From the University of New South Wales and ‘models versus reality‘ department comes this claim from alarmist Matthew England, whose “say anything” track record isn’t at all impressive, and looks to be an obsession with “being right” rather than doing careful science, for example:
And so anybody out there lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements or that the observations haven’t kept pace with the projections is completely offline with this. The analysis is very clear that the IPCC projections are coming true.
On the plus side, at least he acknowledges the existence of “the pause” now, but says it’s irrelevant. Whatever.
Or, with the surface temperature record and the satellite record, if you prefer:
![CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg?quality=83)
Here is the press release:
Heat still on despite warming slowdown
Hiatus in global average temperatures has little effect on projected temperatures in 2100
The recent slowdown in the rise of global average air temperatures will make no difference to how much the planet will warm by 2100, a new study has found.
The peer-reviewed study, published today in Nature Climate Change, compared climate models that capture the current slowdown in warming to those that do not. The study found that long-term warming projections were effectively unchanged across the two groups of models.
“This shows that the slowdown in global warming has no bearing on long-term projections – it is simply due to decadal variability. Greenhouse gases will eventually overwhelm this natural fluctuation,” said lead author and Chief Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Prof Matthew England.
To separate the long-term temperature outcomes from short-term variability the researchers took 200 climate simulations and re-evaluated them out to 2100 by comparing those that captured the current slowdown to those that did not.
The models were analyzed using one of two IPCC carbon emission projections.
The first was a scenario where greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise unabated through the 21st Century. The second assumes emissions are reduced to address global warming, peaking by 2040 before declining sharply.
Under the high emissions scenario, the difference in average projected end-of-century warming between the two groups of models is less than 0.1°C; a tiny fraction of the projected 5°C global warming if emissions are not curbed.
Warming of this magnitude is well beyond the 2°C threshold that is considered a target by the Australian Government and a safe limit by the IPCC.
In the past, certain lobby groups have tried to argue that the recent slowdown in the rise of global average temperatures is a reason to abandon international and national efforts to curb carbon emissions.
This study shows the slowdown merely reflects short-term variability. Long-term global warming is still set to reach dangerous levels unless carbon emissions are reduced dramatically in the coming decades.
“Our research shows that while there may be short-term fluctuations in global average temperatures, long-term warming of the planet is an inevitable consequence of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations,” Prof England said.
“This much hyped global warming slowdown is just a distraction to the task at hand”.
###
Note: as is typical with these jokers, they don’t bother to give the name of the paper in the press release, so I looked it up. The short abstract reads more like an opinion than science, especially since that favorite buzzword “robust” can’t possibly apply to any future prediction, be it climate 85 years from now, tomorrow’s weather forecast, or the stock market.
Robust warming projections despite the recent hiatus
- doi:10.1038/nclimate2575
- Published online23 April 2015
The hiatus in warming has led to questions about the reliability of long-term projections, yet here we show they are statistically unchanged when considering only ensemble members that capture the recent hiatus. This demonstrates the robust nature of twenty-first century warming projections.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“This shows that the slowdown in global warming has no bearing on long-term projections – it is simply due to decadal variability. ”
Hmmm… so it doesn’t matter how big the error in each time step of an iterative model of a chaotic system is, we’ll reach the same state after the same time anyway?
It’s time that mathematicians around the world distance themselves from all climate-scientific modeling lest their reputation will suffer the same fate as the warmunists’.
If this guy is correct, then CO2 based AGW has counter-acted what would have been a devastating, and ongoing, multi-decadal cold period. Far from being catastrophic, AGW has saved us from decades of frigid temperatures, famine, disease and death. The hardest hit would have been the poor, who wouldn’t have been able to pay for heat and food. You’re welcome.
It almost makes one wish the AGW scenario was real.
Yep. Gotta be one or the other.
“This shows that the slowdown in global warming has no bearing on long-term projections – it is simply due to decadal variability. ”
==========
then why are they called “projections” not “predictions”. In science a prediction is used to test valicity of the science. A projection is simply a line drawn outside of the region with data.
