This is another post that illustrates and discusses just how poorly climate models simulate one of the most important climate variables: global surface temperatures. I’ve included a copy of this post in pdf format, linked at the end, for readers who would like to treat this post as a supplement to my ebook Climate Models Fail.
My blog post No Matter How the CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models Are Presented They Still Look Bad was cross posted at WattsUpWithThat here. Scrolling down through that WUWT thread, you’ll find a comment by Bill Illis:
Bill Illis says:
October 5, 2013 at 6:10 am (Edit)
Comment from Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute in a presentation at the Royal Society about the IPCC report.
“As a result of the hiatus, explained Marotzke, the IPCC report’s chapter 11 revised the assessment of near-term warming downwards from the “raw” CMIP5 model range. It also included an additional 10% reduction because some models have a climate sensitivity that’s slightly too high.”
Sure enough, if we look at the IPCC’s Figure 11.9 (my Figure 1) and Figure 11.25 (my Figure 2) we can see how the IPCC has lowered the near-term predictions—without changing their long-term prognostications.
Figure 1 (Full-sized with caption is here.)
# # #
Figure 2 (Full-sized with caption is here.)
# # #
The IPCC discussed Figures 11.9 and 11.25 in Chapter 11 of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (6MB .pdf). For the discussion of Figure 11.9, see page 24/123 (Adobe Acrobat page numbering), under the heading of “11.3.2 Near-Term Projected Changes in the Atmosphere and Land Surface”, and with a further subheading of “11.3.2.1.1 Global mean surface air temperature.”
Figure 11.9 can be found on page 102/123.
For Figure 11.25, see the discussions under the heading of “11.3.6.3 Synthesis of Near-Term Projections of Global Mean Surface Air Temperature” starting on page 53/123.
Figure 11.25 can be found on page 120/123.
# # #
The October 3, 2013 article Bill Illis linked at EnvironmentalResearchWeb Royal Society meeting discusses IPCC fifth assessment report was written Liz Kalaugher. Jochem Marotzke was described in the article as:
…Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, who was part of the IPCC team assembling scientific evidence on trends in temperature over the last ten to fifteen years.
In the article, Jochem Marotzke tried to downplay the significance of the hiatus:
“Such hiatus periods are common in the record and yet this last one has sparked enormous debate,” Marotzke told delegates at the Royal Society. “Does the surface warming hiatus mean global warming has stopped? No. Warming of the climate system continues. Sea ice continues to melt, the ocean continues to take up heat, sea level continues to rise.”
But if “hiatus periods are common in the record” why must the IPCC revise “the assessment of near-term warming downwards from the ‘raw’ CMIP5 model range” and include “an additional 10% reduction because some models have a climate sensitivity that’s slightly too high”? And if they’re so common, why did the IPCC have to create a team to assemble “scientific evidence on trends in temperature over the last ten to fifteen years”?
The answer to both questions is, the CLIMATE MODELS CANNOT SIMULATE the multidecadal variations that exist in the surface temperature record. These multidecadal variations are seen as warming periods that last for approximately 3 decades followed by periods of about 3 decades without warming. We’ve recently discussed this in the posts IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide and in Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC? (Also see the cross posts at WUWT here and here.) These multidecadal variations are well-known to the public, and that’s why I presented (in the “Downfall” post) the difference between the IPCC’s projection of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature anomalies and the public’s vision on how the warming will occur based on the past variations…assuming surface temperatures continue to warm in the future. (See Figure 3.)
Figure 3
And it’s well known by the public that the models used by the IPCC are tuned to the upswing that started in the mid-1970s (see Mauritsen, et al. (2012) Tuning the Climate of a Global Model [paywalled]. A preprint edition is here.), while failing to consider the impacts of naturally occurring multidecadal periods of no warming on their long-term (to 2100) prognostications.
Last, as far as I know, the IPCC did not lower their long-term prognostications based on their lower short-term predictions.
SUPPLEMENT 3 TO CLIMATE MODELS FAIL
For those who are collecting the blogs posts in pdf form as supplements to my book Climate Models Fail, the copy of this post is here.
Supplement 1 is here. It’s a reprint of the post Models Fail: Land versus Sea Surface Warming Rates.
Supplement 2 is here. It’s a reprint of the post IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Really appreciate your posts: Thanks again Bob.
And what happens to these trends if the sun goes quiet?
If the model output is the basis and result of your science, you must use the model output.
Oops. Thanks for the link, Bill Illis.
If we are entering a solar minimum none of the models will stand up. Time will tell. But sunspots (and other relevant solar parameters) may predict.
If the model output is the basis and result of your science, you must use the model output.
Use it for what? And if the science included in the models is wrong or incomplete?
