Climate Craziness of the Week: only the ‘cooler’ models are wrong – the rest say 4ºC of warming by 2100

From the University of New South Wales and Dr. Steven Sherwood:

“Climate sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect,” said Sherwood. “But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more.”

Yeah…right:

CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1[1]

Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4°C by 2100

Cloud impact on climate sensitivity unveiled

Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. Scientists found global climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates.

The research also appears to solve one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity, the role of cloud formation and whether this will have a positive or negative effect on global warming.

“Our research has shown climate models indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation,” said lead author from the University of New South Wales’ Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Prof Steven Sherwood.

“When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.”

The key to this narrower but much higher estimate can be found in the real world observations around the role of water vapour in cloud formation.

Observations show when water vapour is taken up by the atmosphere through evaporation, the updraughts can either rise to 15 km to form clouds that produce heavy rains or rise just a few kilometres before returning to the surface without forming rain clouds.

When updraughts rise only a few kilometres they reduce total cloud cover because they pull more vapour away from the higher cloud forming regions.

However water vapour is not pulled away from cloud forming regions when only deep 15km updraughts are present.

The researchers found climate models that show a low global temperature response to carbon dioxide do not include enough of this lower-level water vapour process. Instead they simulate nearly all updraughts as rising to 15 km and forming clouds.

When only the deeper updraughts are present in climate models, more clouds form and there is an increased reflection of sunlight. Consequently the global climate in these models becomes less sensitive in its response to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

However, real world observations show this behaviour is wrong.

When the processes in climate models are corrected to match the observations in the real world, the models produce cycles that take water vapour to a wider range of heights in the atmosphere, causing fewer clouds to form as the climate warms.

This increases the amount of sunlight and heat entering the atmosphere and, as a result, increases the sensitivity of our climate to carbon dioxide or any other perturbation.

The result is that when water vapour processes are correctly represented, the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide – which will occur in the next 50 years – means we can expect a temperature increase of at least 4°C by 2100.

“Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more,” said Prof. Sherwood.

“Rises in global average temperatures of this magnitude will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don’t urgently start to curb our emissions.

###
About these ads

168 thoughts on “Climate Craziness of the Week: only the ‘cooler’ models are wrong – the rest say 4ºC of warming by 2100

  1. I don’t doubt that the models that show less warming get clouds wrong. I am quite certain that ALL the models get clouds wrong, and a lot else as well.

  2. May I be the first to say

    “It’s worse than we thought!”

    It’s rather a ‘coincidence’ that this has come out at a point of maximum embarrassment for the CAGW loonies though, isn’t it?

    Anyway, Happy New Year to all, either in advance or after the event, depending on where you are.

  3. How odd, I thought that “the Science” was settled but now this study claims the models were wrong all along.
    My model predicts a wind of change, especial in Australia. Sherwood should make sure his CV is up to date.
    I dont think he will have a Happy New Year!

  4. I don’t care what the standings say, my model says the Lions win the Super Bowl, and dag nab it, that’s what I’m going with.

  5. “When the processes in climate models are corrected to match the observations in the real world…”

    Oh goody! They are going to start making the climate models match real world observations! I can hardly wait to see a climate model that correctly predicts cloud cover and matches the temperatures of the past 20 years.

    If they fail, then this is just another fiddle placed on top of all the other fiddles. I would also like to see how the forcing feedback manages to ‘beat the system’ that places severe limits on a all other feedbacks in the real world.

    This is going to be an interesting year.

  6. … mistakes are being made by the model …

    Yes, but who made the models …? Those didn’t start to exist by themselves … Reality check, please!

  7. So the good Prof. Sherwood believes that models are more ‘accurate’ when they depart even further from recent physical measurements!!!!

    It was also funny when he uses phrases such as: ‘the models produce cycles that take water vapour to a wider range of…..’.

    And I thought that models were computer programs that obeyed what the programmer commanded….

    If I produced a computer program that, when I fixed a known problem it failed to a greater degree I would not announce it to the world until I had fixed all problems within….

    Still, this is climate science, so we all have a lot to learn about publishing techniques…

  8. Wonder if you correct for the clouds and re-run the models, whether the other knobs and dials on the models still remain the same. Seems like these guys are “fixing” the “flaw” in some of these models and putting the change back, without any view to correlativeness of this “fix”.

  9. “or rise just a few kilometres before returning to the surface without forming rain clouds.

    When updraughts rise only a few kilometres they reduce total cloud cover because they pull more vapour away from the higher cloud forming regions.” I hate it when my vapor pulls away from the higher regions.

    Does this make any sense whatsoever? How could it even be measured with any accuracy?

    For the MSM, if a “Climate Scientist” says so, it must be true…

  10. alternative version –
    ‘I produced a stocks and shares price predictor.
    I got all of the prices wrong, some by a long margin.
    But I found the bug !!
    All the price predictions that were closest to the stock market were the ones most affected by the bug.

    Please buy my stock market predictor’

  11. This is what happens when you give Chicken Little a computer for Christmas.

    I go back and forth on this. Is their behavior the result of sincere fear that that the end is nigh and their fear is causing them to reject evidence or is this simply a con to keep the grant gravy train going?

    There is something in the human brain chemistry that makes us susceptible to the idea that the gods are angry over man’s actions and that the world is going to come to an end unless we repent. Scientist are as likely as others to fall into this mind set — particularly when ‘repenting’ mean re-aligning society to conform to their own ideals.

    One wonders when the fever will break.

  12. Let’s say the research is in fact correct. Models have not properly taken into account the true climate sensitivity. This shows the models are even further off from the actuality, which means even less is known about the climate system than previously thought, and the models are even a worse indicator of the actual response to CO2.

  13. But I thought that the increase in temperature/increase in CO2 relationship was logarithmic.

    Something out of kilter here.

  14. Models not reflecting reality? Perhaps this is why his UNSW colleague and climate modeller Chris Turney is currently trapped in ice. His models tell him water water everywhere in every direction. Strangely, though, there’s all this white stuff stopping the ship from moving. Must be popcorn.

  15. A climate model proves another climate model wrong. Apparently the one model considers a portion of real-world observations that the other does not. Which model predicted that the largest increase in human-produced CO2 of all time would accompany a 17-year period of no warming? Now that that is a real-world observation too, which model will now incorporate it and prove the others wrong?

  16. John M says:
    December 31, 2013 at 11:34 am…

    I’m sorry John M but, your models are clearly wrong. Empirical evidence shows the Lions did not make the playoffs. Therefore, there is no possibility the Lions could win the Super Bowl. I suggest you input real world data and observations into your model and account for all reasonable factors before making such claims. The Lions are in a pause and have been for many years now. While your faith and adherence to your team is commendable, your theory and model have been proven false.

    Now, my model on the other hand strongly suggests the #18 Broncos forcing is clearly the dominant factor in the rise to the Super Bowl. This is backed by evidence and observation. I theorize the Broncos will win.

  17. Yep – wonder if this magical new discovery also fixes the fact that NONE of the models predicted the 17 year pause in warming …

  18. It is hot at the equator. There is massive cloud and rain at the equator.

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssd&inv=0&t=cur

    As you get further from the equator, it gets colder. And rain reduces.

    Note band of deep blue rain on top of the equatorial heat. Note near zero precipitation in antarctica:

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8g.html

    More heat causes more rain that lowers temperatures. (Note the hot areas above are in desert areas with little water and downwelling air flow).

    It isn’t about water vapor causing fewer clouds, it’s about added heat causing more water vapor and more precipitation (and thus cooling via dumping heat at altitude).

    The models that are most right are the ones that “get it” that more heat causes more water vapor to rise and causing more precipitation to cool things. The models that are most wrong are the ones that turn water vapor into an IR gas and “trap heat”; ignoring the precipitation from our heat pipe Earth.

    As the sun cooled off, the poles got colder. Now the heat engine will run faster (delta / difference between poles and equator is higher) as it works harder to dump more heat to space. A side effect is MORE precipitation (and more clouds) that will hold until the oceans have cooled off by the same amount. My guess is about 2030. Look for colder and wetter until then. Then we just get “way colder’ and drier (as the oceans have cooled then and don’t evaporate as much) untli the sun wakes back up and the lunar tidal forces move to the warmer cycle.