A more accurate statement is:
“This shows that the long-term projections have no bearing on global warming”
Because predictions, and with it the predictive power of a theory, permit things to be falsified. Projections have no such restraint and are the domain of psychic hotlines and pseudoscience.
It has no bearing on long term projections because they have not adjusted the models to consider reality. That being the case, of course there is no change in the projections. Duh!
If you do the same wrong thing, expect the same wrong result.
If you predict the unaltered models will be validated by reality, you will be wrong again, just like last time.
Come back in 100 years time Crispin and I’m sure the data will have been suitably adjusted
Or rather, that global warming (or otherwise) has no bearing on the long-term projections
It would have been useful if they had analysed what the models contained that resulted in them predicting the plateau and if those elements were constant across the ensemble. Without that one might think it was just one more set of random coincidences.
No, us math (statistics) people are trying to point out to the “climate scientists” where they’re going wrong. But they respond by plugging their ears with their fingers and sing “na na na na na.” It’s frustrating. And sad, really.
“Greenhouse gases will eventually overwhelm this natural fluctuation,”
I thought that greenhouses gases are PART of the whole picture, and therefore part of the natural fluctuation! ??
“Greenhouse gases will eventually overwhelm this natural fluctuation,”
==========
didn’t the IPCC previously claim the natural fluctuations were insignificant?
Yes, ferd. But also, the IPCC 2012, Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). Summary for Policymakers. (drafted 18 November 2011, published 29 March 2012)
Part D. Future Climate Extremes, Impacts, and Disaster Losses
“Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain.”
From IPCC SREX Summary for Policymakers (29 March 2012, pg. 9)
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/report/
They have covered all the bases!
CO2 does everything…
ah yes, your CO2 may do ‘everything’ but have you seen the new version of CO2 the russians developed-
CO2 – Anthropogenic Super Stealth molecule.
this new ‘super’ molecule can do everything the earlier CO2 molecule could do, namely absorb IR radiation, but so much more. the new properties developed over many years by hard working statisticians include-
# The ability to absorb radiation by stealth. you wont see it absorb, it will look exactly as it looked before due to the new Super Stealth shell TM that can be turned on and off by the command of climate statisticians everywhere (just not at the same time). control can be purchased from our online store for 10 Million carbon credits per hour.
# Not only wont you see the absorption, the new molecule can temporarily bend space time and warp itself into the deep oceans, where the shell can be removed and warming occur. note: may have the reverse effect in the north atlantic and pacific ocean due to the shell polarity being set to southern oceans only. reversal of the polarity can be purchased at our online store for 10 Billion carbon credits.
these new features will puzzle your worst enemies for years as they try to work out why their models dont match reality.
“Every age has its peculiar folly; some scheme, project, or phantasy into which it plunges, spurred on either by the love of gain, the necessity of excitement, or the mere force of imitation. Failing in these, it has some madness, to which it is goaded by political or religious causes, or both combined.”
Charles Mackay 1841 Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
But this one, unchecked, is going to bankrupt us and our children’s future….after all this has nothing to do with the climate, just the destruction of capitalism.
“At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.”
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy capitalism.htm#ixzz3UqA7aWRx
Well at least some of the fringe alarmists are happy to reveal their true motives.
For some of these guys destroying capitalism wouldn’t be enough – they actually want to; “kill the economy”. Whatever that would mean.
In what manner would we exchange goods and services?
I don’t really quite understand what they are talking about.
I’m not sure that they do either.
http://guymcpherson.com/2012/12/kill-the-economy/
really? you think that quoting from a book is evidence? “every age” – a universal claim that you’re viewing as some prediction of future events. LOL.
Yes, you may be on to something. There is tons of evidence that the concepts of basic human nature are mythical.
Like economic bubbles. No connection between tulip bulbs selling for ten years salary, and tomato pickers buying three five bedroom homes with no money down.
Cecil, the Charles Mackay quote was not offered as evidence but as a conclusion from the evidence. It shows us that reason has prevailed over deception and delusion in the past (usually by way of the wrecking ball of reality) and is likely to do so again. If you doubt the universal claim that every age has its peculiar folly, start reading history. I thank indefatigablefrog for the reminder that our own age is not uniquely delusional and mad. I find that very comforting.