AnonyMoose:
At October 29, 2013 at 4:31 am you say
Please explain how anything can be both “the basis and result of your science” without the result being an outcome of a circular argument and, therefore, false.
Richard
I’d assume AnonyMoose is simply descirbing the IPCC’s rationale, if you can call it that and just forgot to add a /sarc tag or something. At least this is how i read it.
Thanks Bob for another informative post. I was wondering when you would spot the new ‘supercreative’ near-term projections, chopsticks with very interesting uncertainty ranges. Whatever happens in the next decade, unless temperatures are going down drastically on global scale, the IPCC will claim they had it covered. Most people discussing climate change are well aware GMST is a meaningless metric anyway and it’s encouraging to see how the focus is shifting away from it recently.
Anyone can use my comments, links, graphs, whatever, without attribution. I’m in this debate for the truth only and that’s it.
The point is you don’t get to just change your numbers after the fact. What kind of science is that? And then you don’t get to pretend your predictions were accurate if you just changed them after the fact. What kind of accountability is that?
This theory is about what will happen in the future. That is what it is about. It is about predictions of the future. We have to be able to track what this theory is all about, predictions of the future.
In the year 2090, are they going to say, we predicted this flat century of temperature and, therefore, global warming theory is correct. Going by what they have done in the last two decades, you could predict the future just by assuming that is what they will do.
“Please explain how anything can be both “the basis and result of your science” without the result being an outcome of a circular argument and, therefore, false.
Richard”
That’s precisely the point Anonymoose is making, is it not? I think you are reading his/her comment too literally.
“Does the surface warming hiatus mean global warming has stopped? No. Warming of the climate system continues. Sea ice continues to melt, the ocean continues to take up heat, sea level continues to rise.”
Well, except that the claim of CAGW by CO2 alarmists is that as atmospheric CO2 levels rise, so too will the surface warming.
Also, sea ice would melt faster, the ocean’s would take in more heat, and sea levels would rise faster. Catastrophic climate events would then ensue.
However, they did not say, “sea ice would continue to melt but slower, the ocean’s would take in more heat but warm less, and sea levels would rise at a slower rate along with a surface warming “hiatus””, did they?
It pains me as a Canadian to see Obama destroy the USA, over unbelievable fraud and lies. [all areas]
Why no impeachment? I thought CO2 lagged global temps, and after 16+ years of no warming despite CO2 levels being up, debunked CO2 as a cause.
Why continue to believe the myth?
I’m not so sure that comparing the US today to the fall of the Roman Empire is all that far off.
The whole AGW meme is a COS. IMO.
This ‘science’ is absolutely brilliant value, and it costs us less than $1.0 billion per day! See below
I am reminded of that scene in the movie Lord of War, where Nicholas Cage is yelling: “Guns, guns, guns!”, as he successfully gets a bunch of impoverished Sierra Leonans to take all the obsolete weapons off his plane before the UN police arrive.
In this case however, it’s: “Models, models, models!” And we are being asked to take obsolete models as being gospel truth, just because they have been yet again manipulated. In real science, this type of manipulation is not allowed; in ‘climate science’ it is standard practice.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/nearly-1-billion-a-day-to-change-the-climate-the-invisible-vested-elephant-in-the-room/
If the model output is the basis and result of your science, you must use the model output.
But then, it’s about the same level of science as proving that God exists assuming that God exists..
Sorry to be repetitive, and be always plowing the sands, but all that this shows is that the IPCC NEVER knew what it was doing, and NEVER did any science. And we have known this for years. But still no-one who matters is taking any notice whatsoever. It may be decades before the empirical data proves that CAGW is a hoax, but what damage is going to be done in the meanwhile?
. We are currently about where the planet was back about 1807 and again in 1885, just 2 years past the solar maximums of 1805 and 1883 of the first low solar cycles # 5 and again # 12. These were the first solar cycle in series of three low solar cycles.. The ocean SST and AMO were in the cooling mode heading for troughs by1820 and 1910. The Arctic was cooling as indicated by Greenland oxygen isotope records. What followed according to CET records was a decade or two of cooler winter climate, starting at the end of the first and during the second and third solar cycles.
