From the UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES (via Eurekalert) and the “Where’s Waldo?” department comes this hilarious claim. Why hilarious? Because the headline says “global warming”, yet the research says that warming appeared in different decades in different parts of the world. So much for the “global” part. But, it gets better, the money quote says the USA isn’t conforming to the expected warming signal, but, “…according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.”
And then there’s this:
Nevertheless, according to model evidence, both hot and cold extremes have already emerged across many areas.
I have to wonder, do these people even read their own press releases and apply a sanity check? Given that UNSW is the source of the Dr. Chris Turney “ship of fools” fiasco, probably not.
Researchers reveal when global warming first appeared
When global warming became clearly evident in the temperature record
The indications of climate change are all around us today but now researchers have revealed for the first time when and where the first clear signs of global warming appeared in the temperature record and where those signals are likely to be clearly seen in extreme rainfall events in the near future.
The new research published in Environmental Research Letters gives an insight into the global impacts that have already been felt, even at this very early stage, and where those impacts are likely to intensify in the coming years.
“We examined average and extreme temperatures because they were always projected to be the measure that is most sensitive to global warming,” said lead author from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Dr Andrew King.
“Remarkably our research shows that you could already see clear signs of global warming in the tropics by the 1960s but in parts of Australia, South East Asia and Africa it was visible as early as the 1940s.”
The reason the first changes in average temperature and temperature extremes appeared in the tropics was because those regions generally experienced a much narrower range of temperatures. This meant smaller shifts in the temperature record due to global warming were more easily seen.
The first signal to appear in the tropics was the change in average temperatures. Later extreme temperature events showed a global warming signal.
Closer to the poles the emergence of climate change in the temperature record appeared later but by the period 1980-2000 the temperature record in most regions of the world were showing clear global warming signals.
One of the few exceptions to this clear global warming signal was found in large parts of the continental United States, particularly on the Eastern coast and up through the central states. These regions have yet to manifest obvious warming signals according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.
While temperature records generally showed pronounced indications of global warming, heavy rainfall events have yet to make their mark. The models showed a general increase in extreme rainfall but the global warming signal was not strong enough yet to rise above the expected natural variation.
“We expect the first heavy precipitation events with a clear global warming signal will appear during winters in Russia, Canada and northern Europe over the next 10-30 years,” said co-author Dr Ed Hawkins from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading, UK.
“This is likely to bring pronounced precipitation events on top of the already existing trend towards increasingly wet winters in these regions.”
Importantly, the findings closely correspond to observational datasets used by the IPCC (Chapter 10 – Detection and Attribution of Climate Change) in its most recent report, which showed increasing temperatures caused by global warming.
###
Here is the abstract, yes that’s right, the title says the entire thing is a simulation, something not quite so clear from their press release where they say things like:
“…now researchers have revealed for the first time when and where the first clear signs of global warming appeared in the temperature record…”
Uh, no. Model output is not the actual temperature record.
The timing of anthropogenic emergence in simulated climate extremes
Andrew D King, Markus G Donat, Erich M Fischer, Ed Hawkins, Lisa V Alexander, David J Karoly,Andrea J Dittus, Sophie C Lewis, and Sarah E Perkins
Abstract
Determining the time of emergence of climates altered from their natural state by anthropogenic influences can help inform the development of adaptation and mitigation strategies to climate change. Previous studies have examined the time of emergence of climate averages. However, at the global scale, the emergence of changes in extreme events, which have the greatest societal impacts, has not been investigated before. Based on state-of-the-art climate models, we show that temperature extremes generally emerge slightly later from their quasi-natural climate state than seasonal means,
due to greater variability in extremes. Nevertheless, according to model evidence, both hot and cold extremes have already emerged across many areas. Remarkably, even precipitation extremes that have very large variability are projected to emerge in the coming decades in Northern Hemisphere winters associated with a wettening trend. Based on our findings we expect local temperature and precipitation extremes to already differ significantly from their previous quasi-natural state at many locations or to
do so in the near future. Our findings have implications for climate impacts and detection and attribution studies assessing observed changes in regional climate extremes by showing whether they will likely find a fingerprint of anthropogenic climate change.
Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094015/meta
The paper is open source, should you want to bother reading it. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094015/pdf
Note: this story was edited shortly after publication to remove a duplicated word, “the”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s not science. It’s Australian filler material.
It sounds more like a weather report — they are expecting (extreme) rain to fulfill their prophesy. Who among their flock do not believe that at some point in the future we will be afflicted by rain.
Unreal!
the 1930s in the US must have been climate paradise.
Well California was, and more so than just climate.
Now the Golden State is more like a garbage dump; and yes for all kinds of garbage.
g
Global warming began in 1910! :-p
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/j/l/warmingtrend.gif
Has a more stupid paper ever been published?
Well, probably, but even so – what total excrement.
Yes, the Dust Bowl Years were not so hot, right? These people are insane.
See how advanced they are? They’ve got to have a time machine since they show the signal in the arctic in the 2030’s!
“according to model evidence”
There is no such thing.
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
~ Prof. Chris Folland ~ (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research)
“military intelligence” has now firmly been shoved aside as THE exemplar of an oxymoron by “model evidence”.
What this childish paper reveals is just how much damage has been done to young minds by video games because that clearly seems to be the inspiration for this leap of faith and the subsequent departure from reference to reality as constituting ‘evidence’.
AS a UNSW alumni I am just as embarrassed as one can be by Turney and now these idiots.
Cue Mosher claim that models are reality.
The authors state “Nevertheless, according to model evidence,”
Does a model provide any evidence? A model can, at best, provide a prediction, it is actually a formal statement of the researcher’s hypothesis, which must be tested against the evidence, (data). Sort of like a so-called expert witness saying “your honor, according to my model the defendant is highly likely of being guilty.” I don’t think that would constitute “evidence.”
Mark, You’re right. We presently have such models for human behavior … they’re called stereotypes and using them is called profiling …
Here is the Lancet commenting on the failure of 80% of HIV models even though the field is ‘data rich’.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(15)00080-7/abstract
Be sure to see the Comment further up the chain: “Can we know in advance whether models will get it right?”
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(15)00160-6/fulltext
model evidence = synthetic evidence
In a court of law this would be inadmissible evidence.
“those signals are likely to be clearly seen in extreme rainfall events in the near future”
California is waiting.
Hmmmm. When the noise is larger than the signal, is there really a signal? How does that work? I’d like to know in order to get better AM and SW reception.
You need the same kind of detection circuit they use … it can take pure noise and turn into a signal with 90% confidence.
Should be 97% confidence, Senator Iselin 🙂
The “corrections” to the data are larger than the signal.
It’s called the Mannomatic.
The claim for extremes is predicated on ignorance. It assumes that things will get hotter on the hot end and remain the same temperature on the cold end, increasing the delta T. Global warming isn’t like that, is it? If it is global then there is no increase in delta T. If there is an increase, then by definition it is not global.
Alarmism at its finest.
A major El Nino is forecast for the immediate future. An El Nino typically brings rain to California. Maybe this paper is a cynical attempt to capitalise on it – “see, we told you so”. But maybe they won’t get away with not being able to simulate the dustbowl in their models. Well, not if the media are doing their job.
Once at a conference two guys from the University of Montana were presenting a paper and the slide showed the logarithm of the logarithm of the logarithm of y against the logarithm of the logarithm of the logarithm of x. I asked them why they took so many logarithms and they said “We found that the more logarithms we took the straighter the line got”. A lot of scientific research is like that. But they get published anyway. Here is another such story from Thayer Watkins of San Jose State University.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/movingaveraging.htm
Sincerely
Jamal Munshi
SSU
Let y = x^2
for x from 1000 to 10000
Plot log(log(log(x))) against log(log(log(y)))
Darn that’s straight.
(I know it seems obvious at first glance but I was curious.)
Help me to understand; if we plug increasing temperatures into a model it will indicate that temperatures are rising. Is that right?