RalphB, I don’t think that “reading” history is either a necessary or sufficient condition to (1) doubt any universal claim (2) question the induction (not in a radical Humean sense) from “it has happened before” to “it’s happening now” . But I’m glad that you find it comforting. I’m sure that people find belief in God comforting too.
Cecil; (1) You can doubt anything you like, but that does not prove that there are no universal truths — what would serve as proof in this case is your counterexample of an age without its follies. Of course “reading” history (or learning it via some other medium?) would be a necessary condition of finding such a counterexample. I’m waiting. (2) Hume is hardly a reliable guide to the validity of inductive inference given his total failure to understand that causality exists as inescapably as identity and that without it science is indistinguishable from numerology or some other form of magical thinking. (3) It is no argument against being comforted by the truth that others may be comforted by their delusions, but if that argument is comforting to you, I wish you a peaceful sleep of reason.
reading – as distinct from understanding. the former you obviously do, the latter questionably not. your interpretation of Charles Mackay’s quote can’t be disproved. it’s neither true nor false but meaningless. thanks for the one sentence guide to Hume. not illuminating or useful considering that I said that I was NOT questioning it in the way that Hume did. However he’s of course correct that there is no way to prove induction. But that shouldn’t worry us, because God looks after ensuring that induction keeps on working, doesn’t he? 😉
Cecil, if your point is that just because every previous age has had its folly that need not necessitate every future age will also, I have to concur, but that’s still the way to bet. Since I am not a determinist with respect to the actions of rational beings I cannot rule out that human nature in the aggregate is open to changing as well.
Sorry I misinterpreted the thrust of your Hume reference, I figured you were claiming that, as Hume insisted, the accumulation of cases would not prove the universal rule, so therefore induction could not establish truths. My too brief rejoinder was intended to suggest that there is more to induction than the accumulation of cases. Since you do, however, agree with Hume that there is no way to prove induction then perhaps we disagree about what should count as proof.
What counts as inductive proof is the identification of a causal connection between events, something that may be suggested by the accumulation of cases but is established by observations or experiments that isolate the factors involved — a process that must be adapted to the circumstances and subject under consideration.
In the case of historical generalizations (“universal claims”) there will be no controlled experiments but there may be plentiful enough similarities (along with few enough differences) among a multitude of historical events and cases that observation alone serves to isolate causal factors. Aristotle collected and studied the constitutions and histories of 158 states before reaching the generalizations he makes about political order and human happiness that you will find in his Politics. (We have one surviving piece of the study in his Constitution of Athens.) If nothing could be proven by such methods we would would not still read and learn from Aristotle. But we do.
In the case of Mackay’s generalization, I have to assume he was familiar with both human reason and human irrationality as behavioral causes and was wise enough to discern the difference in behavioral consequences. He would observe that particular persons might be rational always or for the most part, but in the aggregate he would never observe masses of persons being rational always or for the most part, I’m sure we can all see why the laws of statistics support the inductive generalization and why predictions of the future based on such reliable data are quite “robust” as they say — even without God’s help. Perhaps we agree on some of these issues but not others. :^)
Well, I wouldn’t like to say that this was bound to be true in the long run.
I mean, who would rely on a single glib quote as a guide to the future of mankind?
And after all, let’s remember that, “in the long run we are all dead.” J M Keynes.
🙂
‘eventually’ is a rather long time…..
“eventually” is also a short time. And a medium time. In other words, meaningless in this context.
Heh.
And this, along the same lines: “Our research shows that while there may be short-term fluctuations … .
Aaaaaaaaaand………….. maybe not. lolololol
Janice, what do you think a long term fluctuation would be like, on that scale?
🙂
Hi, Crispin,
I think they MIGHT happen.
#(:))
Since when is examining the results of failed models counted as “research”?
Janice,
It’s all in the nuance!
It’s not a short time if you know it will never happen…..and you’re right, it’s meaningless.
Excellent! This shows that all the climate models are the same, so we can forget about picking the “best” ones based on how well they match the pause (e.g., the Russian model).
If you look at his diagram you see the values “19/90” and “19/108” in the upper left hand corner. What does this mean? Did he limit the number of models? Clearly, his data does not match the data in the other two charts.
Einstein used to say a single observation could prove him wrong, but no number of observations could prove him right.
Warmists say it doesn’t matter how many times their models are disproved, as long as they can come up with new models that aren’t disproved yet then we all have to assume they’ve been proven right.
Hey, that’s what made Vegas rich.
There’s always someone with dollars and a system.
They have it on record saying that they are right because they couldn’t think of what else it could be.
The models are right even when they are wrong. Quite the claim.
Someone needs to send him a copy of Meehl et al., 2014. This wonderful peer-reviewed paper trumpeted the fact that even with hindcasting, nine out 262 projections accurately reflected the pause as of 2014 and six to 2015. This results in more than 97% of the models being wrong. Great odds.
https://e-nautia.com/clubargon/disk/Partage/Hiatus/Nature%20Climate%20change%20sept%202014.pdf
So what year does the pause have to run for the number to decline to zero? I want to mark my calendar.
Ya reckon Mathew England perhaps missed the Meehl et al., 2014 paper?
That would be curious in itself given that Gerald A. Meehl was a co-author of Mathew England’s wind-driven circulation in the Pacific paper.
And Mathew England’s “wind-driven circulation in the Pacific” paper was cited by Gerald A. Meehl et al in your above Link.
Whatsupwiththat?
Whatsupwiththat?
Simple. More than 97% of the model projections being wrong by climate scientists own admission even with hindcasting and more becoming wrong as “the pause” continues. But ignore that because England claims “that the observations haven’t kept pace with the projections is completely offline with this. The analysis is very clear that the IPCC projections are coming true.”
Gotta love climate scientists ability to disassociate from facts they don’t like.
Anthony–
O/T but is anyone else hitting 20-second delays on attempting to get to this site? I’m not getting delays on other sites.
no delays I’m seeing on either network I use.
Lance, I often experience a several second delay here, it is due (I think) to the number of video/photo advertisements (or in the thread). It takes longer for them to “materialize.” WUWT is not unique for me, however. Any site with a lot of ads does that for me. Some days are worse than others, though, here. Type of video/image likely is the cause. Try getting the “Test” thread to materialize! THAT takes “forever!” Well, any delay is well worth it, huh?
#(:))
“boy, it was kind of creepy, though, seeing MY location”
I’m logged in through a VPN for work, and it showed my location as the San Francisco even though I’m in Phoenix . I still got a download speed of 73.62 for comparison.
Well, good for you, Mr. Makarevich. Happy for you that the ol’ workplace supplies fast download bps. And….. I’m in………. uh……… Nome! ….. yeah…… that’s the ticket… 😉 Now, go ahead and “bombs away” at my server (thanks for the clue and the other information, Mr. Clark).
Lance, do a speedtest:
http://www.speedtest.net
I realize this was directed at Lance, but I TOOK IT!
#(:))
Download: 60.03
(just for a comparison for you, Lance)
Upload: fugeddaboudit, lololol (not a priority for me)
Thanks, Ghost!
(boy, it was kind of creepy, though, seeing MY location (I never even told them!!!!) in a little light, flashing on the screen like I was a target for a satellite-launched missile)
Useful …
“Location” is the server, so in my case is 1400 km away 🙂
A useful tool for assessing the effect of advertising is the uBlock addin. Easy to switch on and off, and when on gives you an advert hit-count. (I leave it off for WUWT, eg allow ads, because the load is modest, but some sites get plastered with the stuff, or are maybe more susceptible to drive-by advert hijacking.)
Good grief. The machine says my location is in Carlisle, 110 miles away as the flow cries … er … the cry flows….er….. you know what I mean …. ang gives download of 4.07 and upload of 0.77.
However, I am none the wiser because I have no idea what these numbers mean.
Maybe Mr. Gore or Prof. Mann can take some time out to explain them to me.
Silence, whippersnappers! Pay no attention to the pause behind the curtain.
The Great and Powerful Wizard of Manmade Climate has spoken.