One of Bob’s previous Graphs as shown below is a detrended historical plot of the sea surface temperature anomalies (HADSST3) for the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean basins from pole to pole The peaks and valleys of this plot match the peaks and valleys of global cooling and warming temperature patterns over the last 130 years . The surface temperatures of these oceans seem to have peaked and are again heading for a cold trough by about 2040 like they did 1910 and 1975. A global warming peak like 2005 is not predicted for 60- 70 years or until 2065/2075. So IPCC predictions of continued temperature rise of 1.8 to 4 C by 2100 are not only wrong but very unlikely regardless what their models say. If the oceans are cooling so will the global atmosphere. I agree with Bob that IPCC continues to be unable to simulate SST’s
Courtesy of Bob Tisdale’s and WUWT web pages
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-72.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/30/part-2-comments-on-the-ukmo-report-the-recent-pause-in-global-warming/
some good news, folks, Lord Oxburgh fails:
29 Oct: Guardian: Rowena Mason: Energy firms raised prices despite drop in wholesale costs
Energy bill increases are continuing to cause a headache for the coalition, as a new YouGov poll shows 68% of the public believes Labour’s energy ***Another amendment in favour of decarbonising all of Britain’s electricity by 2030, tabled by Lord Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, narrowly failed to pass.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/29/energy-firms-raised-prices-as-wholesale-costs-fall
Follow the money. The money is driving the AGW models and predictions and the money, in terms of negative economic impacts upon society, is what will stop the poor science. More emphasis upon those negative economic impacts so that people understand just what this hoax is costing THEM in their own personal pocketbook in terms of taxes, energy costs, transportation costs, heating costs, cooling costs, ad infinitum, ad nauseum is what it will take to stop this runaway train of stupidity. For every graph put out to show the truth of the science, two will be put out by the AGW crowd to protect their money and most people do not understand the science. They do understand their pocketbook. How much more is our cost of living, in general, due to the green movement’s interference in the economy?
Cost of oil/gas?
Cost of electricity?
Cost of food?
Etc.
Etc.
+
+
+
.
.
.
.
pat’s news article is a hint of just how insidious the social madness of AGW really is.
Oxburgh, made no small part of his fortune running a large oil company. He is now ransacking the tax payers and rate payers by using trumped up claims about CO2. And yet he was appointed as the head of a committee whose job was allegedly to look for problems in the scientists and their behavior regarding the very thing he is now profiting from.
The more I look at the madness gripping the EU and the US, the more I think that AGW is simply a very dangerous symptom of a deeper dysfunction. Corruption is the true disease that underlies the bad governance, the squandering of trillions, the irresponsible spending by so many governments, etc. The $ billion per day now being wasted on the AGW industry is probably just a small part of the total wastage being achieved by our so-called “progressive” leaders.
Great Post Your most peoples projection shows that everyone – outside the IPCC faithful has finally decided to include the 60 year cycle. I’m grinding away to try to getthe realists to accept the 1000 year cycle as well – its really not rocket science but the simplest Occams razor assumption.
To see the estimated timing and amount of the coming cooling including the obvious 1000 year cycle go to
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
hunter says:
October 29, 2013 at 6:33 am
Oxburgh, made no small part of his fortune running a large oil company.
=====
no surprise he wants to decarbonize the economy. coal is the only serious competition to oil, and if you eliminate carbon you eliminate coal. without coal, oil then has a monopoly on the market.
but, but, but you say. oil has carbon. ah, but not as much as coal. so if you penalize carbon you raise the price of coal much more than oil, which allows oil profits to increase to match the now higher price of coal.
the big loser in all this are the consumers, that in the end will pay the tax in the form of higher prices. the big winners will be the oil companies, who will get to increase their profits to match the larger taxes on coal.
Excellent article.
Correctly predicting the future is certainly a difficult task.
This is not my original thought but is it not possible that climate sensitivity to CO2 is variable? (This is where the second Earth for experimentation would be handy…)
However, my own original thought is that if CO2 sensitivity is actually variable, then figuring out how the climate system actually works (and thus make useful future predictions) would probably beyond our capability for a very long time. I mean it’s hard enough as it is right now.
Pat at 6.11am
At the end of your link to the Guardian article, there was a reference to an important defeat for the greens in the House of Lords yesterday. They wanted to amend the new UK energy bill to force a decarbonisation target for 2030. All of the usual suspects such as Greenpeace, WWF and Co., lobbied very hard for the amendment (letters to The Times etc) and will be gutted that it was not passed.
During the debate, (Viscount) Matt Ridley made a powerful speech in which he likened the UK’s unilateral approach to carbon reduction to building a flood dam at the bottom of ones garden when your neighbour isn’t. More importantly, he cited all of the elements of the IPCC report that indicate less certainty over their warming projections.
Although the vote went very much along party lines, his speech may well have swayed some doubters to vote against the amendment. Apart from the vote, It was good to hear the facts spelled out so clearly in such an important venue, and I am sure that it has given a number of our lawmakers food for thought.
For those in the UK, the debate is on BBC Iplayer for the next five days and it is worth hearing Matt Ridley. He speaks about two thirds of the way through (skip the rest).
Have you all seen this rubbish?
The comments at the bottom amuse me. ‘She raises a good point’. Really? Where? I must’ve missed it.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt