Climate models – worse than we thought

Observations Now Inconsistent with Climate Model Predictions for 25 (going on 35) Years

Question: How long will the fantasy that climate models are reliable indicators of the earth’s climate evolution persist in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Answer: Probably for as long as there is a crusade against fossil fuels.

Without the exaggerated alarm conjured from overly pessimistic climate model projections of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels—coal, oil, gas—would regain their image as the celebrated agents of  prosperity that they are, rather than being labeled as pernicious agents of our destruction.

Just how credible are these climate models?

In two words, “they’re not.”

Everyone has read that over the past 10-15 years, most climate models’ forecasts of the rate of global warming have been wrong. Most predicted a hefty warming of the earth’s average surface temperature to have taken place, while there was no significant change in the real world.

But very few  people know that the same situation has persisted for 25, going on 35 years, or that over the past 50-60 years (since the middle of the 20th century), the same models expected about 33 percent more warming to have taken place than was observed.

We can blame the lack of public awareness of this scientific farce squarely  on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In the Summary for Policymakers, the most-read section of its brand new Fifth Assessment Report (released back in late September), the IPCC had this to say about climate model performance:

Climate models have improved since the [Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007]. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).

Followed immediately by this:

The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012).

All in all, a rather glowing assessment.

Glowing, but not so hot.

We’ve calculated the trend in the global average surface temperature simulated to have occurred starting in every year since 1950 and ending in 2012 for every* run of every climate model used in the new IPCC report. In Figure 1, below, we compare the average (and spread) of these 106 model runs with the observed trend during each of the same periods.

In every single case, the observed trend lies below the model average trend. For the trends of length 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 27 years, the observed trend lies outside (below) the range which includes 95 percent of all model runs (indicated by red in Figure 1). In statistics, this means that the observed trend is inconsistent with the collection of model trends. For trends of length 10, 11, 12, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 years, the observed trend lies outside (below) the range encompassing 90 percent of all model trends (indicated in yellow in Figure 1). We call this marginally inconsistent with the models. For trends of length 13, 14, 15, and all lengths greater than 34 years, the observed trend is consistent with the collection of model trends (indicated by green in Figure 1), although it lies pretty far out in the low end of model projections in every case.

For what it’s worth, this same IPCC report has verbal descriptors of their published probability figures. When they say something has a 90 percent probability, it is “virtually likely” (whatever the heck that means!), and a 95 percent probability is “extremely likely.” So, analogously, one could apply those same words to our 90 and 95 percent probabilities of model failure over certain lengths of time. But because English is our primary language, we’re stating that the models are “marginally inconsistent” and “clearly inconsistent” with reality in these periods.

This hardly seems to fit the IPCC description that “[m]odels reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades” or is grounds for having “very high confidence” that the “model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend.”

And things aren’t going to get better anytime soon (if ever). In fact, they are about to get much worse.

That’s because the longer global temperatures just sort of plod along without rising much (new research suggests that such a period may extend for another 20 years or so), the more established (and entrenched) the observed/model mismatch becomes.

In Figure 1, above, our analysis ended with the last full year of available data, 2012. With three-quarters of 2013 already in the books, we can make a pretty good guess as to what the global average temperature anomaly is going to be at years’ end, and perform the same analysis we described above, but ending in the year 2013 instead of 2012.  By the looks of things, 2013 is going to continue the string of years (going on 17 now) during which there has been virtually no change in the global average temperature and thus making the model performance even worse.

Figure 2, below, gives the updated result.

For data ending in the year 2013, the category of marginal inconsistency extends out to 37 years and is now flirting with lengths exceeding 50 years, and trends of lengths 11-28, 31, 33, and 34 (!) are clearly inconsistent with the climate model simulations.

In other words, over the past third of a century—the period with the greatest amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions—the behavior of the real world (i.e., reality) falls far below the average expectation of climate models and, in fact, is clearly inconsistent with the range of model results. Less than 2.5 percent of model runs show that global warming is really global luke warming to the degree that real-world observations indicate.

Basically, the models don’t work.

This reality ought to be enough to stop the anti-fossil fuel (via carbon dioxide emission restrictions) crusaders in their tracks.

But thus far, it hasn’t, aided in part by the obfuscations of the United Nations (through the IPCC reports) and our own federal government (via reports such as the National Assessment of Climate Change).

If the people currently in charge of these organizations can’t face reality, then it is high time to replace them with others who can.

………………………………….

* We should say, every run that was available through the Climate Explorer website. Climate Explorer had 106 individual model runs, while the IPCC states it has 113 (we have been unable to identify the other 7 runs). The difference should have minimal impacts on our analysis.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Modeling and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Climate models – worse than we thought

  1. Bryan A says:

    It must be time to take that bottom black dotted line encompassing the bottom end of the 95% of modeled trends and reduce it so it can encompess the actual trend such that the modeled means will once again be contained within the 95% margin

  2. wwlee4411 says:

    Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
    Do you want to see the truth? Do you want to see what the environmentalists don’t want you to see?

  3. Lied. The ipcc has repeated lied from day one. If a witness lies all of their testimony
    Is rejected. Why is anyone listening to a word they say.?

  4. Janice Moore says:

    If the people currently in charge of these organizations can’twon’t face reality, then it is high time to replace them with others who canwill.

    Knappenberger and Michaels

    Thankfully, mechanical engineers face reality and bravely do what any sane person does when a model utterly fails: junk it and start over.

    … just a lot of baloney…… What a mess!

    #(:))

    (If the Fantasy Science Club were in charge of aviation research… we still all be on “a slow boat to China,” i.e., being taken for a ride, … er, being conned, heh.)

  5. Auto says:

    But . . .
    But . . . .
    The civil servants, pecuniously remunerated on 6 or 8 x 10^4 £/A, plus non-contributory, index-linked pensions.
    Ahhhh. Sorry.
    Excuse me. What do they care?
    Please?

    Most of my pension is defined contribution. . .. . . . . . – not defined benefit.

  6. Curious George says:

    They should get their physics right. The latent heat of water evaporation is temperature-dependent.

  7. bobl says:

    I see no reason why the warmest simulations shouldn’t now be rejected and removed from the suite, clearly averaging known wrong results with anything is NOT going to give a result closer to the truth.

  8. Jquip says:

    OP – “Basically, the models don’t work.”

    Why does everyone say this, when it’s quite obviously reality that’s broken.

  9. rogerknights says:

    When they say something has a 90 percent probability, it is “virtually likely” (whatever the heck that means!)

    I thought it meant “very likely.”

  10. Jimbo says:

    Without the exaggerated alarm conjured from overly pessimistic climate model projections of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels—coal, oil, gas—would regain their image as the celebrated agents of prosperity that they are, rather than being labeled as pernicious agents of our destruction.

    Here are some of the embarrassing questions I like to ask your typical Warmist.

    1) Do you currently use fossil fuels?
    2) Do you own and drive a petrol or diesel driven car?
    3) Do you have 24 hour electricity? If yes, do the people in Kenya? If not, why not?

    ……………and other similar hypocritical finding questions. You will be amazed that there is a 97% hypocritical matching rate among warmists. I refer you to Prince Charles (many mansions), Al Gore, (oil, tobacco, oil, 2 mansions, green investment dumping, Oil Gozeera selling TV), George Monbiot, (book promotions by flight, fossil fuel driven auto), James Cameron – director (ULTRA HYPOCRITE, NO JOKING 3 adjacent villas with heated pools, autos, helicopters et. al.), and so on………………………….

    How do honest people tackle hypocrites? They expend more co2 than me!!!!

  11. fhhaynie says:

    How long? As long as politicians will pay them to produce “evidence” that CO2 is a harmful pollutant. They want to be able to control the use of fossil fuels. “Believable” lies are good enough.

  12. Jimbo says:

    Not only do they “They expend more co2 than me!!!!” they expend much, much more than me.

    Here is how the game is played. Release your own co2 without a care in the world, then go on TV and tell people that they should learn to live with less. Prince Charles and James Cameron have said so, yet they do whatever they want. We the UNWASHED IDIOTS should simply do as we are told because the biosphere will be destroyed by the trace rise of the trace gas carbon dioxide, all the while the biosphere is greening, no extreme weather trends, melting glaciers like the 30s and 40s, soot ignored, Antarctica defiant, temperatures heading downhill, polar bears frolic, snowfalls a thing of the present. The climate is changing again and Warmists know it. Time is running out, they painted themselves into a corner because of money and fame. It’s that simple folks.

  13. But, but, but … and I quote:
    “OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría has called for an end to global emissions caused by fossil fuels by 2050 including an end to exploration subsidies for fossil fuel exploration, such as coal and deep sea oil drilling.
    The OECD also signalled that a proper price needs to be placed on carbon emissions in order to create correct market signals for the carbon price.
    Mr Gurría said the end goal of zero emissions is achievable with a mix of policies that give strong, consistent carbon pricing signals, reform fossil fuel subsidies, and give consistent support for renewable energy.
    According to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the world is at a “tipping point” and needs to re-evaluate how it produces, distributes and uses energy.
    Ban was speaking at the launch of the Sustainable Energy for All- Efficiency Hub at the UN City in Copenhagen, a research hub which will use information from governments, banks, civil society, NGOs and the private sector to promote energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy access.
    The Hub is a part of the Sustainable Energy for All initiative which aims to achieve universal access to modern energy services, the doubling of energy efficiency and the doubling of the share of renewable energy globally by 2030.”

    (Emphasis mine)

  14. Gunga Din says:

    All the models are wrong except the old model Hansen used way back when in that room where the AC was disable.
    (If only we could turn CO2 from the “dark side”!)

  15. Matt says:

    ‘they’re not’ = three words, not two.

  16. u.k.(us) says:

    Matt says:

    November 5, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    ‘they’re not’ = three words, not two.
    ================
    I saw that too, but can you explain why it is three words ?
    Contractions don’t count ?

  17. Bill Marsh says:

    Well, frankly, it isn’t worse than I thought.

  18. Chip Knappenberger says:

    rogerknights says “I thought it meant “very likely.””

    You are correct, Roger. A slip of the pen by me. Thx!

    Maybe Anthony can correct that.

    -Chip

  19. DirkH says:

    Murray Grainger says:
    November 5, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    “But, but, but … and I quote:
    “OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría has called for an end to global emissions caused by fossil fuels by 2050 including an end to exploration subsidies for fossil fuel exploration, such as coal and deep sea oil drilling.
    [...]
    According to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the world is at a “tipping point” and needs to re-evaluate how it produces, distributes and uses energy.”

    Well, that means that sometime between now and 2050 the OECD and the UN will switch to another strategy.
    Probably in 2020. They are probably working on it right now but they need a decade to roll it out. All the faux opposition has to be carefully built up; media has to be brought on line etc.
    My guess is, it will not be a pseudoscience based approach next time. Scientists don’t have a reputation to lose anymore. They will need other cult leaders. Which ones? Beats me. Maybe they’ll create a faux Messiah / Mahdi (actually both in one person). You know the story.

  20. Tom J says:

    Janice Moore on November 5, 2013 at 2:36 pm

    I’m pretty certain those flying machines have a much smaller carbon footprint than the rather massive Air Force One. If Obama continues to drink up what the IPCC says, and exhibit executive orders (like the one last Friday) in response, perhaps we could recommend he make a trade. I think it’d be fun to watch. And, compared to that grotesquely overweight personal jet, far more economical for us – his employers (a fact he often forgets).

  21. Berényi Péter says:

    Computational climate models are not even wrong. Average surface temperature may have political relevance, but as far as science is concerned, it is not the best metric for assessing model performance.

    Surface of the Southern hemisphere is much darker than that of the Northern one (its clear sky albedo is considerably lower, due to abundance of oceans). In spite of this fact midterm average of reflected shortwave radiation is equal for the two hemispheres within measurement error. This remarkable property is not shown by climate models.

    Which means not only implementation of computational models is flawed, but an important bit of physics is missing from the underlying theory as well. Interhemispheric balance of reflected shortwave radiation indicates it is strictly regulated, by the water cycle, obviously. Observed difference is two orders of magnitude smaller than it would be in a dry atmosphere, therefore clouds, which are poorly represented in models, play a central role in regulating climate.

    Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 2 (January 2013)
    doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00132.1
    The Observed Hemispheric Symmetry in Reflected Shortwave Irradiance
    Aiko Voigt, Bjorn Stevens, Jürgen Bader and Thorsten Mauritsen

  22. dp says:

    More people need to read and understand the significance of this. I’m looking at you, Obama.

  23. Janice Moore says:

    Hi, Tom J re: 3:46pm today — A broom would do.

    Say…. I POSTED A HAPPY HALLOWEEN to you at 11:54am on 10/31, here (if I copied the link correctly!): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/an-uh-oh-moment-in-nature-ipcc-climate-panel-is-ripe-for-examination/#comment-1462516

    Did you see it? I hope you enjoyed your favorite holiday.

    Janice

  24. rogerknights says:

    dp says:
    November 5, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    More people need to read and understand the significance of this. I’m looking at you, Obama.

    Obama is going to look like a perfect fool in 2016 if the temp. drops sharply, as I think it will. I think the cosmos “has it in” for his hubris–as displayed in the recent comeuppance over his refusal to delay Obamacare until the system’s glitches were fixed.

  25. Gail Combs says:

    Janice and Tom.
    How about a one of Brian Marek’s Utopian Flying Machines for Obama?

  26. John West says:

    “Virtually likely” could mean something to the effect of “almost likely” or something more like “computationally likely”. Semantic trick to hide the uncertainty?

    virtually (adverb):
    1. nearly; almost.
    2. by means of virtual reality techniques.
    by means of a computer; computationally.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/virtually

  27. Richard M says:

    The only reason the model runs older than 33 years come close is because they model aerosols wrong. China and India have not cooled like that the aerosols assumption require. I guess if you get everything wrong at least some of the problems will cancel each other out.

  28. The Iconoclast says:

    They’re going to update the models to backcast what happened, claim a breakthrough, greater confidence than ever, and predict extra doom.

  29. Janice Moore says:

    @ Gail – lol. He certainly has the hot air for that big one in the middle, heh.

    Glad you are back! Hope all has been well.
    ***************************

    @ Roger Knights — “… is going to look…” ?! LOL.

    Dopebama: duh…… I’ve been to, uh, all, uh, 57 states, plus two or three more to go, not counting Alaska and Hawaii (hyuck, hyuck)….. just give the little kid with asthma a breathalyzer…..

    Well, at least, come 2016, he will be not only a dumb cluck but a lame duck. Actually, it is nice that he IS so stupid. His henchpersons are not much better, heh, heh — re: them, I agree with Rahm Emmanuel (except for his choice of expletives), and for that “thank You, Lord.” He has only the “dull cunning of the snake;” a mere opportunist… with a pretty good teleprompter.

  30. Gail Combs says:

    I may be wrong but I do not think you caught the nastiest trick the IPCC played.

    One of the reasons they are “projections” and not predictions is because the models represent different “Storylines and Scenarios” (I think) If this is true then the Models that are close to reality represent drastic cuts in CO2 emissions. In other words they are mixing apples and donuts.
    This is the e-mail that makes me think this is what the different climate models are doing and why there are over a hundred. I have shortened it considerably but I recommend reading all of it. It is not just about CO2 but the planning out of our futures and our grand children’s future in minute detail. No wonder it has sucked in so many scientists! Who can resist play God?
    Ged Davis (Shell Oil) Climategate e-mail.

    Dear Colleagues:

    I am sending you a copy of Ged Davis’ IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft on
    storylines and scenarios. The text is appended below, but I am also
    attaching versions in MS Word and in Rich Text formats so that you can
    better view the graphics.

    Please send any comments directly to Ged Davis at…..

    Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios…
    Contents

    1. Introduction

    2. Scenarios – overview

    3. Golden Economic Age (A1)

    4. Sustainable Development (B1)

    5. Divided World (A2)

    6. Regional Stewardship (B2)

    7. Scenario comparisons

    8. Conclusions

    Appendix 1: Scenario quantification

    1. Introduction

    The IS99 scenarios have been constructed to explore future developments in the global environment with special reference to the production of GHGs….

    1.1 What are scenarios?
    Scenarios are pertinent, plausible, alternative futures. Their pertinence, in this case, is derived from the need for climate change modelers to have a basis for assessing the implications of future possible paths for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs). Their plausibility is tested by peer review, in an open process, which includes their publication on the World Wide Web.

    There are clearly an infinite number of possible alternative futures to explore. We have consciously applied the principle of Occam’s Razor, seeking the minimum number of scenarios to provide an adequate basis for climate modelling and challenge to policy makers…

    2.1 Scenarios: key questions and dimensions
    Developing scenarios for a period of one hundred years is a relatively new field. Within that period we might expect two major technological discontinuities, a major shift in societal values and a change in the balance of geopolitical power. A particular difficulty is that people are not trained to think in these time-spans, are educated in narrow disciplines and our ability to model large-systems, at the global level, is still in its infancy….

    The scenarios we have built explore two main questions for the 21st century, neither of which we know the answer to:
    - Can adequate governance — institutions and agreements — be put in place to manage global problems?
    - Will society’s values focus more on enhancing material wealth or be more broadly balanced, incorporating environmental health and social well-being.
    The way we answer these questions leads to four families of scenarios:
    - Golden Economic Age (A1): a century of expanded economic prosperity with the emergence of global governance
    - Sustainable Development (B1): in which global agreements and institutions, underpinned by a value shift, encourages the integration of ecological and economic goals

    - Divided World (A2): difficulty in resolving global issues leads to a world of autarkic regions
    - Regional Stewardship (B2): in the face of weak global governance there is a focus on managing regional/local ecological and equity

    Within these scenario families we examine plausible energy industry and other developments which will contribute to GHG emissions. Although the storylines cannot have explicit climate change policy measures in them there are examples of indirect mitigation measures in some of the scenarios. The scenario quantifications of the main indicators related to growth of population and economy, the characteristics of the energy system and the associated greenhouse gas emissions all fall within the range of prior studies.
    [This is an example of the energy part of one scenario the e-mail is ~20 pages long.]
    3. Golden Economic Age (A1)

    This scenario family entitled “Golden Economic Age”, describes rapid and successful economic development….
    .2 Scenarios
    The core bifurcation (with respect to GHG emissions) of the scenario family unfolds around alternative paths of technology development in the agriculture and energy sectors….

    3.21 Energy Resources/Technology
    …Per capita final energy use gradually converges as income gaps close. Final energy use per capita in non-Annex-I countries would reach approximately 85 GJ (2 tons of oil equivalent) by 2050 and approximately 125 GJ (3 toe) by 2100, i.e., about the current average of OECD countries outside North America. Despite improvements in productivity and efficiency, the high income levels lead to resource use close to the upper bounds of the scenarios available in the literature. For instance, global final energy use would increase to approximately 1000 EJ by 2100….

    For the scenario quantification, a number of contrasting cases, characterised by the main energy form used in the second half of the 21st century, have been evaluated with the aid of formal energy models:
    1. The dominance of Non-Fossil fuels — the “Bio-Nuclear” scenario (A1R).
    2. The dominance of unconventional gas, including hydrates, and oil (A1G)
    3. The dominance of “Clean Coal” (A1C)

    A brief scenario taxonomy is given below.

    Scenario
    Dominant
    Oil/Gas Resource
    Technology Improvements
    Fuel Availability Coal Oil/Gas Non-fossil
    A1R Non-fossil Medium (75 ZJ) Low High Low
    A1C Coal Low (<35 ZJ) High Low Low
    *
    Depending on the assumed availability of oil and gas, (low/medium/high) and corresponding improvements in production and conversion technologies for coal, oil/gas, and non-fossil technologies, different energy systems structures unfold….

    In the event that such technology dynamics do not materialise, energy costs and prices would be significantly higher than suggested above — illustrative model runs suggest energy demand would be up to 20 percent lower for a fossil scenario without significant cost improvements.
    4. Sustainable Development (B1) [This is UN Agenda 21]….

    …Two alternative energy systems, leading to two sub-scenarios, are considered to provide this energy:

    1. Widespread expansion of natural gas, with a growing role for renewable energy (scenario B1N). Oil and coal are of lesser importance, especially post-2050. This transition is faster in the developed than in the developing countries.

    2. A more rapid development of renewables, replacing coal and oil; the bulk of the remaining energy coming from natural gas (scenario B1R).
    [/attachment]
    NOTE: Natural gas replacing coal and oil is sprinkled through out the attachment…. I wonder why.

  31. Gail Combs says:

    Janice Moore says:

    Glad you are back! Hope all has been well.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Just my busy season.

  32. philjourdan says:

    I just want to be clear. The graphs are actually the slopes of the change?

    It is a very revealing analysis, and hard to imagine that the IPCC has not performed this analysis as well. Yet they cling to a falsehood that has no bearing on reality (or as Jquip pointed out, our reality has no bearing on their model output).

  33. Janice Moore says:

    Hi, Gail — glad to hear that. re: yours at 6:16pm — thanks for taking the time to prepare such a thorough and worthwhile post. The key phrase of course is: the storylines.
    *********************

    Well, Curious N. C. — great parody {too bad about the realistic expletives, but, that’s the filth that was Hi-t1-er, et. al.}. The BEST thing about it? It is prophetic!

    The Lying Fa-sci-sts LOST — so, too, have the IPCC and its Envirostalinist comrades (just a matter of time until the rats disappear into the sewers — KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, WUWT Science Giants!).

  34. Tom J says:

    Janice Moore on November 5, 2013 at 4:01 pm
    ‘Hi, Tom J re: 3:46pm today — A broom would do.’

    I agree, a broom would do, but I don’t know if he would look as funny on a broom.

    ‘Say…. I POSTED A HAPPY HALLOWEEN to you at 11:54am on 10/31…

    ‘Did you see it? I hope you enjoyed your favorite holiday.’

    Just now, thanks. Unfortunately I only had one trick or treater this year. The weather was miserable so I guess it scared them off. So sad to be brought up in a system that causes one to be scared of the climate on a day when we’re really supposed to be scared of demons, ghouls, vampires, zombies – you know, our representatives in Washington.

  35. Sceptical Sam says:

    The Iconoclast says:
    November 5, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    They’re going to update the models to backcast what happened, claim a breakthrough, greater confidence than ever, and predict extra doom.
    ********************************************************************
    I can’t see how that will fix it given that they’ll be using their downward adjusted temperatures.

    In fact, it will make it even more ludicrous than it already is, surely.

    but maybe we shouldn’t tell them that.

  36. Janice Moore says:

    @ Tom J. – “Unfortunately I only had one trick or treater … .” — that was, indeed, a bummer. {brighten} However…. that meant a lot of candy — for you! Yea! (when I lived where we got trick-or-treaters, I always bought extra……. just in case — had to sample it first, too, of course, heh).

    Thanks for letting me know you watched the vids.

  37. Janice Moore says:

    Good point, Sceptical Sam at 7:39pm.

    Re: “maybe we shouldn’t tell them …” — AS IF. (eye roll)

    *************
    Oh, and Tom J, you are right. Not funny — simply de rigeur. Don’t know what to suggest…. he looks as ridiculous as he can look already — sitting behind the desk in the oval office… . (given his stupid remarks and bowing routine, etc)

  38. dalyplanet says:

    Berényi Péter

    What an interesting link you have provided

    Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 2 (January 2013)
    doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00132.1
    The Observed Hemispheric Symmetry in Reflected Shortwave Irradiance

  39. ferd berple says:

    imbo says:
    November 5, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    Release your own co2 without a care in the world, then go on TV and tell people that they should learn to live with less. Prince Charles and James Cameron have said so, yet they do whatever they want.
    ============
    they want you to do with less, so there will be even more for them. if the rest of us lived like them, they would be miserable, even though their lives would be exactly as they are today.

    it is not enough for the rich and powerful to be rich and powerful. they need to feel important, which can only be achieved if the rest of us are poor and powerless.

  40. Janice Moore says:

    “… {scumbags like Algore} need to feel important, which can only be achieved if the rest of us are poor and powerless {since there IS no “free electricity”}.”
    (Ferd Berple {as annotated by J.M.})

    That’s why…….. the Climate Cult Leaders got all the cult members to buy electric cars (those who did it for religious, not economic reasons, er — ahem! (i.e., not you, A-th-y))….. soooooo they can jerk them around from electric this to electric that aaaaand …… back to gas! Making money at every twist of the market niche road.

    {NOTICE: Comedy Alert: sense of humor mandatory}

  41. JBear says:

    So, all of this is a fancy way of saying the models projected warming and the surface temp did warm, but so much this last decade. The “skeptics” cannot explain why the surface temps warmed. The “skeptics” cannot explain why the deep oceans have continued to warm. The “skeptics” don’t want to consider ocean Ph changes. The scientists acknowledge the pause is mysterious but have found several mechanisms that could account for it including ocean currents sequestering heat in the deep oceans for now, changes in SO2 emissions and stratospheric water vapor changes whose causes are admittedly not well understood. None would likely prematurely reverse the effect of heat trapping gasses. But “skeptic” corporate funded think tanks surely know what is best. Did I miss any thing?

  42. Aussiebear says:

    To follow on from Jimbo’s comment:

    Here are some of the embarrassing questions I like to ask your typical Warmist.

    1) Do you currently use fossil fuels?
    2) Do you own and drive a petrol or diesel driven car?
    3) Do you have 24 hour electricity? If yes, do the people in Kenya? If not, why not?

    You might also add the following partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items) (from http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm)

    4) Do you use any of the items on this list?

    Without most of the items on that list, you might as well live in a cave.

  43. Juraj V says:

    There was warming between 1910-1945 by 0.8 deg C. Models show none of it. Result: models have no clue about natural background.

  44. Aussiebear says:

    @Janice Moore,

    Your wrote: That’s why…….. the Climate Cult Leaders got all the cult members to buy electric cars.

    What these folk also fail to understand even with Electric Cars, possibly only powered by Solar or Wind Turbines, you STILL need oil to make that car run: The tires, the plastic panels that make it light, the plastic laminate in the safety glass, the rubber in the battery casing, the plastic insulation on the electrical wires and cables, rubber in the hoses, plastics for the circuit board and IC chips in the computer(s) that regulate the car, the paint on the car, the window tinting, the gas in the A/C and lubricant for the gears. Oh, and lets not forget the asphalt for the road on which is runs.

  45. KNR says:

    No problem , rule one of climate ‘science’ takes care of this . When reality and models differ in value its reality which is in error .
    remember when your ‘saving the planet ‘ ANYTHING is justified.

  46. KNR says:

    JBear
    The “skeptics” cannot explain why the deep oceans have continued to warm.
    reminds us of the ‘proof ‘ of this , I am sure with such a bold statement you have the data to back it up ?
    The “skeptics” don’t want to consider ocean Ph changes.
    Actual if you have the ability read you can see from this very site “skeptics ” do consider it , they just do not feel the need to use silly terms like ‘acidification’ and running around claiming the sky is falling , as the alarmist do.

  47. M Courtney says:

    The models are a very poor reflection of reality. But if you’ve bet your career and sense of purpose on them would you want to face up to that?

    Fear of fossil fuels is not the main driver for a clinging faith in failed models.
    It’s the credibility of the politicians (elected and NGOs), the environemtal journalists (some of whom claim to be science journalists) and career academics (climatologists and others)… that is at stake.

    No-one can affford to back down now. The whole tower of folly is held up by inertia.
    But it will fall. And it will fall fast when it tumbles.

    PS: Good to see Gail Combs back. The absence was noticed.

  48. Alan the Brit says:

    Aussiebear says:
    November 5, 2013 at 11:24 pm

    Did you include all the products that have to be made using fossil fuels? ;-)

  49. Henry Galt says:

    JBear says:
    November 5, 2013 at 10:19 pm
    “”Did I miss any thing?””

    Maybe, with all that frantic hand-waving you missed placing a /sarc tag at the end of what would otherwise appear as ranting and appeal to authority.

  50. cd says:

    To authors

    Are you not effectively comparing the 2nd order derivative of two temperature chronologies (model vs observed) at different resolutions (dt = 35, 25, 10…); and aren’t you effectively performing a smooth first. Furthermore, these are stochastic datasets with structural components (e.g. drift/cyclicity). In such datasets you don’t know whether you’re trends (proxy to 2nd order derivative, each centered at time t) are controlled by the purely stochastic or structural component (and if so by how much). This doesn’t seem right.

  51. Write it up as a short paper and submit it to a journal.
    Or have you done this already?

  52. cd says:

    Paul Mathews

    I doubt it would see the light of day.

  53. Gail Combs says:

    Tom J says @ November 5, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    So sad to be brought up in a system that causes one to be scared of the climate on a day when we’re really supposed to be scared of demons, ghouls, vampires, zombies – you know, our representatives in Washington.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And here I have always thought they were parasites.

    I got interested in the subject and took a quick look at the US Government’s parasites and “Creative Statistics”

    Too Many Government Workers?

    Much of the concern with government deficits in countries as unlike as the United States and Greece focuses on public employees, viewed as overpaid parasites who, being paid by the government, contribute directly to the public debt. And there are indeed good economic reasons to expect the public sector to be less efficient than the private sector. The principal reasons are four: the incentive provided by the profit motive is absent; public agencies tend to be monopolies; public employees are voters; and public employers tend to substitute nonpecuniary for pecuniary emolumens, such as tenure and generous retirement benefits, because the public notices and reacts adversely to high government salaries.

    Therefore one might think that the larger the fraction of public employees in a nation’s workforce, the less efficient the nation’s economy, and so the lower per capita GDP would be….

    I decided to examine that question empirically, with respect to 27 countries, including the United States and Canada from the Western Hemisphere, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore from East Asia, Israel, and all the countries of Western, Northern, Central, and Southern Europe, plus Poland. The countries were not chosen at random, but instead selected as being at least roughly comparable to the United States in their economic system and political culture.

    The percentage of public employees in the workforces of these countries ranges from 6.35 percent in Singapore to 33.87 percent in Sweden. Indeed the three lowest countries, and the only ones with fewer than 10 percent public employees, are Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan. The highest countries after Sweden are Denmark…

    The United States is in approximately the middle, with 16.42 percent. Surprisingly, it is well ahead of Israel, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Portugal….

    Regression analysis reveals no systematic correlation between percentage of public employees and per capita GDP….

    I calculated the USA at ~25% several years ago but I included, state and local employees, welfare recipients, lawyers, accountants, and regulatory compliance officers and technicians, all of whose jobs are directly linked to the government.

    After reading “GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU’VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!”

    …The popularly followed unemployment rate was 5.5% in July 2004, seasonally adjusted. That is known as U-3, one of six unemployment rates published by the BLS. The broadest U-6 measure was 9.5%, including discouraged and marginally attached workers.

    Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%…

    Despite all the MSM reports the actual unemployment rate was ~22% in 2009 and has steadily risen to ~ 23% Link

    So my next question was, Is the USA government cheating… Again?

    GDP is SUPPOSED to measure “The sum of all goods and services sold” Alternate Gross Domestic Product Chart At least that is what we are told but it doesn’t . Not the way the US Government does the statistics.

    Government Hiring and GDP
    GDP, Gross Domestic Product. The number gets a lot of attention, deservedly. You’d be foolish to use it as your sole economic statistic but you’d be just as foolish to ignore it and go with your gut.

    Today I’d like to draw attention to one of the peculiarities of GDP. For your consideration:

    Scenario 1. Tomorrow, ExxonMobil spontaneously hires an unemployed petroleum engineer for $100K per year. She spends a year looking for new oil, finds nothing.

    Scenario 2. Tomorrow, the federal government spontaneously hires an unemployed petroleum engineer for the same $100K. She spends a year looking for new oil, finds nothing.

    So, how do these two alternative scenarios impact the official GDP figures?

    Scenario 1 has zero impact on GDP: No oil to sell=no extra consumer purchases=no extra GDP. As the Bureau of Economic Analysis says, “Personal consumption expenditures…is goods and services purchased by persons…”

    Scenario 2 raises GDP by $100K. As BEA says, “Government consumption expenditures…consists of…compensation of employees…”

    Hiring a worker who (through no fault of her own) accomplishes absolutely nothing raises GDP if the government does the hiring. Hiring a worker who (through no fault of her own) accomplishes absolutely nothing does nothing to GDP if the private sector does the hiring.

    Why? Because GDP counts government salaries as “government expenditures” as soon as the government hires a person. But the “consumption” and “investment” parts of GDP only count genuine purchases by the private sector (leaving the oddities of imputed spending for the coda below).

    So if a private sector product spends years in the incubator, burning through thousands of person-hours of work and millions of dollars of salary–but never sees the light of day–then the product never shows up in GDP. But if the government had hired those same workers who worked just as long on a similarly fruitless project, their labor would give a big boost to GDP.

    Government hiring creates GDP by definition. Private hiring only creates GDP if the worker actually creates a product….

    So we can fix our declining GDP by the Government hiring EVERYONE. This will cause GDP to skyrocket. (chortle, snort)

    No Wonder the politicians have zero problem with the Climate Models. It is business as usual for them!

  54. cd says:

    JBear

    The “skeptics” cannot explain why the surface temps warmed. The “skeptics” cannot explain why the deep oceans have continued to warm.

    In science one only need disprove a hypothesis in order to falsify it. There is no need to find an alternative.

    The “skeptics” don’t want to consider ocean Ph changes.

    This is a red herring, a smoke screen if you will. Ocean pH is highly buffered by a number of acid-base systems. Changes in ocean pH must be put into context. For almost 3.5 billions years the Earth’s atmospheric composition varied wildly but ocean pH remained constant. For example during the Cambrian when there was an explosion of hard bodies creature with calcareous exoskeletons atmospheric CO2 was two orders of magnitude greater than today.

    The scientists acknowledge the pause is mysterious but have found several mechanisms that could account for…

    That’s essentially arm waving and was not part of their original hypothesis as expressed in the models.

    Did I miss any thing?

    Yeah, a coherent scientific argument.

  55. Gail Combs says:

    JBear says: @ November 5, 2013 at 10:19 pm

    …. The “skeptics” cannot explain why the surface temps warmed….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    We DO NOT HAVE TO! It is called the Null hypothesis. It is up to Climastrologists to prove it is not business as usual. (natural)

    Here is what they have to refute: GRAPH of five million years of temperature change based on work by Lisiecki and Raymo (L. E. Lisiecki and M. E. Raymo (2005) – A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic δ18O records, Paleoceanography 20, 2003) link published on line in 2005.

    This graph shows a gradual COOLING over the last five million years including the present AND an increase in the oscillation with the last half million years having the widest and LOWEST temperature swings. The swings increased from ~ 2°C to ~ 8°C

    This Graph of 65 million years shows even more cooling. LINK (Vostok)

    Oscillation and abrupt changes in climate are the rule. We are VERY lucky the Holocene has been so benign.

    Abrupt Climate Change:
    Richard B. Alley of the U.Penn. was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, chaired the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change. for well over a decade and in 1999 was invited to testify about climate change by Vice President Al Gore. In 2002, the NAS (alley chair) published a book “Abrupt Climate Change”

    From the opening paragraph in the executive summary:

    …Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age….

    NOOA: Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events
    Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events were first reported in Greenland ice cores by scientists Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger. Each of the 25 observed D-O events consist of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades, and was followed by a gradual cooling…
    Related to some of the coldest intervals between D-O events were six distinctive events, named after paleoclimatologist Hartmut Heinrich, that are recorded in North Atlantic marine sediments as layers with a large amount of coarse-grained sediments derived from land (Figure 4). These layers, which are continuous across large areas of the North Atlantic, are evidence for both an increase in icebergs discharged from the Laurentide ice sheet in North America and a southward extension of cold, polar waters…

    The cause of these glacial events is still under debate…

    If they can not at this time explain D-O and Heninrich (and Bond) Events they don’t have a leg to stand on because you first have to RULE OUT natural causes.

    Climastrologists want to try and scare us with a couple tenths of a degree per decade? Why don’t they just say BOO!

    It is cold that kills and the “tipping point” of ~ 9°C to rapid glaciation worries me a heck of a lot more than a maximum rise of at MOST 2°C especially since we are in a Glacial Age with ‘Rapid Cycles’

  56. ferd berple says:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend

    So, what does the actual data tells us:

    1. CO2/GHG cannot be the cause of the observed warming. CO2/GHG warms the planet by warming the atmosphere. This warming of the atmosphere then warms the surface as a result of the lapse rate. As a result the surface cannot warm faster than the atmosphere due to CO2/GHG, which is contradicted by observation. When observations contradict theory, the theory is wrong.

    2. The accuracy of the satellites is better than the surface records due to the smaller absolute error between the signals, and the accuracy of the satellites is increasing (convergence) while the accuracy of the surface records is decreasing (divergence).

  57. Ed Mertin says:

    Oh, there’s that sweet and sexy teeeaaaabaggerrrr! Janice makes my heart go race. Here’s you a happy Halloween!!!!! ‘n a haunted cave in to the opposition. ;-)

    http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd74/sunbeamfireking/BHC5.jpg

    Oh, and for Smokey, can’t say I never gave you anything!

    http://policelink.monster.com/nfs/policelink/product_photos/0000/6031/Troll_Spary_max192w.JPG?1202766315

    Been here four years and I’m still a troll!

  58. Ed Mertin says:

    [Snip. Completely off topic. — Mod.]

  59. Pat Michaels says:

    JBear,

    Fact-checking wouldn’t hurt you. Approximately 95% of Cato’s operating budget is from private, individual donors, people like you, but, unlike you, people who rightfully fear their government, especially when it is in the knowledge business, such as being the sole provider of global warming research funding. Our private percent is probably the highest for the top ten think tanks.

    Would you prefer instead that we ran our Institute on money expropriated from people with the threat of a gun?

  60. Janice Moore says:

    @Aussie Bear (11:49pm 11/5) — yes, indeed. Great information (and list v. a v. Jimbo’s comment, too) and an excellent argument.

  61. ronald says:

    Its worse then that, its dead jim. It worse then that its dead jim, its dead jim.

    Cane someone make something fun of it?

  62. Gary Pearse says:

    Gents, not only did the models stay outside reality’s track, but the model gonzos have the past 30 years of over exuberance to assist them to put it closer to the track. They have, indeed, tweaked them with aerols (you got to be careful printing this word) and even itty bitty volcanoes, or fish eggs would be boiling by now. Just when they thought they were getting the things properly tuned without touching sacred CO2 climate sensitivity, Nature went and bent the temps over. Sheesh whats a model gonzo to do.

    Mosher’s entreaty in the RGB thread; Yeah they did lousy on temperatures but consider the forecasting prowess of the models for ocean salinity! Man, talk about casting about. Maybe the next tack is to forecast only ocean salinity and build a scare story around that. The Hadley wether-weather, climate and sash and door company seemingly prides itself on coming last in the Arctic ice minimums sweepstakes each year by about -40% below reality guided by their models on a computer that takes up about an acre of ground and heats the whole damn shire. I don’t think there is a cure for it before the grave.

  63. Mark Buehner says:

    Key point- the data points used BEFORE a model is constructed are not predictions- they are postdictions. Its a poor model indeed that cant predict what it is programmed to already know.

  64. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Curious George says:

    November 5, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    They should get their physics right. The latent heat of water evaporation is temperature-dependent……”””””

    IZZit any different (significantly) from the value at the standard boiling point ( 539 calorie per gram ??) plus one calorie per gram for each degree below the standard boiling point ??

    I’ve always used that as a simple rule, but never checked the tabulated values.

    So for example, latent heat at 50 deg C would be 539 + 50 , or 589 cal/gram, basically, what it takes to heat the water to boiling, and then evaporate it.

  65. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Gail Combs says:

    November 6, 2013 at 2:35 am

    Tom J says @ November 5, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    So sad to be brought up in a system that causes one to be scared of the climate on a day when we’re really supposed to be scared of demons, ghouls, vampires, zombies – you know, our representatives in Washington.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And here I have always thought they were parasites.

    I got interested in the subject and took a quick look at the US Government’s parasites and “Creative Statistics”

    Too Many Government Workers?…….””””””

    ALL government workers, should be made exempt from income taxes; and of course have their “government” (aka “taxpayer”) wages and salaries reduced by their computed taxes (on pay).

    If I hand the store owner ten dollars for seven dollars worth of some merchandise, and then immediately take three dollars of that back, out of his hand, he really didn’t sell me his goods for ten dollars, nor did I get a three dollar discount..

    So then all those government workers; excuse me, that’s employees, would understand that THEY are NOT taxpayers; they are tax consumers. (whether necessary or not. Didn’t the Federal government give 800,000 unnecessary federal workers, a fully paid vacation recently ?

  66. george e. smith says:

    Well you can fool some of the people all of the time.

    Is a “virtual” image “real” , or is it “imaginary”, as in “does not exist.”

    And to ME, “virtually ” (adverb) means “like virtual” (adjective). I detest use of the word “virtually”, which has come to mean the exact opposite of what it really means; OED notwithstanding !

    Same as “sophisticated”. Look up “sophistry” in OED. Then you’ll understand, why I say; “People who think they are sophisticated, usually are !”

    And while we are at it; “I’ll be with you momentarily.” means, I will be with you FOR a moment. It does not mean, “I will be with you IN a moment .” for that, we simply say; “I will be with you soon.”

  67. Slartibartfast says:

    I would I think give serious thought to abandoning the scientifically meaningless “multi-model mean” and start narrowing the family of considered models to ones whose results best match the data.

    Who knows? It may be that the surviving models are doing something right. It’s also possible that they got lucky, but given enough time, the luck aspect will also sort itself out,

    It’s possible that by throwing out models from inclusion, a loss of so-called confidence will occur. But the way it’s being used, “confidence” doesn’t mean anything connected with its conventional usage.

  68. Stan says:

    [SNIP - A valid email address is required here, fake ones don't cut it - mod]

  69. Shawnhet says:

    I just wanted to add my thanks to Berenyi Peter above for his link to the paper :”The Observed Hemispheric Symmetry in Reflected Shortwave Irradiance”. It really made me think. At this point, I can’t even imagine why we might expect albedo for both hemispheres to be ~ equal. Fascinating stuff.

    http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:1482060:15/component/escidoc:1703066/JCli-26-2013-468.pdf

    Cheers, :)

  70. M Simon says:

    When they say something has a 90 percent probability, it is “virtually likely” (whatever the heck that means!)

    Uh. It is very likey.

  71. Brian H says:

    rogerknights says:
    November 5, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    When they say something has a 90 percent probability, it is “virtually likely” (whatever the heck that means!)

    I thought it meant “very likely.”

    No, it clearly means “almost likely, but not quite”!

  72. Gail Combs says:

    george e. smith says: @ November 6, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    “””””…..Gail Combs says:
    Too Many Government Workers?…….””””””
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    ALL government workers, should be made exempt from income taxes; and of course have their “government” (aka “taxpayer”) wages and salaries reduced by their computed taxes (on pay).

    …So then all those government workers; excuse me, that’s employees, would understand that THEY are NOT taxpayers; they are tax consumers.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    EXACTLY!
    Parasites not producers.

    It is a complete farce to include their salaries in the GDP because they produce nothing except the regulations (and enforcement) that strangles the actual producers.

    You could have a country that is 100% government employees with a great GDP that is until it collapses, like the USSR.

  73. Richard M says:

    JBear says:
    November 5, 2013 at 10:19 pm
    So, all of this is a fancy way of saying the models projected warming and the surface temp did warm, but so much this last decade. The “skeptics” cannot explain why the surface temps warmed. The “skeptics” cannot explain why the deep oceans have continued to warm.

    Nor can climate scientists explain our recent temperature changes. That’s why 97% of climate model simulation fail. And, as others have indicated, it is not the job of skeptics to proposed other theories. All that is required is show proposed theories do not explain the data or other theories explain it better.

    To this end skeptics actually have presented theories associated with ocean cycles that explain the recent warming much better than CO2 emissions. Note the changes in the direction of temperature correlates almost perfectly with the PDO.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1944/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1944/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/to/trend

    The slight warming is perfectly explained by a random walk in the strength of the PDO phases. A theory based on CO2 should see constant warming.

  74. Ric Werme says:

    Sigh. Cool it with the virtually likely stuff already….

    From the AR4 (because I’m too lazy to hunt down the AR5), http://www.sejarchive.org/resource/IPCC_terminology.htm says:

    The IPCC expresses its consensus conclusions using terminology that indicates the varying levels of certainty the authors have in them. (Reference: Working Group I Technical Summary, 18.64MB, pages 22-23.)

    Likelihood of an outcome or result

    “Virtually certain” means greater than a 99 percent probability of occurrence.
    “Extremely likely” means greater than 95 percent.
    “Very likely” means greater than 90 percent.
    “Likely” means greater than 66 percent.
    “More likely than not” means greater than 50 percent.
    “About as likely as not” means 33 to 66 percent.
    “Unlikely” means less than 33 percent.
    “Very unlikely” means less than 10 percent.
    “Extremely unlikely” means less than 5 percent.
    “Exceptionally unlikely” means less than 1 percent.

    Relative degrees of confidence in a statement

    “Very high confidence” means at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct.
    “High confidence” means about an 8 out of 10 chance.
    “Medium confidence” means about a 5 out of 10 chance.
    “Low confidence” means about a 2 out of 10 chance.
    “Very low confidence” means less than a 1 out of 10 chance.

Comments are closed.