I mean seriously, at this point is there any conceivable evidence that could convince the likes of Matthew England that the models are fundamentally wrong? In ten years, they’ll just have different models that all hindcast the 25-year pause and all predict lots more warming in the future.
Sigh Your tax dollars at work.
Strictly speaking he’s not “ignoring reality”. He accepts there is a hiatus (reality) and tries to square this with his theory, which is a reasonable thing to do.
A theory should be squared /modified with the facts, not the other way around.
He does ignore the reality about the climate simulation models and their utter lack of skill.
First, the theory still rests on the premise that pre-stop(it’s not a pause unless they rise again) the rise in temperature was due to man. The theory states that mans influence was greater than ALL natural variability. So, using simple logic if natural variability is large enough to overwhelm the influence of man to stop rise, then natural variability is large enough to cause the rise. To acknowledge the stop means that it must now be shown the rise was not natural. Steadily rising temperatures was the “proof” rise was manmade.
Secondly, he has now purposed a theory that can not be disproven.
@ur momisugly ironargonaut, “First, the theory still rests on the premise that pre-stop (it’s not a pause unless they rise again). the rise in temperature was due to man.
Would they stop calling it a pre-stop if temperatures do not rise but go lower? Would that be caused by man as well? Would they then take credit for “changing our attitudes for the so called better”? Oh I forgot, right, it is now called “Climate Change” , they can go any which way they want, the slimy, (sorry slippery) buggers, aren’t they? And they do not use their logic they use OPM’s money and play on emotions to get more money on top of the obscene amount of tax dollars they already get.
It may be reasonable, given human nature being what it is.
But it is categorically not scientific to “square” a falsified theory.
The correct course of action is to abandon it and study reality.
Menicholas You can’t possibly expect them to that, that would require work. God forbid we expect the anointed one to do work
Not really, because the “pause” invalidates the original theory. He is just trying to model the pause as if it does not.
He makes the rather unbelievable claim that natural variability (in reality a decline in temperture( over the last 15-20 years has been pretty much exactly the same as the rise in temperature that man-made CO2 has caused
The chance that the two cancel each other so exactly is zero.
Ironargonaut, Tim Hammond,
All true.
Plus, at the beginning, was not the main part of the supposed “problem” said to be that we were having an unprecedented rate of change?
It was not that it was warmer than ever…clearly it was not…but that it was rising faster than ever.
Of course, now that past temperatures have been “adjusted” beyond recognition, the meme has become that it is warmer than ever in history.
Part and parcel of this selling this lie was that the LIA never occurred, and if the Romans were growing wine grape north of Hadrian’s Wall thousands of years ago, and the Vikings were farming in Greenland in Medieval times, those were all local variations. But that supposed locality has now been debunked, even if it ever did have a smidgen of credibility.
So, we are left with the reality of warmer temps in the past, several times over, and natural variations counteracting “unprecedented” warming, which is flat out impossible if warming rates ever were really such.
It becomes difficult to see any reason for anyone to suppose any cause for concern exists, even if one once had such concerns.
But dispelling concerns requires one to keep in mind all the little arguments and counterclaims that have been dreamed up, ad hoc, to each criticism of the CAGM doom-mongers.
Obfuscation and pettifogging the issues have succeeded in creating uncertainty in the minds of the uninformed, and provided comfort to the credulous believers that all is on track for doomsday to proceed as planned.
Excuse me: The MWP, not the LIA, said to have never occurred.
“The recent slowdown in the rise of global average air temperatures will make no difference to how much the planet will warm by 2100, a new study has found.”
Unprovable/unfalsifiable statement of the year?
“The recent slowdown in the rise of global average air temperatures will make no difference to how much the planet will warm by 2100, a new study has found.”
Translation: The planet will be what it will be by the year 2100. Well duh. It might be colder in 2100 and he’ll still be right.
It could be the Unprovable/unfalsifiable statement of the century.
RH – century timescale may be appropriate here 🙂 But there’s a great deal of competition these days. Noteworthy in it’s meaninglessness, none-the-less.
