used for weather, general circulation, and climate, as well as for many more isolated or idealized phenomena: flow instabilities, vortices, internal gravity waves, clouds, turbulence, and biogeochemical and other material processes. However, their solutions are rarely demonstrated to be quantitatively accurate compared with nature. Because AOS models are intended to yield multifaceted depictions of natural regimes, their partial inaccuracies occur even after deliberate tuning of discretionary parameters to force model accuracy in a few particular measures (e.g., radiative balance for the top of the atmosphere; horizontal mass flux in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current).
Weather forecasts have both demonstrable skill and appreciable error (1). Climate predictions for anthropogenic global warming are both broadly credible yet mutually inconsistent at a level of tens of percent in such primary quantities as the expected centennial change in large-scale, surface air temperature or precipitation (2, 3). Slow, steady progress in model formulations continues to expand the range of plausibly simulated behaviors and thus provides an extremely important means for scientific understanding and discovery. Nevertheless, there is a persistent degree of irreproducibility in results among plausibly formulated AOS models. I believe this is best understood as an intrinsic, irreducible level of imprecision in their ability to simulate nature.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
Whatever you reckon Jim.
Jim,
You cannot draw conclusions that simply.
One point is that as Andy Lacis stated many subsystems must by described by semi-empirical parameterizations. Those are tuned to produce valid models for meteorology and short term description of the present atmosphere. That may allow for getting right results for wrong reasons. We know also that no model can provide really good results on all important aspects of the atmosphere.
The models are tested best in initial value applications for weather forecasting. In that application global conservation laws are not important, and neither are all other properties that are crucial in calculations that cover long periods. Restoring the broken conservation laws is one more issue that cannot be done exactly but requires compromises that may be good or less good.
Another point is that your argument has no relevance on my main worry, i.e. modeling oceans over long periods. As oceans have a long memory their dynamics may be affected essentially by rather small errors in the amount of dissipation.
I must emphasize that I have little specific knowledge on the GCMs. Thus I present my questions based on generic principles. Careful analysis of the issues may prove that my worries are out of place and that the uncertainties related to them are minimal. I have, however, not seen such evidence or even discussion on the potential severity of the issues.
Pekka, it is hard to answer David Young, because he has not pointed at a specific thing in GCM results that indicate a problem. I suspect he hasn’t evaluated them, but is just throwing out accusations. Atmospheric flow is well resolved, and GCM climates are not highly sensitive to resolution at the scales being run for AR4 or AR5 where smaller grid sizes have generally been used. Any such sensitivity would be red flags for numerical issues. It is very easy to do tests on the discretization impacts by changing grid sizes or time-steps and making sure the solution doesn’t change the climate. I also can’t answer for ocean models, but they are harder to verify or even initialize well because of the lack of data, and the resolution of the basins and more complex driving forces like winds, melting ice, salinity, make this hard. By contrast, the atmosphere has a simple surface boundary and free fluid flow and a lot more observations to verify models with, so they know well if they are right or wrong.
Pekka, heat transfer is an important issue. I have yet to see anyone studying it that has stated it is well understood. Here is a typical example of a paper that includes input from the GISS model and on which Andy was thanked for his input.
http://water.columbia.edu/files/2011/11/Seager2005OceanHeat.pdf
I think the success of GCMs in simulating the general circulation speaks to this issue. If systematic errors in their model global climate can be shown, that would indicate a problem,
Actually they are problematic under perturbation.The inability to capture the dynamics ie the circulation changes,under perpetuation to singularities such as volcanic was identified in Stenchikov 2006 for the AR4 review.An inability to improve half a decade later suggests systemic failure with the dynamics eg Driscoll 2012.
The models generally fail to capture the NH dynamical response following eruptions. They do not sufficiently simulate the observed post-volcanic strengthened NH polar vortex, positive NAO, or NH Eurasian warming pattern, and they tend to overestimate the cooling
in the tropical troposphere. The findings are confirmed by a superposed epoch analysis of the NAO index for each model. The study confirms previous similar evaluations and raises concern for the ability of current climate models to simulate the response
of a major mode of global circulation variability to external forcings. This is also of concern for the accuracy of geoengineering modeling studies that assess the atmospheric response to stratosphere-injected particles.
As the dynamical response to volcanics , is similar to the solar cycle eg Ruzmaiken 2004 ( effects on the NAM) the models have significant issues,which as most probably due to the primitive behavior of the dynamic core.
Jim,
Some issues related to discretization are easy to test, but not all. Numerical diffusion is not among the easiest ones.
It’s common that specific technical points are used to make the whole calculations suspect. Models like GCMs involve a large number of assumptions and approximations that are known to be somewhat suspect. Therefore it’s not possible to prove starting from the details that the results have some specific accuracy or that they are even close to correct. It’s known that those assumptions and approximations can be made in many similar problems but only practical experimentation with the models and comparison with knowledge from other sources (empirical whenever possible) can tell on the actual success for each new model.
Models used for weather forecasting are relatively easy to test, but those tests do not cover all features that are important in climate research. Connection between success in weather forecasting and in estimating the climate sensitivity is extremely indirect. Many other tests can be performed as well, but the generic problem is that all experimental tests together allow for a sparse set of tests only. Few of the tests that modelers would like to make can be made as the required data is not available. How far a large number of sparse tests can compensate for that is the real question. I would like to learn much more on that from articles that discuss the issues openly. Many active modelers have written papers that emphasize the problems, while others appear to present a more optimistic view. Put together the information I have seen is not as good as I would hope to have available.
I’m afraid that the fear of misuse by skeptics of the content of an open discussion is one main reason for not seeing more of such discussion. In my view that’s really unfortunate. The scientists should get over that fear and be more open. That would allow for people like me to get a more balanced view of what models can really provide. I don’t believe that the willful misuse of the information would become a real additional problem. Every indication of lack of openness is more damaging. More importantly the opposition is not really dependent on the technical arguments. Politicians don’t make their decisions based on this kind of details. They may pick some details to present as support for their views, but the views are based on something else and some other justification could be invented, if one of the present ones would not be available.
maksimovich, yes, the climate system response is complex. We know they underestimated the sea-ice melting rate, and overestimated the hot spot which is a negative feedback. They may also be underestimating the land warming rate. These are problems. They are not perfect. Guidance using them may underestimate the actual climate change, especially in some regions. I think everyone is cautious about that, and you can read about their evaluations as part of the IPCC report.
Pekka, my answer to maksimovich may apply to you too. I don’t believe models will give perfect answers in a changing climate. They are evaluated for the IPCC reports, and increasingly we can see how they do with actual climate change as it is measurably occurring. A lot is made of any perceived discrepancy, as we have seen with the pause and to less of an extent with the sea ice. The model results are public, so this can’t be hidden. In the end, this is the only way to evaluate them, and the models and the climate change magnitude have only been sufficient for this in the last decade.
Steven,
Ocean heat transfer is certainly not well understood, Andy Lacis stated that also in one of his comments.
Right now my feeling is that concerning the rate of warming we could emphasize mainly the estimates of TCR. It seems that those estimates summarize best what is known on global warming. When the connection between knowledge about climate change and policy decision is understood in the way I consider correct, we don’t need to know much more on the global temperatures.
What we may need to know in addition is what’s to be expected on issues like drought. There are indication that some very important regions are likely to suffer from lack of rainfall. Here on the European side of the Atlantic that may be true for the Mediterranean region, but that’s just one of the regions under that threat. For estimates on issue like rainfall, atmospheric models are needed. I hope they are good enough for that task.
Pekka, the TCR isn’t well known at all. You can’t use paleo data to constrain it unless you believe for some odd reason that sensitivity is a constant and you can’t use the modern era to constrain it unless you can attribute things like the changes in ocean heat transport such as that shown in the Gulf Stream transport reconstrruction as depicted on this graph
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n6/fig_tab/ncomms1901_F5.html
You also have to assume that all forcings have the same feedbacks. Considering how different the interaction with water is between SW and LW, I consider that a huge leap of faith.
Steven,
Even with uncertainties TCR may the best indicator of the present knowledge on expected warming from added CO2.
For policy decisions the lower limit of TCR is almost irrelevant, the most likely range and the upper tail up to some level of certainty are relevant.
I would differ on that. A smart skeptic that does his homework, Clive Best, has calculated the TCR as 1.7C based on the current observational evidence. My own analysis shows the TCR to be 2C, as described here:
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
If one were to split the difference, a TCR that would straddle both of the violently opposing camps would be 1.85 +/- 0.15C.
I ask you, how could you assert that this value “isn’t well known at all”?
Pekka, now that we have better observational systems and nature was kind enough to gives us a weak sun we should be able to do better attributions. From a policy standpoint my position would be to do no regrets actions such as reducing black carbon and improving the basic observational and knowledge base for the present time. The world doesn’t exactly seem to be burning up at the moment and the AMO is still due to go negative sometime soon. The high end of climate sensitivity estimates are already being chopped.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014024/pdf/1748-9326_8_1_014024.pdf
Web, I can assert it quite easily. You can’t attribute the residual trend. If you can then tell me how much warming that trend in Gulf Stream transport should have caused and what caused the trend in Gulf Stream transport.
steven said
We have a forcing function that produces these nice perturbations at 11-year epicycles and you can barely detect it in the global temperature record, mostly because of all the other cycles and noise. Yet, you think it will suddenly appear and hold sway?
The attribution of TSI sun-spot activity is about 0.05C peak-to-peak, and one can draw it out of the noise if the SOI red noise and volcanic perturbations are removed:
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
Strawman. It’s funny that spurious oscillations can be eliminated or isolated in many disparate scientific phenomena to expose an underlying trend — yet when it comes to climate science, the oscillations are treated as some sort of deity which must not be challenged.
This is my counter-challenge:
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
Where exactly do you lie within the skeptical/warmist Mason-Dixon line of 1.85C and the Demilitarized Zone of +/- 0.15C ?
Amazing what is being argued about here. A couple of puny spikes occurring during WWI and WWII that the skeptics are turning into some UNCERTAINTY MONSTER that will gobble everything up in its path.
Web, I linked a reconstruction of over 1000 years of Gulf Stream transport and you say something about some small spikes between WW1 and WW2.
I see that you are now trying to emulate the obscurity and inscrutability-laden style of Cappy D.
Web, I understand completely it is my fault you didn’t understand the argument or look at the link. I suggest you don’t bother with me at all since I am obviously quite devious.
Andy,
“So, if you have a large enough influx of cold water from the deep ocean, it can cause the global temperature to decrease temporarily, even while the greenhouse component is acting to push the global temperature to be warmer.”
This seem to presume that the default SST is warm instead of cool. Is it not just as likely that the default is cool, then solar heating creates a pumping action that draws up cold water which then pushes the warm water to the poles to cool? You can see the influence of this in the surface record, when you don’t just average everything together.
“One component is the increase in greenhouse strength (global warming) due to the continued increase in non-condensing greenhouse gases. ”
And yet in moderate humidity (60% or so), you can see a 10+ degree F drop in temperature/hour after dark, while the average temp drop/increase per day globally is ~18F. Why doesn’t it drop more than this at night? Because surface structures and earth cool much much slower that the atm.
Mi Cro, it certainly cools less at night when there is a lot of water vapor in the air doesn’t it? I think even you would agree that the greenhouse effect is measurable by this difference.
JimD, “Mi Cro, it certainly cools less at night when there is a lot of water vapor in the air doesn’t it? I think even you would agree that the greenhouse effect is measurable by this difference.”
It also cools less at night when you are by a huge thermal mass like the oceans. The average diurnal temperature range at the sea surface is approximately 0.8 C degrees. The average diurnal temperature range at 3000 meters above the sea is about 4C degrees and the average diurnal temperature range at 3000 meters above land is about 17 C degrees. The Greenhouse effect doesn’t work if there is no energy to be delayed on its path to space. The thermal mass and thermal inertia of the surfaces below and above your frame of reference matters.
“I think even you would agree that the greenhouse effect is measurable by this difference.”
You would think it would be, but on careful review of regional daily minimum temperature trends it’s not apparent, But the PDO and AMO phases sure are.
The responses to my last one play to the rule: if you can’t win, obfuscate. Desert and polar clear nights get really cold because of how dry the air is. Less greenhouse effect. Some have a hard time admitting that, but it just comes from physics.
JimD, “The responses to my last one play to the rule: if you can’t win, obfuscate. Desert and polar clear nights get really cold because of how dry the air is.”
And because the soil can’t transfer energy as quickly as the air can dissipate the energy. The desert air more quickly cools to the web bulb temperature. If you ask you local weather station for a nightly minimum forecast they look at the dew point. So far I haven’t seen any CO2 corrections required for predicting nightly lows :)
http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/Riyadh+Saudi+Arabia+SAXX0017
“Desert and polar clear nights get really cold because of how dry the air is. Less greenhouse effect. Some have a hard time admitting that, but it just comes from physics.”
While I appreciate the physics, NCDC’s Global Summary of Days data says otherwise. Measurements always trumps theory, didn’t some guy named Einstein say something like this?
Of course you also can’t change the data you have, make up data you don’t have, run it all through a blender and then wonder why it’s worthless trash that doesn’t give you any insight.
There is a thought experiment that can be helped with a radiative transfer model like Modtran. Imagine a surface cooling at night where you can neglect sensible and latent heat fluxes under clear sky at 80% humidity. Now change the humidity to 20% and keep initial temperatures the same. Which case cools faster? Extra points: why? How about if you add thick clouds? How about if you remove all the CO2? How about if you double the CO2?
JimD, “There is a thought experiment that can be helped with a radiative transfer model like Modtran. Imagine a surface cooling at night where you can neglect sensible and latent heat fluxes under clear sky at 80% humidity. Now change the humidity to 20% and keep initial temperatures the same. Which case cools faster? Extra points: why? How about if you add thick clouds? How about if you remove all the CO2? How about if you double the CO2?
How about if you just remove all the water vapor? How about if you reduce the mass of the atmosphere by half? How about if you change the surface temperature by 50C? All of those would impact the range and rate of temperature change.
Doubling CO2, keeping every thing equal, would reduce the diurnal range. If the surface was at 30 C the range and rate of change would still be greater than if the surface was at 0C. If the surface is a water bed (seal to prevent evaporation) the range and rate of change would be less than if the surface was a foam mat. As it is the water vapor in the air and the dewpoint of that air is the main factor to consider in determining the diurnal temperature range with WMGHS and the surface’s ability to transfer heat tied for second place.
Based on Callandar, ~70% WV, ~15% WMGHS and ~15% surface
“There is a thought experiment that can be helped with a radiative transfer model like Modtran.”
Why rely on thought experiments, go spends lots of time under clear skies at night with a thermometer, like I have doing astrophotography. What you see is that once the Sun goes down temps drop like a rock, through all of that water and Co2. This is getting to be about the right time of year, there will be 50 degree days that during the night the temp drops below the dew point wringing water out of the air which collects on the grass (but not bare surfaces), and under an ice cold sky turns to frost.
Here’s an easy experiment, get a handheld IR thermometer and in the middle of the day under clear skies measure the temp at the zenith, in my humid mid-western 41lat sky, I’ve measured -40 degrees, middle of the day through all that water and Co2.
BTW, global temperature records show no trend in the daily temp rise and fall, it’s been about 18F since the 50’s, it changes up and down some, but there isn’t a trend.
Well, the answer it looks like you both don’t dispute is that, of course it is warmer under a more humid sky, it is warmer under a cloudy sky, it is cooler if you remove CO2, and warmer if you double it.
“Well, the answer it looks like you both don’t dispute is that, of course it is warmer under a more humid sky, it is warmer under a cloudy sky, it is cooler if you remove CO2, and warmer if you double it.”
Like I said I’m okay with the physics, it’s just that actual measurements seem to not care about the changes in Co2.
“The biggest problem with the models is they do not get absolute surface temperature right and everything, absolutely everything, depends on that surface temperature.”
It’s worse than this, it has to get humidity, pressure, wind, cloud cover and altitude, and rain fall right. And it has to get where all of this stuff happens.
Get it wrong, and you get meaningless crap.
Mi Cro,
“It’s worse than this, it has to get humidity, pressure, wind, cloud cover and altitude, and rain fall right. And it has to get where all of this stuff happens.”
All of that depends on the absolute surface temperature and temperature gradients. The original latent cooling was underestimated by 10 Wm-2 bbecause the average surface temperature was underestimated by ~2C degrees. “Global” SST was estimated at ~16C to 17C and is actually 18C. How do you get latent and precipitation right if you don’t know the SST?
Actually, JimD, I was told at James’ that GCM’s get polar amplification wrong. They are also very poor at regional climate. That would be explained if the dynamics is damped.
Jim D | October 4, 2013 at 5:18 am |
“Springer needs to know the difference between natural variability and forcing. The Milankovitch cycles are forcing.”
You need to learn the difference between a trend and a hole in the ground.
Lacis said there are no long term natural trends. I produced data from ice core analysis showing trends lasting tens of thousands of years. I’m not sure Lacis appreciates a dolt like you trying to defend him but he clearly needs some kind of defense so maybe you’re the best he’s going to get.
David Young | October 4, 2013 at 7:16 pm |
“Actually, JimD, I was told at James’ that GCM’s get polar amplification wrong. They are also very poor at regional climate. That would be explained if the dynamics is damped.”
Yup. The GCMs show not enough Arctic warming and too much everywhere else. I’ve explained why many times. As Arctic Ice decreases it exposes more warm water from the tropics carried up by the oceanic conveyor belt. The exposed water is far more efficient at losing heat. It’s almost exactly like an automotive cooling system where the thermostat is a valve that opens wider as the water temperature increases letting more water pass through the valve to the radiator. So the heat the modeling boys thought should stay in the ocean outside the Arctic is instead more efficiently radiated to space by a lesser amount of insulating ice cover. Easy peasy. Getting exact numbers right is hard but operating principles like the north polar water cooling system I just described is easy.
Jim D, Modelers acknowledge they get ENSO wrong as well. I also think that even the global mean temperature is not hindcast well without the elastic forcing guesses. McIntyre and Lucia have shown that on 32 year, 20 year, and 15 year time scales, the GMT trends are outside the 5% confidence range. Von Storch claims 2% for I think the last 17 years. The models get the absolute temperature wrong too. So, I guess my question is ‘is there any quantative measure that seems to be well reproduced?”
In any case, I think the literature and experience in Navier-Stokes simulation is becoming more and more convincing that eddy viscosity (used for the boundary layer in all GCM’s) is too dissipative and very inaccurate in many situations.
You can see more details at James’ I think in the “more on that senstivity paper” thread. References are provided.
The entire planet seems likely not to warm for a decade to three more at least. Simple energy balance considerations from data suggest it is the world cooling and not just the atmosphere.
e.g. SW – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=32
and LW – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=70
Along with of course the 1998/2001 climate shift.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=9
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
This is captured approximately by at least one recent ocean heat reanalysis – despite the shortness of reasonable data records.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=10
The evidence seems quite strong. As Tsonis and colleagues say – this is likely to be a significant impediment to progress on mitigation.
The short term changes in TOA radiiant flux as a result of changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation are apparent. There is nothing to suggest that longer term changes in the system do not drive changes in the energy budget of the planet.
Note the creepiness in the Chief’s tone. He tries to use wishy-washy almost negative logic to make an assertion yet tries to avoid accountability. He is saying the earth will cool for 30 more years but is too cowardly to just state that fact.
In contrast, the following link describes the way one does an analysis, and it is obvious that the earth will not experience a cooling trend anytime soon:
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
Cooling is more likely than warming over the short, the medium, and the long term, and degree for degree, cooling is socially more destructive than warming.
===================
‘Extension of this analysis to the entire 20th century as
shown in Figure 1 (bottom) reveals three climate shifts
marked by breaks in the temperature trend with respect to
time, superimposed upon an overall warming presumably
due to increasing greenhouse gasses. Global mean tempera-
ture decreased prior to World War I, increased during the
1920s and 1930s, decreased from the 1940s to 1976/77, and
as noted above increased from that point to the end of
the century. Insofar as the global mean temperature is
controlled by the net top-of-the-atmosphere radiative budget
[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007], such
breaks in temperature trends imply discontinuities in that
budget. Such discontinuities are difficult to reconcile with the
presumed smooth evolution of anthropogenic greenhouse
gasandaerosol radiativeforcing withrespect to time[Hansen
et al., 2005]. This suggests that an internal reorganization of
the climate system may underlie such shifts [Zhang et al. ,
2007]…
If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate
shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the
20th century suggests the new global mean temperature
trend may persist for several decades. Of course, it is purely
speculative to presume that the global mean temperature
will remain near current levels for such an extended period
of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here
are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming
trend due to anthropogenic forcing. However, the nature of
these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of
near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into
the future must at least be entertained.’ ftp://starfish.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub/ocean/CCS-WG_References/NewSinceReport/March15/Swanson%20and%20Tsonis%20Has%20the%20climate%20recently%20shifted%202008GL037022.pdf
You’re an idiot webster – and a liar, intellectually dishonest, ignorant and a fool. An absolute disgrace in other words.
You have no comeback for this, eh Chef?
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
Comeback to your latest incompetent loser blog science?
I would link to NASA again if the site wasn’t shut down.
You are really just utterly dishonest.
What’s the problem Chief, Australia doesn’t have any brains of its own?
Maybe you should ask Ellison to be more specific. By that I mean he should state levels of likelyness as defined by the IPCC. FYI Curry leans towards no warming for one or more decades as well. It’s hardly a unique prognosis in other words and shared by at least some wholly qualifed experts in addition to a vast number of pikers.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html
What’s the problem Chief, Australia doesn’t have any brains of its own?
What an idiotic and dishonest question.
BTW – I have already given a probability a number of times – virtually certain – >99% probability of no warming for a decade.
We are in a cool mode – the planet is not warming. These modes last 20 to 40 years. They were first described in hydrology in Australia in the 1980’s.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233871224_Geomorphic_Effects_of_Alternating_Flood-_and_Drought-Dominated_Regimes_on_NSW_Coastal_Rivers
Orders taken fer knitted sweaters,. Best Merino wool.
Several years ago at the Old Sturbridge colonial reconstruction in Massachusetts, a young woman working as a guide there told of her resolution to make a sweater for her boyfriend from the flock of sheep kept there. She helped shear the sheep, washed and combed the wool, spun it and finally knitted it into a sweater, by which time she had come to the conclusion that no man was worth that much work.
=================
Doncha’ luv real life stories. :)
Pingback: Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy
Pingback: No Matter How the CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models Are Presented They Still Look Bad | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
AGW doubters won the global climate debate.
Their reward:
http://theinternetpost.net/2013/10/04/false-flag-coming-soon/
BTW: Tamino’s recommendation for shifting the models is full of s**t. If observations has tracked the models perfectly using his ‘method’ nd ‘reasoning’ would result in a graph that shows observations -0.08C colder than the models during the entire period from 1900-now. I mean: every single one!
See
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/taminos-take-on-figure-1-5/
Noise in the data might distract us from seeing this, but Taminos ‘method’ is just flat out dumb. The only possible explanation that anyone intelligent numerate would come up with that idea for rebaselining is “motivated reasoning”.
There are likely problems with the final graph too– but I’ll be explaining those later as it’s a different issue.
Face the fact that none of these curves was normalized to the primary variability described by the SOI.
Science moves on as it corrects itself.
I see they have no comeback when I pointed out how easy it is to remove the variability and noise. Voila, the pause disappears.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/the-ippc-slide-figure-1-4/
They claimed it was a thread-jacking.
The truth hurts.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
On a post discussing the characteristics of Figure 1.4 and focusing on to display observations and anomalies on a graph, a discussion of how to correct for the SOI is thread jacking as the question of how to correct using the SOI is irrelevant to this issue.
Moreover, several people told you your method was of ‘correcting’ seriously flawed before I pointed out that the topic was a threadjack. You were not able to rebut them. Only after those exchanges did I point out your interjection of your pet theory was also a threadjack.
If the truth is causing you pain: So be it.
LOL.
Thanks I needed some humor today Lucia. Dana and crew have been too quiet. ;)
Pingback: No Matter How the CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models Are Presented They Still Look Bad | Watts Up With That?
“Yes, Dana Nuccitelli, climate models are just as bad as we thought – and even worse than most people think, since the inability of most models to reproduce the Earth’s average temperature is not well known.”
I like this response from Skeptical Science :-)
Dana very nicely covered just how wrong Curry et al. are in their (biased) opinions. However, believe-it-or-not the reality is actually much worse for Curry.
Curry is of the opinion that climate models do not help her understand climate. A bizarre thing to claim for three reasons:
1) William Connolley calls out Curry on her double standard. He notes:
“…if you write a paper in which “the model simulations … were the main source of data used in the analysis” and yet you don’t think the models help, you’re not really going to write anything sane”.
Exactly. Well, why does she bother using them for her research then? The truth, as we know, is that all models are wrong, but they are still incredibly useful tools. Curry is being disingenuous.
2) It gets worse though. Curry and her husband Peter Webster run a consulting company called “Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN)”. Think about that name, what it indicates they do and then try and reconcile it with Curry’s musings about climate models. From the CFAN web-site (my bolding):
“CFAN can transform future climate scenarios into meaningful information for your organization.”
Those “future climate scnerious” are undoubtably based (at some level) on output from climate models developed and run by agencies that also provided their model output for inclusion in the IPCC assessment reports.
Curry also assures their clients that:
“CFAN’s approach to developing future climate scenarios provides the basis for assessing future risk to your organization, as well as for identifying future opportunities.”
So Curry is promising all kinds of deliverables based on the very climate models that she claims are “wrong”. How bizarre.
3) Now for the pièce de résistance. This one is more subtle but every bit as egregious.
Again from the CFAN web site (my bolding):
“CFAN’s weather and climate predictions, spanning time scales from days to decades, are based upon a sophisticated statistical/dynamical system that utilizes ensemble forecasts from multiple weather and climate modeling centers.”
Producing decadal forecasts is notoriously difficult. As Dana mentioned above and as Curry also concedes, current climate models struggle on the decadal scale (for reasons that I won’t go into here). But riddle me this. Curry is entrusting her business (and income) on the very models that she claims are wrong. What is more, she is trying to claim the models are wrong period by using data on a decadal time frame (full well knowing that they struggle on such time scales), but at the same time is informing CFAN clients that they can provide forecasts on a decadal time scale. Her duplicity is just astounding!
Curry wants to have it both ways. She wants to play rhetorical denier games in the public eye, and she also wants to derive income from the very models that she alledges are wrong.
CFAN clients and graduate students (present and prospective) should find these revelations more than a little disconcerting. She is misleading more than one group of people here.
‘AOS models are widely used for weather, general circulation, and climate, as well as for many more isolated or idealized phenomena: flow instabilities, vortices, internal gravity waves, clouds, turbulence, and biogeochemical and other material processes. However, their solutions are rarely demonstrated to be quantitatively accurate compared with nature. Because AOS models are intended to yield multifaceted depictions of natural regimes, their partial inaccuracies occur even after deliberate tuning of discretionary parameters to force model accuracy in a few particular measures (e.g., radiative balance for the top of the atmosphere; horizontal mass flux in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current).
Weather forecasts have both demonstrable skill and appreciable error (1). Climate predictions for anthropogenic global warming are both broadly credible yet mutually inconsistent at a level of tens of percent in such primary quantities as the expected centennial change in large-scale, surface air temperature or precipitation (2, 3). Slow, steady progress in model formulations continues to expand the range of plausibly simulated behaviors and thus provides an extremely important means for scientific understanding and discovery. Nevertheless, there is a persistent degree of irreproducibility in results among plausibly formulated AOS models. I believe this is best understood as an intrinsic, irreducible level of imprecision in their ability to simulate nature.’
We have here from Joseph an example of tendentious argumentation. It proceeds from an assumption that all models are the same and all uses of models are equal. The argument seems to be that Curry uses models therefore her critique of climate models is disingenuous. But understanding models and their working is essential to interpreting results and their limitations.
Decadal forecasting – btw – is better understood as proceeding from fundamental understanding of the systems in play. Something that can’t yet be translated into numerical analysis but is better analyzed probabilistically.
linky – http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
Joseph:
SkS appears to spend a lot of time keeping track of Dr. Curry. I think with your mentioned criticisms, you are trying to tie everything to the models. That is: Dr. Curry equals the models. Are we sure about that? Or are there tools and the people using those tools, along with their other knowledge?
I can think of one case where the selling point is, I have some software that does such and such.
I can think of another case where the selling point is, I have knowledge, and use software to help provide you with what I think you will call value.
Those with it would be wise to go with Judy’s decadal stuff. She’s got more on the model than a CO2 Control Knob.
==============
Actually, that started out as she has more on the ball than a fadeaway, but it got lost in translating a bunt to who’s on first.
=========================
Perhaps SkS has ‘Trouble with the Curve?’
Mickey?
Two questions:
1) Who the phuck is “Joseph”?
2) Did Joseph’s mother bear any children who weren’t stupid?
Joseph’s the beanballer.
Christy.
======
Joseph, Your comment is just an ignorant slander. You don’t know what CFAN’s methodology is or whether it has better skill than the competition. It may use climate models and attempt to correct their inconsistencies. Or maybe it uses simpler models. I also notice you quote the climate weasel, Connelley, who also specializes in the same sort of thing. Judith has inspired a host of lesser lights to start a campaign to discredit her. This means she is having an impact and judging from the weasely nature of the lesser lights, actually reinforces my view that Judith is on the right track here.
Joseph
In fact, Dana endorses Tamino’s really truly dumb rebaselining method — a method that could only be endorsed by someone who had just been painted with a stupid stick and who has forgotten that when comparing anomaly values, you must use the same baseline for your observations and models. Instead, when justifying shifting figure 1.4 in the SOD AR5, Tamino and Dana explain “why” you need to use an anomaly based on 1990 for models to compare to observations based on anomalies based on the average from 1980-1999.
Had I read Tamino’s post way back, I would have laughed hilariously back then. But I only read it reacently, and it is sidesplittingly funny that somehow, the stupidity of that “method” has not occurred to those advocating it. ( I await all sorts of “justifications”, But the method is just dumb. Mind-numbingly so.)
“Dana endorses Tamino’s really truly dumb rebaselining method”
Birdbrains of a feather flock together.
Write that down. :-)
The amount of CO2 per person in a given country doesn’t matter one whit. It is the total amount of CO2 emitted by the country that will, perhaps, have an effect on climate. I see so much hogwash on this blog.
not one whit … certainly not to individualistic North Americans with an astonishing sense of entitlement
North Americans worked for what they have. Envy much?
No envy at all, thanks.
“Burn that fossil fuel fast, baby” lifestyle has no appeal.
Yet you waste it on your toy computer to come here and belittle others that do not see a need to be hypocritical.
Energy wasted? All a matter of degree, isn’t it?
Getting in a few shots at the denial denizens of this site devoted to Heartland-inspired business as usual, is well worth a few grams of CO2.
No, energy wasted is not a matter of degrees. You either conserve it or waste it. You chose to waste it.
Spewing senseless ad hominems and idiotic non sequiturs is not an efficient use of what is supposed to be a scarce resource. Energy.
Ah, the hypocrisy of alarmists.
Entitlement or fair play, hmmm? quarecuss would appear to be a watermelon.
More acorn than watermelon. Bloated watermelon entitlement is what this website is all about.
Each to his/her own, my friend.
Yes, my friend.
That’s the American way.
Exceptionalism and excess.
Excess is in the eye of the beholder. Just ask the Saudis or Kuwaitis. Or maybe ask the Chinese about all their coal plants.
Heartland America sets a high standard.
Remove them mountain tops for coal.
The rest just trying to catch up.
What do you suppose was the effect of your few shots at the skeptical denizens here? It was like water off a duck’s back in my case. I would put to you that any effect was no more than a smug appeal to your own ego. Completely useless except in a selfish personal sense to yourself.
Do you feel better now? LOL
If you looks like a duck and you quacks like a duck …
Are you implying that the scientific quackery on this site is in fact impenetrable to reason and evidence/
Like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png
No quarecuss,
Springer is simply calling a spade a spade. It in your case, a f,ing shovel. Funny how folks like you feel “entitled” to pass judgment on others. The fact of you commenting here tells us you are a beneficiary of the excesses you so haughtily dismiss. Meaning that in addition to being a smug bas%ard, you double down with being a hypocrite. Talent like that should be recognized.
Did you look at the graph?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png
This just shows how many climate scientists let their politics influence their science, shame on them!
Can I ask what your political persuasion is?
I test almost in the middle of those political alignment tests, but I’m a registered Democratic Libertarian who votes mostly Republican because the Dem’s are clueless at running an economy.
So you’re a Republican Democratic Libertarian.
And that complicated political baggage doesn’t influence your scientific thinking?
Why would it, I’m in the middle.
Except at election time.
It’s actually pretty simple, a strong economy is more important than social issues, even when the social issue might impact me.
Pingback: Ilmastomallit paljastavat: 1900-luku oli pikkujääkauttakin kylmempi | Ilmastotiede
RGB at Duke has the most cogent analysis.
And all of this discussion regards only one metric – global average temperature ; which the models, and theory, get completely wrong.
Now consider all the other things produced by the models….regional predictions of temps and precip, ocean data, land data, upper atmospheric data. All of which the models get – you guessed it – 100% wrong.
Some “science”
phodges | October 4, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Reply
“RGB at Duke has the most cogent analysis.”
Yup. Reliably so. I’ve only had one minor disagreement with Duke Boy and that was over whether a non-convecting atmosphere in equilibrium has a lapse rate. Duke Boy tried to use a second-law violation stating that a gravitational induced lapse rate would enable a perpetual motion machine. I countered that a perpetuum mobile of the second kind is not prohibited by nature and further stated that one doesn’t need the gravito-thermal effect. Rob used a thought experiment with a thermo-pile where the hot side was deep the atmosphere and the other higher. A gravity-induced lapse rate would cause the thermo-pile to produce energy forever. First of all it won’t produce forever because as energy is removed from ostensible non-conducting atmosphere the gases will eventually collapse into a puddle of liquid gases and then become solid and then disappear as the entire system is reduced to a temperature of absolute zero i.e. a complete conversion of mass to energy. That’s a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. Nature only prohibits those of the first kind. Be that as it may one doesn’t need an atmosphere for this device. One can simply make one’s thermopile stretch from the earth’s surface to the L5 point in space where it will remain by centrepetal force which is the same concept behind a space elevator.
If you can build the elevator you can turn it into a thermopile too and generate electricity until the earth itself reaches the 3K temperature of the vacuum so there’s no need at all for a gravito-thermal effect in an atmosphere. If the perpetuum mobile of the second kind is possible to construct one doesn’t need a Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect to do it. So Rob’s thought experiment is shot down. QED
Other than Rob’s knee jerk establishment response to the incorrect supposition that a gravito-thermal effect enables a perpetuum mobile of the second kind I haven’t found any other thing to disagree with him about.
It’s science, that’s not the problem. Science can and does get things wrong — it is a part of the process. The problem arises from claiming that the science is “settled” and using its erroneous conclusions for political purposes. The secondary problem comes from the sad fact that scientists, like everybody else, have to eat and hence tailor their research focus (and, insensibly, their data, their analysis, their conclusions) towards what funding agencies “desire” and will pay for.
It’s not surprising that the GCMs are (so far) incorrect in that they do not compare well to reality or each other, to the point where simple four or five component empirical/heuristic models like that of Scafetta can outperform them. It’s a hard problem, and it may be decades (or even a century) before we get close to solving it. For one thing, we don’t yet have enough high quality data to solve it. For another, climate models have been tuned to a monotonic rise that is expected/predicted by precisely that empirical model to be almost precisely what was observed, making it hard to claim that it is either “unprecedented” or “unexpected”. Unexplained is fair. However, predictive models need to be able to describe more complex behavior outside of the realm observed in the “training set”, and GCMs have yet to demonstrate this ability and fail the FIRST time non-monotonic structure is observed in nature.
The fundamental problem for climate scientists right now is just how, and when, they are going to say “Oops, never mind, we got it all wrong, sorry about helping politicians pick your pockets to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, causing the near-destruction of the Euro as a currency, and killing 20 or 30 million of the world’s poorest people in the meantime by artificially inflating the cost of carbon-based energy” while still preserving their funding, their professional reputations, and if the torches and pitchforks come out (as the well might) their freedom or even their lives. If congress gets the feeling that e.g. Hansen lied to them or deliberately misled them with that bit of power-turned-off theater that kicked off the whole thing in Washington, or if investigation determines that e.g. GISS has been “deliberately” distorted to enhance apparent warming, I could see contempt of congress and/or jail time for those involved.
If, of course, they turn out to be wrong. I personally think it is ethically just as wrong to assert certainty when one really isn’t certain and to turn out to be right as turn out to be wrong, but it is still possible that CAGW is true. The current evidence is simply not strong support of the assertion that it IS true. But things might change, again. That’s what the IPCC report spinners are hoping/praying for. And how sad is that! To actually have to hope that we are in the middle of a disaster, because otherwise your unethical behavior in unequivocally predicting one will be exposed…
rgb
“The fundamental problem for climate scientists right now is just how, and when, they are going to say “Oops, never mind, we got it all wrong, sorry about helping politicians pick your pockets to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, causing the near-destruction of the Euro as a currency, and killing 20 or 30 million of the world’s poorest people in the meantime by artificially inflating the cost of carbon-based energy”
Once again it seems as though “warmists” are not the only “alarmists” on this site.
Pingback: Climate models, trust, and spin « Quotulatiousness
Pingback: Teksasin tarkka-ampujat | Roskasaitti
Hmmm, you clearly don’t seem to appreciate the second law of thermodynamics, David;-) That’s the one that prohibits perpetual motion machines of the second kind, and yes, you have to ask how likely it is (because the second law is all about probability) that a closed container, by means of any physical process you like and with any sort of machinery inside (but no sources of free energy) will end up in a final state with e.g. a battery completely charged with all of the free energy content of a gas, now liquid, now solid at 0K. I think it is very, very unlikely.
I’d quote Sommerfeld, but what’s the point?
rgb
“Yes, Dana Nuccitelli, climate models are just as bad as we thought – and even worse than most people think, since the inability of most models to reproduce the Earth’s average temperature is not well known.”
What are you trying to tell us with that? Are you saying that therefore global warming might in fact be MUCH WORSE than the IPCC is predicting??? That would be great but I doubt it. I sense that you are feeding into skeptics’ wishful thoughts. Like the wishful thought that because of the hiatus global warming is now over – or has never started. That is irresponsible. Models – no matter how bad they may be – are the best we have to predict the future of climate. Ignorance is not bliss.
“Are you saying that therefore global warming might in fact be MUCH WORSE than the IPCC is predicting??? That would be great but I doubt it.”
Let me guess. For Halloween you dress up like a Climate Scientist.
So you’re a Republican Democratic Libertarian.
And that complicated political baggage doesn’t influence your scientific thinking?
Sorry, that political comment was meant for Mi Cro.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
captdallas2: if you want to be a smart-a say something smart next time.
Pingback: Spinning the climate model-observations comparison. Part III | Climate Etc.
Curry writes:”What is wrong is the failure of the IPCC to note the failure of nearly all climate model simulations to reproduce a pause of 15+ years.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I suggest it’s wrong to go on and on about surface temperatures – while ignoring what’s happening within our oceans –
It’s also wrong to expect models to have the accuracy of engineering formulas.
And it’s downright deceitful to focus on this minucia while ignoring the bigger picture of a warming globe and increasingly stressful extreme weather events that will continue inflicting greater damage on a complex society that seems to be committed to ignoring the consequences of increasing our planet’s atmosphere’s insulating medium (GHGs) by a third.
Pingback: Confronting the Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change | Fabius Maximus
Pingback: The argument from authority and CAGW | Elizaphanian
Hi there to all, the contents present at this website are in
fact remarkable for people knowledge, well, keep up the
nice work fellows.
Greetings! Very useful advice in this particular article! It’s
the little changes that make the largest changes.
Thanks a lot for sharing!
I have read so many articles about the blogger lovers however this article is truly a fastidious paragraph, keep it up.
It is in reality a nice and useful piece of info. I’m happy that you just shared this useful
info with us. Please stay us informed like this.
Thank you for sharing.
Hi, i think that i saw you visited my site thus i came to “return the favor”.I am trying
to find things to enhance my web site!I suppose its
ok to use some of your ideas!!
Hi everybody, here every one is sharing these familiarity,
thus it’s fastidious to read this webpage, and I used to visit this webpage every day.
After looking over a number of the blog posts on your blog, I seriously appreciate your technique
of writing a blog. I book marked it to my bookmark
webpage list and will be checking back soon. Please check out my
website as well and tell me what you think.
I will right away seize your rss feed as I can not to find your email subscription
link or newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Kindly allow me realize in order that I
could subscribe. Thanks.
I constantly spent my half an hour to read this webpage’s articles daily along with a cup of coffee.
You will discover about three nearly all important causes to why you ought to do not delay get rid of every one of the network limits from an individual
smart phone. There are reliable and trustworthy websites that are well expertise in offering
the unlocking procedures which are efficient and easy to use.
Instead, you can simply switch the SIM card in the phone
and use the local GSM services, just like the way you have been using on any previous unlocked
phone.
The main gain to jailbreaking an i – Phone five is the ability to turn it right into a Wi-Fi hotspot.
And, we have a winner in the “Which i – Phone 5C will sell out first” sweepstakes,
which took place on Friday, Sept. One of the most common screens anyone sees on the i –
Phone is the slide to unlock screen.
Some people criticize this as a flawless design for i – Phone
and prefer their old i – Phone. Web pages render much quicker as well and there is no lag
or slowdown when loading apps and navigating menus.
Pay – Pal is used as the means of making the payments and after you have paid,
an download facility is provide to you instantly and after this
you will be facilitated by unlocking the iphone easily.
I am curious to find out what blog system you happen to be utilizing?
I’m having some minor security problems with my latest website and I’d like to find something more safeguarded.
Do you have any suggestions?
Hi there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it is
really informative. I’m gonna watch out for brussels.
I will be grateful if you continue this in future. Numerous people
will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Do you have a spam issue on this site; I also am
a blogger, and I was wondering your situation; we have developed some
nice methods and we are looking to swap methods with other
folks, be sure to shoot me an e-mail if interested.
Please let me know if you’re looking for a article
writer for your weblog. You have some really great articles and I believe I would be a
good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d love to write some material for your blog in exchange for a
link back to mine. Please send me an e-mail if interested.
Cheers!
I am regular reader, how are you everybody? This piece of writing posted at
this website is truly fastidious.
Nice blog! Is your theme custom made or did you
download it from somewhere? A design like yours with a few simple adjustements would really make
my blog jump out. Please let me know where you got your
theme. Thank you
The free debt consolidation solution best suited to your particular situation will vary depending on how much you owe, how disciplined you are,
and what your future options include. The velocity in this advertising program relies
on the corporation. It took thirteen several years of scientific tests to turn out to be a periodontal surgeon with specialty in dental implants to please my family members, specially a promise to my mom, but as a moment important I studied for bachelors and masters in psychology to find answers for myself.
The Bible tells us that Israel marched to songs
in the wilderness immediately after fleeing Egypt. If the end rhymes, in order, are Bob, unemployed,
job, overjoyed, you have an ABAB rhyme scheme.
s music has drawn on many diverse genres; the critic Stephen Thomas Erlewine describes him as a “pop encyclopedia,” able to “reinvent the past in his own image”.
Hello there! This article could not be written much better!
Looking at this post reminds me of my previous roommate!
He always kept preaching about this. I am going to send
this post to him. Pretty sure he’ll have a great read.
Many thanks for sharing!
Wow! In the end I got a web site from where I be able to really take valuable information concerning my study and knowledge.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about games. Regards
Pretty component of content. I simply stumbled upon your
weblog and in accession capital to claim that I acquire in fact loved account your weblog posts.
Anyway I’ll be subscribing for your augment and
even I success you get right of entry to consistently rapidly.
Heya just wanted to give you a brief heads up and let you know a
few of the images aren’t loading correctly. I’m not sure why
but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different browsers and both show the same results.
Asking questions are genuinely fastidious thing if you are not understanding anything entirely, however this paragraph gives good
understanding yet.
I like the helpful information you provide in your articles.
I will bookmark your weblog and check again here frequently.
I am quite sure I’ll learn many new stuff right here!
Best of luck for the next!
Hidradenitis suppurativa may put open injuries, for this reason vitamin C usually
is greatly advantageous in this instance. During flare-ups, she’d stayed at home for days or weeks,
and her social life was becoming nonexistent. This is why many
women have genital acne just before their periods.
It’s remarkable to pay a visit this website and reading the views of all friends regarding this
article, while I am also zealous of getting experience.
If you might have trust within your relationship, you will
have little chances to give straight into temptation. This form of man will usually look, and
admire each woman, but will probably not any more prone to cheat than
any one else alive. For some it can be a matter of revenge against a
dishonest husband yet still others are wanting for something different.
Always have water available to alleviate the dryness.
They can cost as much as 10 points upfront, plous interest rates as hig as
15% a year. According, to some conference call providers people witth such
needs can avail conferencing solutions and reduce thei telephone expenses.
buy chanel Handbag
My programmer is trying to convince me to move to .net from
PHP. I have always disliked the idea because of the expenses.
But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using WordPress on a variety
of websites for about a year and am worried about switching to another platform.
I have heard very good things about blogengine.net.
Is there a way I can import all my wordpress posts
into it? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
What’s up to every , because I am in fact eager of reading this
weblog’s post to be updated regularly. It contains good information.
you’re truly a just right webmaster. The website loading speed is amazing.
It kind of feels that you’re doing any unique trick.
Moreover, The contents are masterpiece. you have performed a wonderful
activity on this topic!
chanel cosmetic bag
Hi there! I could have sworn I’ve visited this
site before but after looking at some of the posts I realized it’s
new to me. Anyways, I’m definitely happy I stumbled upon it and I’ll be book-marking it and checking back regularly!
Hi there i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anywhere, when i read this paragraph i thought i could also make comment due to this sensible paragraph.
I am regular visitor, how are you everybody? This post posted
at this web site is in fact nice.
Why visitors still use to read news papers when in this technological globe
everything is presented on net?
Thank үou a loot ffor sharing this wirҺ aall people youu actually recߋgnise
what you’re ѕpeaking about! Bookmarked. Kindlyy aɗditioոallү seek
advice frοm my website =). Wе coսld have a ljnk chaոցe
agreement аmong us
You neeed to take part in a contest for one of the
finest sites on the internet. I am going to
highly recommend this website!
Chondroitin Sulfate
Although many of us utilize a search engine each day, we usually think about
doing searches to find what we need instead of thinking of
how to use them to help our businesses “get found” online.
Do not compensate them for the review as this
would be unethical. Norway’s Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg attended at
a memorial service held at Oslo Cathedra on Sunday 24
July 2011 to show off his tribute to 76 people dead of the twin attacks.
Excellent article. I absolutely appreciate this site.
Continue the good work!
An interesting discussion is worth comment.
I think that you need to write more about this topic, it may not be
a taboo subject but generally people don’t discuss such subjects.
To the next! Best wishes!!
Wheen someine writes ann post he/she mainains thee plan off a user in
his/her mind that how a user can know it. So that’s why this article iis amazing.
Thanks!
Hi, this weekend is nice in support of me, for the reason
that this moment i am reading this impressive educational piece of writing here at
my house.
Electronic cigarette is an alternative to traditional tobacco cigarettes in today’s market.
Two weeks in to my experiment, I decided to go for it and just quit smoking tobacco cigarettes for good.
The electronic cigarette starter kit is available in different
flavours.
Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished to mention that I have really loved surfing
around your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing to
your rss feed and I’m hoping you write again very soon!
Hi my family member! I wish to say that this article is awesome, nice written
and come with almost all significant infos. I would
like to peer more posts like this .
of course like your web site however you need to check the spelling on quite a
few of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling issues and I to find it
very bothersome to inform the truth nevertheless I’ll surely
come again again.
Now that your scar is less painful, you become aware of the needs of the
man who has been supporting you throughout this difficult time.
Sex during periods is completely acceptable, as long as both people
are consenting to the idea. “She is not Victoria’s ‘muse’ and there is no ‘face of’ the advertising campaign.
I seldom create responses, but i did a few searching and wound
up here Spinning the climate model – observation comparison: Part II | Climate Etc..
And I actually do have 2 questions for you if you usually do not mind.
Could it be just me or does it look like some of the responses look like they are written by brain dead individuals?
:-P And, if you are posting on other online social sites, I would like to keep up with anything new you have to post.
Would you list of every one of your community sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?
It’s very trouble-free to find out any matter on web as compared to textbooks, as I found this paragraph at this website.
Heya! I’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone
4! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts!
Carry on the superb work!