  19. Doc1; These people are sick.
    Doc2; Let some blood out of them.
    Doc1. OK, did that. 20% of them died and the rest are still sick.
    Doc2; Well, obviously you didn’t let enough blood out of them.
    Doc1; OK, I let more blood out. Now half of them are dead and the rest are still sick.
    Doc2; Wow, this disease is worse than I thought. Double the bloodletting.
    Doc1; Uhm…there’s this other doctor, and he’s not letting the blood out of his patients, and they’re getting better…
    Doc2; The disease is just talking a pause. The symptoms are just hiding. Somewhere that doctors can’t find them. But since no blood was let out of them, it means that they are actually getting sicker. When the diseases stops pausing, it will be even worse. Triple the blood letting.

  20. Climate scientists don’t even remotely know what they don’t know about climate science. Yet they build a model, plug all sorts of information in it and then use it to base all of their predictions on. How frigging amazing is that for nonsense?

  21. He just added a fudge factor to grab a headline, period, knowing that even the likes of the faux Marcott 2013 hockey stick now famously passes peer review.

  22. Here they present an argument that makes a crucial appeal to empirical evidence yet they provide no empirical evidence whatsoever. What children they are. What children Nature’s editors are.

    Sorry, folks, but if you are going to claim that you understand cloud behavior as it bears on albedo then you must present well confirmed physical hypotheses which explain the claim and you must present the empirical evidence that makes them well-confirmed. Until you have those things, do not publish your weak as Pajamas Boy claims.

  23. davidmhoffer says:
    December 31, 2013 at 12:22 pm

    *

    David – you have a way with words! That not only sums it up perfectly, but captures the foolishness and the arrogance of today’s “climate scientists” and their blinkered approach. Brilliant.

  24. sarc on/ For people who are not up to date, with climate models GIGO does NOT mean garbage in, garbage out. It means garbage in, gospel out. sarc off/

  25. “But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more.”

    So if we remove from the figure at the top of the post all of the ‘wrong’ models…….

    That makes it so much easier to demonstrate that models != reality. Thanks for the clarification.

  26. I am not a climate scientist, I am a mere glider pilot, so of course I don’t know anything about thermals, but two things strike me as odd;-

    1, If thermals form clouds then they will go all the way to the tropopause to form a rainstorm unless something stops them. If an inversion stops them, they will dissipate without interacting with the air above the inversion – they will not “draw water vapour” out of the air above the inversion, that is utter nonsense.

    2. The vast majority if clouds and rain are frontal, not thermal, in origin.

    I really do not understand what this man is talking about.

  27. Yes, When i was young, a long time ago, and learning my trade in Natural Philosophy we used to call this the fiddle factor: denoted as F double dash.

    A happy new year to all at WUWT and its readers.

    Kindest Regards

  28. Shocking, if you go searching for the mistakes that would go in a particular direction, you find the mistakes that go in that direction. You didn’t go looking for any mistakes in the other direction, so you didn’t find any.

    So, if you go looking for model problems that could bias them low, you find some and you remove them, the models warm more. You perhaps fail to realize that it is not the effect of the problems you find that determines the bias in one direction or another, it is the sum of *all* problems, including the ones you haven’t even contemplated, much less identified.

    So sure, if you try hard enough you can find a model problem that actually reduces the amount they warm, and if you correct *only* that model problem, they’d warm more.

    The more sensible thing to do would be to look for a method to determine whether the total bias due to model problems is in one direction or another, regardless of the source of the bias. In this regard the weak rate of warming in the last few decades-and more recently the absence of a warming trend entirely-compared to models illustrates that, even if this cloud problem is biasing models low, the remaining biases must add up to a *high* bias in their sensitivity estimates.

    Me thinks Sherwood is lost in the forest, because he can’t see it for the trees.

  29. It’s downright embarrassing that these climate idiots, Sherwood has form and Turney was an unknown until he got stuck in ice, are Australians. It is unsurprising that the Sydney Morning Herald printed the rubbish and are unlikely to print the inevitable retraction/correction just as they fail to report Turneys Antarctic fiasco. In this they are ably assisted by the public broadcaster, the ABC. It’s been a bad week for warmists here as the front page of the Australian newspaper yesterday carried an op-ed by one of the PM’s chief advisors that the CC fraud is collapsing and a news article linking Green policies to job losses and increased power charges. The Antarctic circus is icing but some in the media are trying to ignore it.

    Happy New Year to all at WUWT. 2014 is shaping to be the year of the skeptic.

  30. Stepping back from the trees for a moment to look at the forest…

    If we proceed on the assumption that this paper is correct (not that I am, but let’s just suppose for a moment) it is actually a devastating blow to the climate models. If the models closest to reality are in fact incorrect about cloud modelling, and fixing that portion of them forces their results even further from reality, it means that something else is wrong with the models, or perhaps (more likely) several other things.

    What this paper (if correct) shows is that the models are even worse than we previously supposed.

    This paper joins an ever growing list of peer review literature that has ceased trying to prove the models wrong, and instead tries to explain why they are wrong, with ever increasing contortions to preserve the CAGW memoplex at the same time.

  31. timetochooseagain says:
    December 31, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    Lars P. No, that is global lower troposphere, the plot above is tropical mid-troposphere.
    Thanks!

  32. Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect”

    Yeah, when we are caught out we admit it.

  33. This isn’t “horseshoes.” The mainstream climate projection modellers have it wrong. Adjusting wrong doesn’t fix a broken model.

  34. Anthony

    I despair with the drivel and rubbish these people come out with I really can’t be bothered being polite with them anymore. I’ve just seen a post on UK Sci Weather that says the reason that ‘ship of fools’ is stuck in ice is because of AGW with more fresh water due the Antarctic ice cap melting.

    Well all know that ice melts faster on land than the ocean where it’s impervious to melting especially the further it freezes outwards. How you and other have the patience is beyond me . Personally I think the bulk of AGW’s like the journalist on that shipping are &*cking Idiots and there is no other way to deal with them now. The gloves are going to have to come of very soon as no ones is giving an inch an intrenched ideological warfare looks on the cards as these fanatics just won’t accept any truth that is laid before them. Some of the responses and comments you hear to real situations make one want to do a Ben Sanity Clause .

    Honestly I want to tell them just to shut the *&ck up. They are a public health hazard

  35. Ok, so his Excellency wnats do double the climate sensitivity. Hey let him. This will just make reality even more inconvenient for the excellencies of climate science. We don’t lose anything; they were idiots anyway.

  36. We’re already a seventh of the way to 2100 without any warming, so when the rise finally starts, it’s gonna be really steep.

  37. What a joke! do they not look at the real world observations and see that even the lower end models are way too high. Their conclusions supporting the high end models are ludicrous at best!!!
    Unbelievable nonsense!

  38. 1) run with those proposed sensitivities from the beginning of the industrial era & tell me your error compared to observed temps – it will be huge – it will make the pause look like a rounding error. And then tell me why this theory has any validity at all when it doesn’t fit the observed data at all.

    2) brought to you by the same school that brought you a ship stuck in Antarctic ice, trying to prove the ice was disappearing due to AGW (UNSW)

    Credibility = Zero

  39. This is fantastic news!
    They are buying the rope from which they will hang (so to speak). By all means, continue on.

  40. Maybe they need to start with controlled experiments. Then model those to see if the model can predict the observation of the experiments. If it can then try more complex experiments. After that move on to modeling earths climate.

  41. geran says:
    December 31, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 31, 2013 at 12:22 pm
    >>>>>

    Thread winner!

    ===========================================================
    Agreed!
    (Now we need a Troll to be the thread whiner.)

  42. SMC says:
    December 31, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    “Now, my model on the other hand strongly suggests the #18 Broncos forcing is clearly the dominant factor in the rise to the Super Bowl. This is backed by evidence and observation. I theorize the Broncos will win.”

    Puhlesse … In fact it’s known that the #12 Patriots forcing is 2.5 times greater than the #18 Broncos forcing. This is measured data, not a model. It is also true that the Belichick is wilier than the Fox and similar creatures in all climates, especially winter. Your model fails to account for these additional variables and is doomed to failure. In fact, failure to model these variables correctly has led grown men to cry

  43. Huffington has posted this story, over 1300 comments.

    I despair. At least 95% have swallowed it hook line and sinker, and are busy sneering at everyone who suggests that maybe it isn’t true. The whole debate really has taken on religious tones with only a tiny minority on both sides arguing the case with actual information. I have one friend whose iron bound belief in the theory is strongly based on the fact that a republican senator started debunking it years ago. If the Repubs think it is wrong, it must be true, is pretty much his line of thought.

    And I meant it when I said both sides. There are a lot of skeptics who disbelief is a matter of belief rather than an examination of the facts and is based on who is on the other side.

    There is just no way you can argue religion with a true believer. They will just pull out the tired old “Because the Bible says so” or the equivalent. 97% of scientists say so.

  44. Obviously I am wrong. I always look at the facts. But maybe I need to follow the media. ‘Don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story!’

  45. This is like Nancy Pelosi saying, “Food Stamps are the best way to stimulate the economy!” or the President saying, “You absolutely can keep your doctor”…

    Everyone (the public) now know these things are not true (including CAGW). But the “Main Stream Media” still will not say the Emperor has no clothes. (By Emperor, I mean whatever their left wing cause du jour is).

    As 2014 rolls in, I’m thankful for alternative media, news outlets, blogs, etc — because the MSM has been looking a lot like Pravda the last 10-20 years or so… (It’s incredible how hard CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc work at NOT doing their jobs!)

  46. How is the opposition to climate change alarmism doing at the end of 2013?

    To sum up the Main Stream Media’s view on climate change for 2013, here is a typical quote from about two weeks ago:

    “The evidence, the facts, the science, and the reality are clear: The Earth is warming up, the climate is changing, it’s happening faster now than it has for thousands of years, and we’re the reason behind it.”
    ————————————————–
    Survey by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Council on Foreign Relations. Methodology, Nov 6, 2013:

    “I’d like your opinion about some possible international concerns for the US. Do you think that…global climate change is a major threat, a minor threat or not a threat to the well being of the United States?”

    Not a threat: 20%
    Minor threat: 30%
    Major threat: 45%
    ————————————-
    “The United Nations has announced its next global warming international meeting for New York City on Sept. 23, 2014, under the banner, “Climate Summit 2014: Catalyzing Action.”

    The 2014 UN global warming summit is being billed as a prelude to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, Conference in 2015, at which UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon hopes to advance the UN agenda to get a final international agreement signed in Paris to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol carbon emission reduction agreement dating back to 2008.

    “I challenge you to bring to the summit bold pledges,” Ban Ki-Moon said in a UN statement. “Innovate, scale-up, cooperate and deliver concrete action that will close the emissions gap and put us on track for an ambitious legal agreement through the UNFCC process.”
    —————————————–
    You can find some great TED talks on Netflix. The last few days I’ve watched a lot of them, they are short. I saw many well groomed, well spoken authority figures who have no doubt whatsoever about CAGW.

  47. “…appears to solve one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity, the role of cloud formation…”

    Oh, so this study- one study- clears it all right up?!? One of the “great unknowns” in one of the wickedest of the wicked problems? One paper?

  48. (I think I found the fast track to the spam filter. Third and last (edited) try.)

    geran says:
    December 31, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 31, 2013 at 12:22 pm
    >>>>>

    Thread winner!

    ========================================================================
    Agreed!
    (Now we need someone to be thread whiner.)

  49. Let me get this straight: (1) models that have shown rising temperatures so far are not perfect; (2) models showing temperatures not rising enough are wrong; (3) reality is even more wrong. Is that the gist of this article?

  50. What happens to the mean of the plotted models in the figure shown when “those models which predict less warming” are deleted?

  51. It’s just too easy to show that Sherwood is talking more rubbish. Comments here already adequately prove that, so I won’t bother repeating.

    I’ll just point out that I’ve just heard this fraud on local (Australian) radio say “… it’s here in our backyard already… in the eastern Pacific…”)
    Australia in the eastern Pacific??? This guy can’t even get his compass right.
    Some will say this is just a slip of the tongue. To me it just reveals a man again mouthing off about something he knows nothing about.

    Why do you North Americans keep exporting your duds to us? What have we ever done to you?

  52. Mods, I recently made 3 comments on this thread that disappeared. Did they go to the spam filter or is there another issue? (I do a program that can mask my email address. I didn’t think it was active here.)

  53. Yay, Australia leading the world! I think 8C is the new world record CAGW prediction.

    Clearly the Centre of Excellence is working well at UNSW – one is a world champion modeller, and the other one is on the Academic Schloktacular in Antarctica providing first hand proof of how ice is melting at the South Pole and refreezing 4m thick at 65S due to Gerbil Worming.

  54. It appears that this paper does not factor in the theory that industrial pollution and sulphates have masked the global temperature rise thus leading to the ‘pause’.
    That’s because it only speaks of an error in understanding of cloud cooling/warming.
    As an aside, if you look at the linearity of the rise in atmospheric CO2, and the fact that temperatures have stopped rising, one could conclude that if CO2 is a major driver of global temperature, then its effect is negative.

  55. This is desperation science if you can call it science (anything goes these days) even white coats, muddled thinking, and in Australia a cult fightback to hold onto the money whatever spin it takes, they got away with the absurd under the Flannery political climateering of the previous government. So its no holds barred to put out the most ridiculous claims while the world media is still sleeping on the job. Its a Nutter and Cook style SucKer (SKs) science, who dares wins the media race, science or sanity doesn’t matter where money is to be made.

  56. We need a new definition of “Centre of Excellence” such as “University with the most money”.

  57. Robert Bissett says:
    December 31, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    “How is the opposition to climate change alarmism doing at the end of 2013?”

    Great, thank you for asking.

    “You can find some great TED talks on Netflix. The last few days I’ve watched a lot of them, they are short. I saw many well groomed, well spoken authority figures who have no doubt whatsoever about CAGW.”

    ROTFLMAO! Like well groomed NSA buddy Eric Schmidt? Now, let me tell you a secret. I saw many total idiots talking their book in TED Talks. But go ahead Mr. Gullible and see what it gets you.

  58. I thought a warming trend brings more rainfall? Doesn’t more rainfall kinda imply more clouds in general?

    Lewis P Buckingham says: ” ….one could conclude that if CO2 is a major driver of global temperature, then its effect is negative.”

    I’m right with you on that, it’s the simplest explanation of the ice core data. CO2 increasing because of increasing temperature and then, when it reaches a sufficient concentration, it causes temperature to stop rising and later start declining. When temperature has declined enough, the CO2 to starts going down again. The two are chasing each other.

  59. Two things:

    1) I award this guy an atta-boy for acknowledging that the models have problems, and a second atta-boy for trying to figure out what the problem is by looking at clouds.

    2) I must unfortunately follow this by issuing an immediate an aww-shoot that wipes the slate clean for drawing a preposterous conclusion that is contradicted by the empirical evidence.

    Seriously, maybe he has a point with the clouds. Clearly if he does, then that’s not all that’s wrong with the models, since we get a result that’s even further off of observations than before.

    Happy New Years all.

  60. Observation does not support the assertion that the planet amplifies CO2 forcing. The observations support that the planet resists rather than amplifies warming forcing changes by an increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover in the tropical region. (For example Lindzen and Choi`s paper that found by analyzing short term (3 month) period; comparing ocean surface temperature Vs top of the atmosphere radiation emission as measured by satellite, that the cloud cover increases or decreases in the tropics to resist the forcing change (Willis` tropical thermostatic throttle).

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
    Willis` tropical thermostatic throttle mechanism explains why there has been almost no warming in the lower latitudes which is a paradox (an observation that directly contradicts the predictions of the IPCC general circulation models GCM and that indicates there are one or more fundamental errors in the GCMs.)

    The warmists and media have screamed from the roof tops the fact that the planet has warmed. They have completely hidden the fact that lower latitudes have not warmed which disproves catastrophic AGW. They have hidden the failure of CAGW theory by focusing on the polar warming and calling the polar warming amplification with no comment that the polar warming is not predicted by the general circulation models (GCM).

    Latitudinal Warming Paradox
    As CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for CO2 warming is the same for all latitudes. The actual warming due to CO2 is linearly dependent on the amount of long wave radiation at the latitude in question before the increase in CO2. As most amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space is in the tropics the most amount of warming due to the CO2 increase should have occurred in the tropics. That is not what is observed as shown in Bob Tisdale graph. The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the above assertions.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    “These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”

    “These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

  61. It would be a lot more convincing if the authors had included any real cloud data.

    But it appears that showing no data (or only showing climate model output) is much more convincing to the followers and to the editors of Nature.

    The water vapor data which is available completely contradicts this paper, as in, it is completely opposite. Low levels of the atmosphere have increasing water vapor content (hydration they called it to keep people off-track I presume) while upper levels are drying somewhat. Opposite to what the paper claims the data in the Merra reanalysis dataset shows (I don’t even believe the Merra reanalysis data shows this either).

  62. Does everyone understand why this is happening?

    These models all hindcast against GISS, which is being revised to give higher and higher trends to the past. So they keep predicting more warmth in the future, but only because they see illusory warming in the past that correlates to CO2.

    Classic GIGO.

  63. What a cheap fiddle. Program the model to estimate updrafts to a range of altitudes as the planet warms and produce less clouds and hey presto ! – call it research and announce it to the world that you must be the smartest modellers in the world – so smart that you are stuck in ice in mid summer in the Antarctic! Talk about chutzpah! Who is this nutter? I obtained a B Eng at UNSW some time back. Writing as an alumni of the institution, I find this self promoting creep Sherwood just a complete embarrassment.

  64. This Outburst comes from Dr. Steven Sherwood who must be the Master in Lunacy at the University of New South Wales. Just when we thought that “the Science” was ‘settled’, suddenly Dr, Steven Sherwood emits this study claiming all the models were wrong all the time, and things are ‘worse than we thought’ !
    It’s Models all the way down to the Antarctic Ice, these days. However to judge by recent reactions, there is a wind of change, in Australia and the World and De. Steven Sherwood should make sure his CV is up to date, to be ready for re-deployment..
    No Happy New Year to him!

  65. Skeptics, there is still some time to repent and join the true faith. 2013 ends soon for the whole world and prices will jump up. Just few hours left to get your carbon credits at 2013 prices!
    Happy New Year!
    Will it be better for those that support good scientific common sense.

  66. The Navier Stokes equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density (but not phase). They are nonlinear, chaotic and have sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Edward Lorenz showed that no finite amount of data on past states is sufficient for a non-trivial prediction of future states. “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”. To the extent that AGW depends on past state data to model/predict distant future states, it is a hoax. If they can match past state history without using past state data, then they might have something.

  67. I need a new computer. I wonder what make/model is used by these models because I sure don’t want one as inaccurate as that. :-)

  68. Is there a climate model that can predict from past data the weather and trends that occurred immediately (or whatever length of time seems appropriate) after?

    If there is one, is it being used to predict the weather? If not, why not?

    If there isn’t one then why are these other models (which I assume can’t do the prediction) given so much weight if they can’t predict what we know happened(s)?

    All the arguments about the validity of data from the past and how to interpolate it is unimportant until a model can be developed that is proven to accurately model the climate from known data. Until that happens all the rest can’t be proven. That’s where the money should be spent.

    (I suspect that it’s much harder to do than the climate folks make out and it may even be impossible with the computing technology available.)

    If I’m wrong, someone enlighten me please.

  69. So, if I read this correctly, someone we pay from the public purse as an academic and a scientist says that some models are wrong, because a new model says so? Never mind that none of the models (old or new) have any predictive power at all, and the new model is farther from real-world observations than the old ones. Just trust him, it’s correct. Another Monty Python Black Knight?

  70. jakee308 says:
    December 31, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    Is there a climate model that can predict from past data the weather and trends that occurred immediately (or whatever length of time seems appropriate) after?
    _________________________________
    disclaimer: I’m far from current on the latest model tech and my answer might get quickly overruled by someone who’s more in tune with sate- of- the- art.
    A couple of the models get close, but as far as I know, No. currently, none can successfully and consistently back- test with any significant level of confidence, without first being manipulated. The code gets tweaked until the models get approximately the right answer. After getting the right back- tested answer, could they repeat the performance? At that point, who can say… the input data has been so heavily manipulated to fit the code and vice versa that it’s anyone’s guess.
    —————————————————–
    If there isn’t one then why are these other models (which I assume can’t do the prediction) given so much weight if they can’t predict what we know happened(s)?</i?"
    _________________________________
    Yes, why?
    —————————————————
    “(I suspect that it’s much harder to do than the climate folks make out and it may even be impossible with the computing technology available.)
    ______________________________
    You might be surprised by the capabilities of modern computing technology.. It’s been possible for several years for individuals to build a multi- TFLOPS machine for not a whole lot of money; computers which would rival the world’s supercomputers only a couple of decades ago.

    The real problem lies in what you put into the computer, in order to get meaningful answers as output.
    At this stage of the game, humanity doesn’t know enough about the various influences to our climate to be able to build a reliable climate model, but that isn’t for lack of people trying to understand the process. The major problem holding us back is a failure we all share: we have a hard time accepting the truth of things when it doesn’t fit within our belief system. That’s my take, anyway.

    Ps About 6 yrs ago (I think) I built a 1.6+ TFLOPS machine. That clunky old junk pile is now such a slow power- sucking dinosaur that I probably couldn’t even sell the parts out of it on eBay for enough to be worth the postage and it lies forlorn and mostly disassembled, scattered around here someplace.

  71. I don’t understand how throwing a bunch of parameters and formulas into a computer where the formulas do not fully represent nature is considered science.

  72. Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100″

    There’s that doubly ridiculous phrase again. We apparently now have multiple (meaningless) global temperatures.

  73. Clive says:
    December 31, 2013 at 11:34 am
    Classmate of Turney’s? ☺
    —————————————————————-
    Classmates of Turkeys !

  74. As I mentioned before, these guys clearly didn’t do the math, so I will do it for them :

    Input :
    pre-industrial CO2 : 286 PPM (in 1850)
    Current CO2 : 395 PPM (in 2013)

    Observed temp change : 0.82 °C increase ( hadcrut data set – see WUWT ref pages from 1850 to present)

    So, they say the range of sensitivity is 3 to 5 °C/doubling, so how much warming should have we seen since pre-industrial time ??

    3°C/doubling ==> 1.40 ° C

    This is 171 % greater than the observed change

    5°C/ doubling ===> 2.33 ° C

    This 284 % greater than the observed change

    This theory is so dead on arrival , it’s a complete joke. I took 5 minutes in a spreadsheet to kill it. Anyone who wants to can verify these calculations, given the inputs – which are based on real data, not a model.

    I challenge the originators of the theory to show how their sensitivity can fit the observed data. My only explanation is there would have to be large negative feedbacks in the system and if those feedbacks exist & have been operating for the last 165 years, why would we expect they wouldn’t continue into the future ??

    BTW, using this same methodology & calculating sensitivity from the delta T & delta Concentration (a model that fits the observed data), you come up with 1.79°C/ doubling – in line with many other recent studies.

  75. What part of the temperature hasn’t risen in 18 years doesn’t he understand?Some say more.
    I added another year because the clock ticked over into 2014.
    Who is he trying to sell his new “snake oil” to?
    I’m not buying like the growing majority.
    Like so many of these fraudsters, they will be well and truly of the public teat when they are exposed.
    Some will be dead.

  76. paullinsay says:
    December 31, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    “Puhlesse … In fact it’s known that the #12 Patriots forcing is 2.5 times greater than the #18 Broncos forcing. This is measured data, not a model. It is also true that the Belichick is wilier than the Fox and similar creatures in all climates, especially winter. Your model fails to account for these additional variables and is doomed to failure. In fact, failure to model these variables correctly has led grown men to cry”

    Puhleesse yourself paulinsay. I will stipulate the #12 Patriots forcing is a significant factor in the rise however, based on the most recent available data your 2.5x forcing is clearly in error. The #18 Broncos forcing has substantially more impact. Records have been broken by the #18 Broncos forcing and have reached unprecedented levels. Your need to cherry pick the data clearly shows your desperation to support your untenable position. I agree the ultimate out come will be http://crossfitnewengland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ryan-e1381708480259.jpg . And while the Belichick is indeed a wily creature capable of adapting to extreme environments you must remember What Does the Fox Say http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjofNR_WkoCE&ei=T3LDUvbRFOjgyQG0oYDICw&usg=AFQjCNE9-Z1oW5gVjc6rJg_-KAhmjY_Qfg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aWc

  77. Here is our latest MODEL… (ignore reality)…. LOOK AT THIS SHINY NEW MODEL….

    One more for the round file…

    How do we bring these people back to reality?

  78. I tell you the bird is not dead….he’s sleeping.
    That bird is dead!
    No! He sleeping.
    I remember the skit.
    Monty Python I believe.
    So, Monty’s group is writing comedy for CAGW.
    Who knew?
    cn

  79. The graph in the head post is the final death blow to the whole CAGW modeling scam. The participants in these models surely cringe every time it is presented to the public. They know their name and academic credibility is on the line for all to see. Is it incompetence or fraud?

  80. {When only the deeper updraughts are present in climate models, more clouds form and there is an increased reflection of sunlight. Consequently the global climate in these models becomes less sensitive in its response to atmospheric carbon dioxide.}

    Paging Dr. Spencer? Paging Dr. Spencer!

  81. Is the tropical mid-troposphere particularly significant for the CAGW hypothesis? How do the models fare when we compare their forecasts with observations for other areas?

  82. “Our research has shown climate models indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation,”

    Well my research shows that none of the climate models reproduce the correct processes leading to cloud formation. In fact GISS for example is documented to show it is nothing more than a fit. Ce la vie I guess.

  83. If my memory serves me Sherwood has a long history of writing junk science papers that use models to “prove” models. He once coauthored a paper that proved wind patterns proved that the upper atmosphere has warmed where direct measurement had failed.

  84. Looking at the charts and tables its appears they used CMIP 3 models and for observations they used MERRA. Of all the reannalysis data (MERRA is a model not observations) I’ve looked at MERRA is the sketchiest.

  85. If models are getting one thing wrong in “not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation,” wouldn’t common sense tell you that they are likely to be getting other things wrong as well? For the authors of this paper to point out a major mistake and then assume that everything else the modelers are doing is correct, seems very naive to me.

  86. E.M.Smith says:
    December 31, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    Thanks for that 2-step. Sounds right. and deals with “water vapour anomalies (dictionary meaning)”.

  87. Missing from all this is the explanation from climate scientists as to how, for all those years, they were able to so confidently state, without equivocation, that man-caused global warming was a threat to one and all when only now they admit they had no clue how to accurately account for clouds – a major player in all things climate related -in the climate models they used to make those dire predictions.

    Maybe someday we’ll be treated to a similar article, when they find an algorithm to take into account all the biological influences that play a huge role in the climate, but are only marginally included in their models.

  88. What’s the source of the graph comparing model projections with actual global temperature data in this post?

  89. I looked for a comment from Willis and it was not there, then I thought he will probably do a whole post on this as he takes it apart step by step using observations and measured data NOT MADE UP STUFF.

    James Bull

  90. Alec Rawls says:
    December 31, 2013 at 11:30 am
    I don’t doubt that the models that show less warming get clouds wrong. I am quite certain that ALL the models get clouds wrong, and a lot else as well.
    ++++++++++++
    That about sums up what I read. They say even the scant few models that are closest to observation got the are wrong because they got the clouds wrong. They should have shown more warming. The rest of the models that showed much more warming than observed are also wrong, in that if they were fixed, they would prove observations should be adjusted upwards until they match the warmer than observed models.

    What a bunch junk.

  91. davidmhoffer says:
    December 31, 2013 at 12:22 pm
    Doc1; These people are sick.
    Doc2; Let some blood out of them.
    Doc1. OK, did that. 20% of them died and the rest are still sick.
    Doc2; Well, obviously you didn’t let enough blood out of them.
    Doc1; OK, I let more blood out. Now half of them are dead and the rest are still sick.
    Doc2; Wow, this disease is worse than I thought. Double the bloodletting.
    Doc1; Uhm…there’s this other doctor, and he’s not letting the blood out of his patients, and they’re getting better…
    Doc2; The disease is just talking a pause. The symptoms are just hiding. Somewhere that doctors can’t find them. But since no blood was let out of them, it means that they are actually getting sicker. When the diseases stops pausing, it will be even worse. Triple the blood letting.

    ==============================================
    Sounds like Krugman on the “stimulus” too: “The reason it failed is that we didn’t do enough of it. Damn the evidence, full speed ahead!”

    Seems to me there’s a certain category of person…

    Oh, never mind.

  92. Anthony, I am glad you grabbed that bit of propaganda and made a post of it.

    That statement, …”“But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more.”… in the face of very obvious proof, shows anyone who looks that Dr. Steven Sherwood, the University of New South Wales and The Guardian who is pushing that bit of ‘News’ to the public are nothing but propagandists.

    Lysenko would be proud of such disciples.

    As the good ship SS CAGW keeps hits iceberg after iceberg, it is hoped the general public, upon learning they have been consistently lied to will have their eyes opened and become more questioning in the future. Trust once abused is hard to earn back and the MSM and university scientists are working hard to lose that trust.

  93. Clive says: @ December 31, 2013 at 11:34 am

    Classmate of Turney’s?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    More like a colleague, both of who teach. I wouldn’t consider sending any young people to that University!

  94. Two things which ‘climate scientists’ like to ignore are: i) the geological record, where there are no instances of CAGW, and ii) carbon dioxide levels follow changes in temperature and not vice versa.

    However, this brings us back to the subject of CAGW, which is a myth designed to fill the financial troughs of ‘climate scientists’, and AGW which is a small and mildly interesting phenomenon. Man has made an impact on his environment, mostly through the effects of agriculture and irrigation. Probably, rising CO2 levels have also had a very small impact on global temperatures. However, these factors are inconsequential when compared to natural climate cycles, which we can not yet quantify or even fully identify. Why should the reasons for this warm period be any different from the previous four in the Holocene, or for that matter in the Eemian interglacial period 120,000 years ago?

    Far too many sceptics confuse AGW with CAGW, while alarmists deliberately muddle them up. AGW is not scary and therefore pays few bills, while the CAGW fantasy is very scary and makes the troughs overflow with funds.

    Hence, the reasoning behind this paper, which basically states because current computer models overstate temperatures now, they understate temperatures in the future. In real science, this paper would be awarded a big F, in ‘climate science’ it is just another example of scary forecasting, using dubious and unsubstantiated logic.

  95. Even the models that projected nearer to observations were still too warm! This really is climate nuttiness of the year (2013). Up is down, black is white, cold is hot.

    Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. Scientists found global climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates.

    The research also appears to solve one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity, the role of cloud formation and whether this will have a positive or negative effect on global warming.

    This must explain the temperature standstill. Their track record so far is abysmal, dismiss this garbage as co2 has been FAR higher in the past with no oven temps. We are still here for goodness sakes.

  96. Ice-Trapped ‘Scientists’ says:
    December 31, 2013 at 11:36 am

    4ºC of warming? You say it like it’s a bad thing.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    If the other option is 4ºC of cooling then I will take the warming thank you very much.

    When you consider we have already cooled from the Holocene Optimum by about 2.5 to 3.0ºC. Another drop of 4ºC would put the earth in glaciation territory Graph

    According to the Warmist the poles are the most like to see the temperature rise (Willis’s tropical thermostat and all that.)

    Here are the temperatures we have had during the Holocene, GRAPH, annotated with the civilizations that flourished.

    This shows the earth has cooled about as much as they say the earth is going to warm.

    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic 2010
    Miller et al
    Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, USA et al

    …. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded

    Too bad most people don’t take even one course in geology. If they had they would see CAGW is a tempest in a tea pot and would also have an appreciation of just how much power the earth’s processes command compared to us puny humans.

  97. Have climate modellers ever thought to start with the answer and work out the formula and the values of the variables back from that ? At least one part of the model would be right …

  98. Steven Mosher
    “Looking at the charts and tables its appears they used CMIP 3 models and for observations they used MERRA. Of all the reannalysis data (MERRA is a model not observations) I’ve looked at MERRA is the sketchiest.”

    Why do people rush to criticise Mr. Mosher when they disagree with him but not thank him, as they should, when he makes a really useful observation?

  99. Publish fairy tales or perish.

    University of New South Wales
    Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC
    Grants and awards

    http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/research/grants.html

    One failure follows another. Prof Chris Turney is the climate scientist stuck in sea ice in Antarctica. He used the models to navigate his way through. Prof Steven Sherwood is at the same university. What can I say?

    CCRC researchers receive grants from 2013 Australian funding round
    In addition to these two DECRAs, Prof Chris Turney and Dr Katrin Meissner were successful in their application for a Discovery Grant, Dr Jason Evens received a Discovery Indigenous grant, and Prof Steven Sherwood was part of a team that received a grant under the Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities program.

    http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/news/news/2012-11-09_successgrants.html

    So the IPCC have failed. They should now be disbanded as their models underestimate future warming. What a bloody joke this is, they must take people for utter, gullible fools. The more they fail the more certain they are, you will hot see this in ANY other scientific field.

    PS if the good professor found much lower climate sensitivity he would have made the necessary corrections until the desired results were obtained. Observations are king.

  100. Michael Moon says: @ December 31, 2013 at 11:51 am

    ….When updraughts rise only a few kilometres they reduce total cloud cover because they pull more vapour away from the higher cloud forming regions.” I hate it when my vapor pulls away from the higher regions.

    Does this make any sense whatsoever? How could it even be measured with any accuracy?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    To put it in layman’s terms he is talking of FOG (not the kind found in this guy’s brain)

    You still get reflection and incoming solar energy absorption by H2O and you still get latent heat of evaporation. Also when the fog or low lying clouds ‘burns away’ later in the day, what happens? The water vapor heads back up.

    I do not care where the clouds are, it is still cooler under cloud cover than it is under the direct sun. These guys really need to get out of their air conditioned ivory towers and do field work.

    Of course the biggest lie is linking CO2 to water in such a way that CO2 is the driver and H2O is the feedback. As Dr. Ball said …but now a flea on a hair on the tail was wagging the dog.

  101. “If you still don’t believe climate models cannot be trusted to predict the future, then watch the following video of a presentation made with humor added by leading expert modeler Prof. Christopher Essex earlier this year. Absolutely worth viewing!”

    titled
    Believing Six Impossible Things before Breakfast, and Climate Models.

  102. Flydlbee says: @ December 31, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    …2. The vast majority if clouds and rain are frontal, not thermal, in origin
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Anthony or another weatherman, correct me here if I am wrong.
    What is happening is the water vapor is evaporated and you get warm moist air but no clouds (think hot muggy summer days) This, combined with the rising of the hot air, results in a low-pressure area. That warm moist air then hits cold dry air (high pressure) and condenses. That forms your front.

    More of an explanation HERE @ Weather Wiz for Kids.

  103. “When updraughts rise only a few kilometres they reduce total cloud cover because they pull more vapour away from the higher cloud forming regions.”

    I don’t where the authors of this paper live, but here in the UK clouds tend to start about 1km up and rain mostly comes from the lowest few km. Are they assuming the only kind of cloud is a thunderstorm?

  104. they said it,

    “in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible”

    Ipcc 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

  105. peter says: @ December 31, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    Huffington has posted this story, over 1300 comments….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And how many of those commenting are PAID?

  106. That’s classic cointelpro.

    It’s pure, perfectly timed counter-propaganda, to soften the media-impact of the russian ship of fools which is actually trapped in “unprecedented, caused by CAGW” antarctic sea ice.

    You can expect to see the media-blitz over the climate models being too optimistic to be withdrawn the very day when the Akademik Shokalskiy disappears from the headlines.

    Mark my words.

  107. M. Nichopolis says: @ December 31, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    … because the MSM has been looking a lot like Pravda the last 10-20 years or so…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I caught the MSM deliberately lying in 1971, a year after the Kent State shootings. The actual reason for the riots, town law meaning no vote for adult students there on the G.I. bill, was also covered-up the year before.

    My boy friend, going to college on the G.I. bill at that time was 27 and NOT in anyway living with Mommy and Daddy as this law assumed. Yet no where on the internet is this referenced. I only know because of friends who lived through it.

  108. Gunga Din,
    I am having the same problem. One of my comments was there waiting for moderation, then it disappeared completely and then it was back waiting for moderation.

    The waiting for moderation seems to show up with no rhyme nor reason too. Sometimes on short one liners and yet not on a longer comment with links.

    In some cases I have had comments disappear entirely, booted into the ether never to be seen again.

    This is a recent problem and in no way reflects on WUWT, Anthony or his really great moderators. I bring it up only because the problem lets others think WUWT is censoring comments. I saw this very accusation made just yesterday.

    – Happy New Year to all of you.

  109. Robert Bissett says: @ December 31, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    “How is the opposition to climate change alarmism doing at the end of 2013?”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I will see your one poll and raise you another. How Americans see global warming — in 8 charts (from this spring)

    1. No imminent threat. Over six in 10 people in a March Gallup poll said they don’t think global warming will seriously threaten them during their lifetimes. One-third do see a threat, a number that rose to a high of 40 percent in 2008, but has ticked down since.
    2. Not a top priority. … Just 18 percent of Americans said addressing global warming was the “highest” priority for President Obama…

    5. The Earth may be warming but the why remains a point of contention. Scientists overwhelmingly say global warming is happening and that it’s caused mostly by human activity, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center survey. But the general public is less sure on both ideas: In the latest data, about seven in 10 believe it’s happening (69 percent), and 42 percent say it’s mostly because of humans.

    This one is the real killer:

    7. Trust in climate scientists is not universal, and has dropped in recent years. Just 26 percent of Americans said they trust scientists “completely” or “a lot” in a 2012 Washington Post-Stanford University poll, down from 32 percent in 2007. More, 35 percent, said they trust scientists only “a little” or “not at all.” In a striking finding, more than one-third of the public believed climate scientists who say global warming is real make their conclusions based on money and politics.….

    Seems people are not as naive as I and the MSM believe if these polling numbers are close to reality. As I have said before once your eyes are opened you do not go back to sleep. “one-third of the public believed climate scientists who say global warming is real make their conclusions based on money and politics.” means those people got off the couch and did some research and had their eyes opened.

    So a great big thanks to Anthony for helping open those eyes.
    …..

    An added note:
    If you divide people by political belief (a really bad move) “The Left”, or so the elite hope are believers in CAGW. However these are the same people who hate GMOs and figured out Monsanto’s puppet, Michael Taylor is influencing the US government. link These are also the people who do not trust Big Pharma or vaccines. Therefore they most certainly do not trust scientists especially those attached to big corporations. Whether this distrust will spread to university scientists is where the question is. The Achilles heel of CAGW is linking these universities and scientists to money grubbing corporations in the rank and files mind.

    • Poll Wars? I’ll raise your poll with this:

      The study, conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, found a remarkable 75% of Americans support “regulating carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas) as a pollutant.”
      63 percent of Americans support “signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050“! From April, 2012

      WUWT is appreciated; I read almost every post. I’m not questioning the anti-CAGW position. My problem is I almost never encounter, in person, another who shares my skepticism about CAGW. I wonder where that 35% who question climate science is? It seems most trust the MSM and they do not trust the internet. Maybe sometime during 2014 we will see a poll where 35% becomes 65%. Does that solve the problem? Does not trusting climate scientists’ motivation equate to throwing our rascal representatives out of office? And does it make any difference since climate change is not the real issue? We could win the battle, but loose the war. UN Agenda 21 is moving forward. Most of the state I live in, Idaho, will be preserved as a wild life corridor. The rest will be highly regulated. Check the map before assuming your state is exempt; it isn’t. The NWO is progressing just fine. Middle Eastern countries are toppling like dominoes. CAFTA-DR is well on the way to connecting Canada to Mexico with a transportation corridor (CANAMEX), a four lane freeway, one of several in the nation. Two branches of which go through Idaho; one an eighth of mile from where I sit. Then on to the tip of Mexico and into Central America. Apparently a de facto Western Hemisphere Union is the goal. The laws are on the books; all settled. EPA declares CO2 a pollutant and the court sez it’s legal. With a stroke of the pen they have seized regulatory control of transportation, industry and a lot more. They don’t give a fig what happens with the climate change debate or polls. This is sounding like a rant. Sorry, I’ll stop. In twelve years I’ll be eighty and won’t remember all this anyway!

  110. jakee308 says: @ December 31, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    Is there a climate model that can predict from past data the weather and trends that occurred immediately…

    All the arguments about the validity of data from the past and how to interpolate it is unimportant until a model can be developed that is proven to accurately model the climate from known data. Until that happens all the rest can’t be proven. That’s where the money should be spent.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    There is no possibility of a model ever predicting anything useful beyond a short time period. As Doctor R.G. Brown has been at pains to point out we are looking at a chaotic system with ‘Strange Attractors’

    More on Strange Attractors: http://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/attractors.html

    More information on the climate models from Dr. Brown. link

  111. eyesonu says: @ December 31, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    ….Is it incompetence or fraud?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I think Dr. Sherwood just answered the question and gave us proof.

  112. Peter Miller says: @ January 1, 2014 at 4:41 am

    …Far too many sceptics confuse AGW with CAGW…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Not here. AGW has been throughly looked at and dissected. Here are the 77 posts just on the Urban Heat Island effect: link from Ric Werme’s guide.

  113. “Rises in global average temperatures of this magnitude will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don’t urgently start to curb our emissions.

    It is safe to make climate predictions 100 and 200 years ahead . The good Professor will not be around to be held accountable for his theories .My advise for the Professor is to make predictions for 3,5, 10, 20 years ahead based on his theories and then issue a paper on how well he did before anyone will take his theories to be credible. It is foolish to issue dire warnings to the public to solve a problem that has not existed for 17 years now and may not exist at all based on a unproven and unvalidated theory of his .

  114. Gail Combs says:
    January 1, 2014 at 5:12 am
    Michael Moon says: @ December 31, 2013 at 11:51 am

    ….When updraughts rise only a few kilometres they reduce total cloud cover because they pull more vapour away from the higher cloud forming regions.” I hate it when my vapor pulls away from the higher regions.

    Does this make any sense whatsoever? How could it even be measured with any accuracy?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Gail,
    Yes it does.
    What I think is meant is that convection, if only making it up to the mid-troposphere, will there, because of entrainment of the surrounding air at that level into the cloud, cause the WV available, to condense onto the cloud droplets. It is a sort of natural cloud seeding.

    And:

    “Gail Combs says:
    January 1, 2014 at 5:29 am
    Flydlbee says: @ December 31, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    …2. The vast majority if clouds and rain are frontal, not thermal, in origin
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Anthony or another weatherman, correct me here if I am wrong.
    What is happening is the water vapor is evaporated and you get warm moist air but no clouds (think hot muggy summer days) This, combined with the rising of the hot air, results in a low-pressure area. That warm moist air then hits cold dry air (high pressure) and condenses. That forms your front.”

    It is true as far mid-latitudes are concerned, as rain bearing (thick) cloud goes but doubtful world-wide – however, convective cloud (cumulus and Cb) do leave a lot of debris. That is Stratocumulus, this often sitting just below an inversion layer and can be very persistent. Often in with high pressure areas of the UK can be under it for days on end. This type of cloud probably causes most radiative cooling.

    Frontal cloud formation is a complex process and can result from one process or several. In essence air needs to rise. It’s not convection so heating at the bottom doesn’t do it. The key is the jet-stream which is basically the thermal contrast between cold air to the N (usually in NH) and warm to the S, that is at it’s greatest at jet level (~30000ft). Now the jet can act as a “sucker” or a “blower”, depending on curvature and relative strength or orientation of the surface feature that will be formed into the “Low”. Yes, the surface feature is a juxtaposition of warm/moist against cold/dry. When this “weakness” is positioned in the right place relative to the jet “suck” action the central pressure will drop and the low “picked up” by the jet and carried along, deepening all the time. Now if other processes come into play there will be further deepening, even explosive development. One is warm air advection. The warm air mass will be forced to glide over the colder (less dense) this releases the LH of condensation and more energy goes into rising/deepening. Another process is PVA (+ve vorticity advection). Imagine air as flowing through this jet as like water in a fast flowing stream. Towards the banks, it will slow (frictional contact). So you have a velocity gradient there. Imagine putting a straight stick across this velocity gradient – what happens to it? It spins. That is vorticity – the want to spin. There is another way to do it as well by putting a bend in the stream. Cyclonic vorticity enduces air to rise. There is though a flip-side –ve vorticity and this induces anticyclonic spin, making the air want to sink. Where the weakness at the surface is in relation to these zones is crucial in how much they deepen to Lows and how much uplift/thick cloud/rain comes from them. Also though, there can be areas of instability in the Fronts induced by this rapid uplift and, in effect, cause showers/thunderstorms to become embedded in them.. The greatest PV is available in the Stratosphere, and when this is “pulled down” into the Low (by a very strong Jet ~200kt) – the Low goes bang.
    The Low will fill in turn when it spins to the left out of the “development” area and then we have a “cold” Low where cold air is at the core and aloft wind flow from warm to cold and turn right by Coriolis. This will end when the core is warmed out.
    In contrast Hurricane/typhoons are heated from the bottom and have a warm core.

    Sorry for making your eyes glaze over – but you did ask Gail!

  115. This is great.

    They have ‘proven’ that the models great fit to the 20th century temperature data (something that is impossible for a truly accurate model by the way) is in fact incorrect. .

    They should insist that the models should be rerun over the 20th century using their new ‘proven’ parameters. We will find then that the models will be miles off at the start of this century, running far to hot and with the divergence from reality since then, should be easily enough to put them out of their error bars and they will have falsified themselves.

    Great result! Go to it Doc you complete nitwit. Have these people got even half a brain?

    Alan

  116. TB says:

    “Sorry for making your eyes glaze over…”

    That’s the problem with some folks. They nit-pick endlessly over minutia, while avoiding facing the central question: is catastrophic AGW a valid hypothesis?

    The answer, of course, is that CAGW is not even a hypothesis; it is merely a weak conjecture.

    A hypothesis must be testable. CAGW is not. And CAGW is certainly not a theory, since a theory is capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. CAGW has never made accurate predictions.

    I would be able to tolerate TB’s excruciatingly tedious lectures if he would only acknowledge that there is NO scientific evidence supporting the CAGW conjecture; no testable, measurable evidence exists.

    But TB is a True Believer, therefore he does not need any scientific evidence. A witch doctor’s acolyte never does. Belief is sufficient.

    But it would be refreshing if TB would either admit that there is no evidence for CAGW — or even admit that he takes CAGW entirely on religious faith. Because based on his comments, that is TB’s position.

    It is sad for the lonely TB, because it appears that he has never converted a single reader to his anti-science belief. My own effort is due to having to constantly point out that CAGW is not science, it is merely a religious belief, instigated and led by a relatively small clique of self-serving scientist-witch doctors, who financially benefit from promoting the CAGW scare.

    WUWT is a real science site. People do not like chameleons here: fakirs who pontificate on science, but who never man up and discuss the central issue in the entire debate: is there any empirical scientific evidence supporting the CAGW conjecture? Avoiding that discussion is simple cowardice.

  117. Like Kevin Darlington, above, I want to know the source of the powerful graph at the beginning of this post. The persuasiveness of the chart depends on there being some connection between the models shown and the main body of alarmist thought. If I show this chart to a warmist friend and he says, “Those aren’t official model computations, they were cooked up by skeptics to make the models look bad,” what can I say? Please, when showing such charts in the future, include references, or — better — a pointer to a web page detailing the provenance of the model predictions.

  118. The paper claims that lower atmospheric levels are drying out (or something like that anyway) and higher levels are hydrating.

    Here is the NCEP reanalysis data for various atmospheric levels which shows the complete opposite. (Some people don’t like NCEP reanalysis but if you compare it to the other datasets, it is virtually identical. Its just that NCEP covers a longer time-frame and the long time-frames don’t allow cherry-picking start dates etc which Trenberth, Dessler, Willet and the IPCC are famous for. This is important because the ENSO has a huge cyclical impact on these values which allows the cherries to show up in climate science papers).

  119. Hmm. This is very serious indeed.

    I believe the only solution is to increase funding to AGW research so that these good people can keep telling us how boned we all are. A wealth redistribution from rich countries to poor countries as a sorry for destroying them as well. No fossil fuels. Invest heavily into green alternatives. You know, those expensive inefficient ones. Ignoring the growing Antarctic ice sheet. Ignore the PDO and AMO, just like the models.

    Most of all, we should stop looking at the performance of these models. After all, imagine what kind of trouble we could be in if we looked at the current data and then are told we need to believe the ones currently furthest from reality are actually the realistic ones.

  120. “the models produce cycles that take water vapour to a wider range of heights in the atmosphere, causing fewer clouds to form as the climate warms.”

    However the “wider” range of heights means a lot of higher level water vapour from convection moves this heat up to where it will be more easily emitted to space. Oh the desperation! I fear there is high divorce rate in the offing among CAGW types.

  121. “Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4°C by 2100″

    Wrong on so many levels.

    The main one is based on political spin in a apparent no science paper. That is If cloud observations have matched this model assumption already, Why has there been no rise in global temperatures after reducing global cloud levels have already happened before? The CO2 sensitivity with this already happening is demonstrated to be very low.

    If anything this model backs the idea that there wont be a rise 4c by 2100 because model assumptions and observed observations have shown that despite decline in global cloud levels, there has been no rising global temperatures for years recently. The rise should have already been at a rate to levels matching the higher range of the model expectation 3c to 5c.

    The water vapor levels have been drying out at higher atmospheric levels and hydrating at lower atmospheric levels. (opposite to this paper view)

    “This increases the amount of sunlight and heat entering the atmosphere and, as a result, increases the sensitivity of our climate to carbon dioxide or any other perturbation.”

    So more sunlight and heat entering the atmosphere (which reaches beyond ocean surface) only increases the sensitivity to carbon dioxide? (lets not mention the main physical energy source warming the oceans) The reduction in cloud albedo and the increase solar energy reaching beyond the oceans has a massive role compared to CO2 gas.

    This has been demonstrated with real world observations showing the rise in global temperatures during the 1980s and 1990s were mainly due to a 4/5 percent decline in global cloud levels.

    If it was CO2 gas on its own that caused this warming then why did it stop as soon as global cloud levels become stable? Since this period there has been no warming, so if sensitivity to CO2 was the reason there would have been rising global temperatures still because CO2 is apparently not an immediate affect. Therefore this rules out CO2 gas as the cause and it was the higher energy from the sun reaching beyond the ocean surface while global cloud albedo levels were declining.

    No wonder these days you need a political science degree to BS you through a paper that has much spin content as possible.

    Finally I can demonstrate by adjusting global cloud levels to previous 1980s levels removes the no global warming phase into significant cooling. Overall it removes the warming for the entire period that humans were suppose to be causing CAGW. That is without even taking into account what the major volcanic eruptions had on the planet,before and warms the global temperatures up a little in the early parts of the time period demonstrated.

    Therefore my prediction is when global cloud levels reach the early 1980s levels, the planet will cool to similar global temperature levels that were observed in the 1970s. Maybe still a little higher until sea Ice/snow albedo also reach similar levels.

  122. Robert Bissett says:

    “63 percent of Americans support “signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050“!

    First, Robert, consider the source:

    The study, conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication… and the Center for Climate Change Communication…

    This is propaganda. Regular alarmist commentator Zeke Hausfather pushes the Yale group [with which he is associated], and of course the other group’s title shows they’ve got the same agenda. They are funded by arch warmist and True Believer Jeremy Grantham. Scientific integrity is absent from any of those NGO’s.

    These groups push the CAGW narrative, and they cannot be trusted to put out an unbiased poll. From the Yale website: Most Americans (70%, down 7 points since Fall 2012) say global warming should be a “very high” (16%), “high” (26%), or “medium priority” (29%) for the president and Congress. Three in ten (28%) say it should be a low priority. And so on. They are steadily losing ground with the public, despite their bogus polls.

    Belief in CAGW is falling due to sites like WUWT, where people can read both sides of the debate, and make up their own minds.

    If you want to befuddle your friends who believe in catastrophic global warming due to “carbon” show ‘em this graph:

    Ask them how many ‘hockey stick’ shapes they can count. Remind them that during almost all of that time, CO2 was very low. Ask them to estimate where we are right now, compared with how warm or cold the planet has been over the past 8,000 years.

    Don’t let them wing it with an answer. The fact is, nothing unusual is happening. And there certainly is NO evidence of any “human fingerprint” in the rercent, very mild, natural global warming episode — which seems to have already ended.

  123. People do realise that this is the same Sherwood who in 2008 published a paper claiming that wind speed was a better indicator of temperatures in the troposphere than the thermometers carried by the weather balloons. So far the only methodology that found the “enhanced warming in the Tropical Troposphere” that was predicted by the models. ;)

    If the real world data doesn’t say what you want it to, create a proxy measurement that does…

    http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g280_s09/recent_atmosphere/allen_sherwood_ngeo08.pdf

  124. 4C warming by 2100!?!? That’s 3.4C more than current GSTA of 0.596C (based on Hadcrut4 Nov 2013 data). The year 2100 is 85 yrs from now. Hence the Earth needs to experience a warming of 0.041C/yr starting today. The highest warming rate since 1850 data (Hadcrut 4) was for the 1976-2007 warming period at 0.019C/yr. The future warming will need to be more than double that, starting today. Moreover, the average linear warming trend over the entire hadcrut 4 data is 0.0047C/yr. Future warming will need to be almost 10 fold that, starting today…. That is simply ridiculous, especially and also in light of the the current hiatus/pause/cooling since 1997, arguably since 2007. Simple commonsense needs to be applied here.

  125. Reminds me of a joke I just heard:

    Two theoretical physicists are lost at the top of a mountain. Theoretical physicist No 1 pulls out a map and peruses it for a while. Then he turns to theoretical physicist No 2 and says:

    “Hey, I’ve figured it out. I know where we are.”
    “Where are we then?”
    “Do you see that mountain over there?”
    “Yes.”
    “Well… THAT’S where we are.”

    The physicists are perhaps a little more in touch with reality than Sherwood.

  126. Catcracking says: January 1, 2014 at 7:35 pm
    As expected, the typical suspects have headlined the story:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10546128/Worlds-climate-warming-faster-than-feared-scientists-say.html

    But then they looked into the sack and the kitty got out. From the Telee.

    The study comes amid a controversy in Australia over claims by Maurice Newman, Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s top business adviser, who said the world had been taken “hostage to climate change madness”.
    Mr Newman said the climate change establishment, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, remained “intent on exploiting the masses and extracting more money”.
    “The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade, is crumbling,” he wrote in The Australian. “Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years… If the IPCC were your financial adviser, you would have sacked it long ago.”
    Mr Newman, a former chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, was criticised by the opposition and pilloried by scientists, who said he was expressing “flat earth” views and should be sacked.
    “His piece is a mix of common climate change myths, misinformation and ideology,” said Professor David Karoly, from the University of Melbourne, in an article in The Sydney Morning Herald.
    “I would not choose a person who believes that the Earth is flat to advise Australian shipping or airline businesses on how to plan routes to travel around the world. It is clearly not sensible to have a person who believes that climate change science is a delusion as leader of the prime minister’s Business Advisory Council.”
    Mr Abbott, who is something of a climate change sceptic, once claimed that “climate change is “absolute crap”, though he later said he accepts it is “real”.
    Since winning a federal election last September, he has moved to scrap Labor’s tax on carbon emissions and instead proposes to address climate change by paying polluters to reduce emissions, though critics say the plan is underfunded and will not achieve its reduction targets.

    Got to protect those taxes and funding.

  127. Gail Combs says:
    January 1, 2014 at 6:06 am

    Gunga Din,
    I am having the same problem. One of my comments was there waiting for moderation, then it disappeared completely and then it was back waiting for moderation.

    =====================================================================
    Thanks.
    Maybe WordPress is using a computer model? 8-)

  128. Sherwood’s piece has hit the NZ newspapers as well: but the timing is significant, surely. It’s just in time for the beginning of the main Australian Parliament budget cycle (1 July 2014 – 30 June 2015), where preliminary estimates are generally put together Jan-March, to-and-fro till May, then finalised and published as the main Budget.

    So it boils down (sorry..) to the age old question.

    Cui bono?

  129. Full paper is now available at:

    http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/Sherwood%203c%20from%20mixing.pdf

    There is no clear evidence presented in the paper. There may be some reanalysis data but I have no idea what the numbers are. Then we jump through about 4 similarly unclear hoops and arrive at robust warming.

    Overall, very similar to Shepherd’s 2008 robust troposphere warming from wind shear papers.

    http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g280_s09/recent_atmosphere/allen_sherwood_ngeo08.pdf

    http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/sondeanal.pdf

  130. Actually, I think Professor Sherwood has shot himself in the foot.

    https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science/solution-cloud-riddle-reveals-hotter-future

    If as he says the models would predict twice as much warming as they now do then that means the models used to date have been over estimating by a factor of 2. These model forecasts have since been trimmed back in IPCC AR5.
    But you can’t say the models must now show twice the warming. You must first reduce the model forcing by a factor of 2 as your new model otherwise your historical forcing is wrong. Apply the now twice as much forcing to the new model and you will be back exactly where we are with the current erroneous models.
    Therefore no 4c warming expected.

Comments are closed.