He does not admit the pause, to his biased eye it is a slowdown. If we had a 10 year cooling trend it would not matter to him it would just be another type of slowdown.
5°C global warming….. that is 1°C every 20 years, and we are already behind.
How are we gonna make it?
HB
lol, yes, indeed — WE WILL NEVER MAKE IT. Good point.
And here comes little Stevie M0sher, the Enviroprofiteer-stooge, bellowing: But, but,…. THE PRECAUTIONARY FALLACY!!! You gotta treat it like, like…… like it’s a REAL crisis!!!!
sohandoveryourmoney.
Janice, I think you’re being unfair to Mosh. I see the co-author of Climategate: The CRUtape Letters as more lukewarmer than alarmist.
http://www.amazon.com/Climategate-Crutape-Letters-Steven-Mosher/dp/1450512437
Just curious, exactly which models “capture the current slowdown in warming?” I am of course familiar with the NCAR hind-cast. But according to one investigator in that study: “… there is no short-term predictive value in these simulations, since one could not have anticipated beforehand which of the simulations’ internal variability would match the observations.” In my opinion, if a model doesn’t have predictive power, then what exactly does it model?
if a model doesn’t have predictive power, then what exactly does it model?
===============
Climate model show what the modelers believe will happen. Otherwise the model builders would change the parameters and change the model output until it matched their beliefs.
This is called machine learning by survival of the fittest (genetic algorithm). Over time the scientists will select for those models that give the answer the scientists believe to be correct, no matter how wrong the model results might be.
Any model that correctly predicts future climate, unless this result matches what the climate scientists believe, that model will be assumed to be in error and changed until it gives the “correct” answer.
So, say for example a climate model said “0C cooling by 2100”. No climate scientists would believe this, so they would tweak the model parameters. After tweaking the climate model predicts “10C warming by 2100”. The climate scientists look at the result, decide it is reasonable, and make no further adjustments.
What has the model predicted? Has it predicted climate, or has it predicted the answer the climate scientists are willing to accept?
Exactly, except climate models are too arrogant or too stupid to see that.
Progressives/leftists never admit they’re wrong. They always resort to the argument of “I’m not wrong. We just need more time and money.” Even after almost 20 years of being wrong about CO2/temperature models, they still won’t give up on the models.
… because l1es about human CO2 are the ONLY way they can keep on confiscating our money to fund their permanently negative ROI windmills and solar panels and the like.
Matthew England is nothing more than a two-bit l1ar-for-hire.
As Anth-ony observed above, he WILL, indeed, say ANYTHING (… if you pay him enough or give him something he really, really, wants….).
This is the problem:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/18/claim-graduates-shunning-climate-studies/#comment-1910461
“….the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science”
It’s pretty obvious that anywhere that feels it has to call itself a “Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science” probably is not.
Does M.I.T. call itself Massachusetts Institute of Excellent Technology ? No.
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge don’t need to add superlatives to their name, they just are centres of excellence.
If they have to say it, it means that they acknowledge there is a doubt and that we need reassuring.
“This study shows the slowdown merely reflects short-term variability.” IN THE MODELS. This tells us nothing about real climate.
“The louder he spoke of his honor,
the faster we counted our spoons.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson (echoing your excellent observation, Mike).
The Democratic Republic of XXXX
=============
what form of government is this country least likely to have?
It is like the worst tyrannies on earth that adopt the word “Democratic” Republic of….”. Remember ‘Deutsche Demokratische Republik? We have a political party in Canada The ‘New Democratic Party’ that essentially wants the government to nationalize things and impoverish the productive private sector.We also have Political ‘Science’, social ‘Science’, just in case you think they they aren’t sciences.
“If they have to say it, it means that they acknowledge there is a doubt and that we need reassuring. ”
Hey, whaddya mean!?!
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5095/5419887361_1c4e1b1e0c_z.jpg
Congratulations, Piper Paul 😉
When I read “…the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science…” this is exactly what I was thinking of.
Below is the full legend to Figure 1.
As you read it, pay attention to what they are presenting: individual model runs, and model means. The 2-sigma bars, quoted as the defining message of future warming, represent inter-model variance — model precision. Not model accuracy.
The presented 2-sigmas tell us nothing about the accuracy of the projections.
There are no physically valid uncertainty estimates presented anywhere in the presentation of model results. This lack makes the projections physically meaningless.
Awhile back, I realized the implicit assumption climate modelers are making, when they make these sorts of presentations. They assume the models are a physically complete theory of climate. In that case, projection uncertainty would arise only from the bounds of parameter uncertainty and internal variability.
This assumption is the only way that inter-model variance can possibly be taken to show predictive physical uncertainty. But assuming climate models are physically complete is a nonsense assumption. It’s not even clear to me that most climate modelers even know they’re making it.
I have yet to encounter a climate modeler who thinks like a physical scientist (or engineer).
Figure 1 legend: “Global average SAT anomalies relative to 1880–1900 in individual and multi-model mean CMIP5 simulations. Blue curves: RCP4.5 scenario; red curves: RCP8.5 scenario. The future projections have been appended to corresponding historical runs at 2006. Lighter thin lines denote individual ensemble members; darker thin lines denote those that exhibit a multi-decadal hiatus (taken here as a trend of less than 0.096 °C per decade, lasting at least 14 years) at any time during the period 1995–2015. The thicker lines denote the multi-model mean of all experiments and of the subsampled ensemble set displaying an early twenty-first-century hiatus. The observed data (plotted in black) are version 2.0 of the reconstructed HadCRUT4 climatology11. The multi-model mean and 2σ bars at 2100 are shown to the right of the panel, along with PDFs of each of the samples. Lighter solid lines denote the PDFs for all ensemble members; darker solid lines are for the hiatus members. The all-ensemble PDF was recalculated excluding all hiatus ensemble members, and the resulting PDF is virtually indistinguishable from the all-ensemble member PDF (refer to mean and 2σ bars). The insets illustrate the early part of the twenty-first century for each scenario, with the individual hiatus periods highlighted. The values in parentheses denote the number of ensemble members exhibiting a hiatus out of the total number of ensemble members.“
Quote of the Day:
Pat Frank
Nice statement of the gist of the matter, Dr. Frank.
The multi-model mean and 2σ bars.
=========
You have 100 models delivering random noise. You remove 10 models that accidentally match the Pause. You don’t see any significant change in the statistical properties of the remaining models 80 years later.
Well Duh. That is why it is called random noise. For example:
Say for example we had 100 people tossing fair coins. After 1 hour we removed the 10 people that had thrown the most heads (heads=pause, tails = warming). We continued to watch the people for 8 more hours. Would the remaining 90 people be expected to throw more tail than heads? Of course not.
This is the exact same experiment. Only without the fancy window dressing to hide what is really going on.
Exactly, Ferd Berple. Well put!
You would not expect all random walks to be high of the mark.
ferd berple
You say
Sorry, but the situation is worse than that. The selection of models that seem to fit after the event is an example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
Such post hoc selection indicates nothing about ability to forecast the future but it is tempting to think it does, and fr@udsters use the temptation to mislead their ‘marks’.
I again explain how they do this.
A set of, say 4, different investment plans is generated.
Each investment plan is sent to, say 4000, random people.
At a later date one (or more) of the plans has provided a very good return.
Those who were sent the ‘successful’ plan are now sent a report of its ‘success’ together with another investment plan. These new investment plans are another 4 different investment plans so 4 groups each of 1000 people each obtains one of these second plans.
Again, at a later date one (or more) of the second plans has provided a very good return.
Those who were sent the ‘successful’ second plan are now sent a report of its ‘success’ together with a third investment plan. These new investment plans are another 4 different investment plans so 4 groups each of 250 people each obtain one of them.
Yet again, at a later date one (or more) of the third plans has provided a very good return.
Those who were sent the ‘successful’ third plan are now sent a report of its ‘success’ together with an offer to invest $10,000 in the next investment plan which uses the astonishingly accurate prediction method that has apparently been successful three times without fail.
If 100 of the 250 targeted people invest then the fr@udsters gain an income of $1,000,000.
This is, in fact, the same ploy as is used when the ‘best’ climate models are selected after the event.
Richard
The hypothesis here is that there are model runs that happen to go flatish for 14 years 1995-2014 through internal variability. If allowed to run on they project 2100 results close to what those that don’t will. The conclusion is “This demonstrates the robust nature of twenty-first century warming projections”.
Not having the full paper means it is difficult to judge, but I suspect the test is relatively weak. Looking at the relationship between the subsample means and HadCRUT4 suggest they might be flatish but they aren’t modelling the pause (HadCRUT4 has been left behind by 2014).
This suggests the subsample is largely just those that revert to the mean during this period, and it isn’t surprising they project the same future. They say in their supplementary information they tested other criteria.
Perhaps if you have the paper it would be useful to know what was tested and what the results were.
There is a copy at http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/nclimate2575-including-SI.pdf
This confirms that the test being applied only relate to the duration and magnitude of the flatness. They show that the runs that have this feature are much the same as the others when it comes to the 21st century projections. As they put it they cannot reject the null hypothesis that the mean and sd of the 2100 projections are different between the two sets of projections using various criteria relating to the duration and magnitude of the flatness.
But the duration and magnitude of the pause aren’t its only defining feature. It isn’t just that it is flatish, it’s the fact that in a series where natural variation should be mean reverting and the forcing should be pushing the temp higher, the measured temp has increasingly moved below the mean of the projections.
I don’t think anyone would be commenting if what we were seeing was the measured temperature reverting to the mean having been much higher (as no doubt a significant number of runs in England’s subsample are doing).
The real test would be to look at those runs that are not only flatish but also have ended up well below the mean.
I suspect that if any runs remain with this more apposite test England would likely need to report this as another “criteria that result[s] in a significant shift … when the subsampling becomes so constrained that only one to two [if any] model experiments remain; however, in this case the statistical analysis is no longer meaningful”.
In other words the pause ain’t reflected in the current model runs.
In passing I note that in his embargoed pre-publication briefing to press on the paper he isn’t too enthusiastic about Bjørn Lomborg or his being funded.
Ignore the millennial at your perennial.
===============
Hey, kim. I really liked that one. T-shirt worthy IMO,
Good point about progressives. The War on Poverty started in 1965 and the reason there are more poor people in the US today is because we haven’t “invested” enough resources. Same thing for education. The reason US kids lag behind other countries is that we’re not “investing” enough resources. We could succeed if only we had more “resources”.
Same with Neo-Keynesian economics, which can never be shown fallacious because advocates like Krugman always just say we didn’t run big enough deficits for the magic to work.
Keynes would not be a Neo. It might have made sense to run deficits during the Great Depression, although it didn’t work then, either. But after decades of deficits, the idea that even greater “stimulus” deficit spending would engender economic growth would be laughable, if not so tragic, since believed or claimed to be believed by the US government & its central bank.
Thank you, Anthony for putting everything in relief for us. My faith was wavering there for a bit, what with the big 3 (HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) surface data sets all ticking upwards and nudging towards all time (recorded) highs.
Good to have confirmed that the ‘pause’ is alive and well 🙂
When one is on a high but flat plateau, only a small nudge makes for a record high. But it takes a monumental plunge to make a record low.
But fear not, when the PDO flips, 1977-1998 type warming rill resume (until it goes flat again ~25 to 30 years later). Series of shallow steps only adding up to mild lukewarming, if the past record is any indication.
CLIMATE MODELS ARE JUNK — THEY CANNOT “WIN” — THEY CAN ONLY GET LUCKY
… and the demonstrated “odds” revealed by their numerous runs say that, just as some poor sot with a slot machine, they can only win by not playing at all.
GCM Simulations, i.e., Models — NO SKILL
GCM Code Based on CO2 Conjecture — NOT EVIDENCE
Models cannot hindcast
In short: Climate Models Fail
Source: Climate Models Fail, pp. 11-14, e book by Bob Tisdale (2013)
Then there is this (always worth repeating):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/are-climate-modelers-scientists/
“This shows that the slowdown in global warming has no bearing on long-term projections – because ‘eventually’ the temperature is going to jump up a whole degree over night