Let’s see, how about a little bit of math. Spz:
. Hence the whole point of log-log plots — they reduce any simple power law to a straight line with a slope of the power.
and suppose that it has a power series expansion around some point and suppose further that for sufficiently small $x$ this sum converges rapidly, getting its strongest contribution from some leading order term, say the mth term
(the leading order term) and write it as:
so that:
. The expansion is now:
for 
, one can repeat exactly the same argument, and show that 
should be dominated by a constant plus 
. Even if this condition is not satisfied (and it won't be — there will be significant corrections for large enough 
for many functions) one will get something that is linear plus a much smaller polynomial correction than the original function had. The log function basically compresses the range, 
nearly everywhere. So taking the log of the log of the log of any function will shift it towards linear at each step, at the expense of any useful estimate of the information obtained in the final fit, the utter corruption of error estimation in e.g. a linear least squares fit of the log(log(log)) of whatever.
This is any term in a power series, but we’re going to look at them one at a time. Then:
The first term is a constant, the second is a linear function of
Now suppose that we take a general function
Let’s factor out
Let’s call
where we wish to expand in the regime where
or
If one examines this, it is a constant, a linear term (dominant) and a second term that is a log of the presumed "small" remainder of the power series expansion of the function.
The interesting thing is that this is recursive. As long as
That is to say, it is pretty pointless.
rgb
Much more of this and I will be sawing logs…
*zzzzzzz*
🙂
RGB: log(1+eps) := eps
Let Fourier transform ft, then ft x ft x ft…..
I agree. I can’t think of any engineering use for such a plot. Actually it was dumb of me to plot using y = x^2. y = x^x^x is more interesting (but it will cause an overflow if you use x > 7 or so). (I’ve never seen a process take >80% CPU without crashing the computer before. The number produced by 6^6^6 filled up the whole terminal window several times. I’ve never seen that before either.)
On the other hand, it was interesting to plot against random numbers (ie. noise). The noise was clearly evident. If there’s no correlation between x and y, doing log(log(log())) won’t disguise the fact.
If one takes too many logs of logs, things go negative and then imaginary – Oh, I get it now!
They found the earliest signals in those places with the worst temperature records. The places with the best temperature records aren’t conforming for some reason.
Now that they have satellites, USCRN, and ARGO, suddenly temperatures have stopped climbing.
Wasn’t man-made ‘global warming’ going to be felt most as you headed away from the equator and towards the poles?
Didn’t ‘global warming’ start after the end of the last glacial maximum?
Then we have this.
Well, it’ll fill a few pages of click bait in the Guardian.
The Environment pages are convinced that computer simulations are more real than observations.
I think they thought The Matrix was a documentary.
😎
Don’t give them any ideas!
(In The Matrix the machines ran on 100% “bio-fuel”.)
MCourtney — I think they thought The Matrix was a documentary. — Oh, very very good! — Eugene WR Gallun
And they all took the blue pill!
This may be the difference between warmistas and skeptics…who chose to live in reality, who chose permanent delusion.
“According to model evidence….” Model evidence????? That says it all. DEQ.
Coin toss: heads – stupidity; tails – insanity. I can think of no other options to describe this paper.
Australia is exposing itself to be highly incompetent in Science someone needs to let them know this for the sake of any future they may have down there.
Australia is highly incompetent at many things, they survived for the last century by exporting natural resources and importing tourists. Have you ever seen high tech, pharma, avionics, or anything else that takes a modicum of brains and skill, come out of Australia? … From today’s Sydney Morning Herald “Chief economist Ivan Colhoun said a recent visit to clients in Britain, continental Europe and the Middle East revealed a uniformly negative view on Australia’s prospects”.
Atomic absorption spectroscopy in its modern form , an essential tool in analytical chemistry, was developed at Australia’s CSIRO.
Victims of gastric ulcers may be grateful to 2 Australian medics for identifying a bacterium H. pylori as a treatable cause in many instances , to the surprise of medical establishments elsewhere.
According to the UN Australia is a 68% service economy – yes that surprised me too.
Mike: Alan Walsh, from CSIRO, was born near Liverpool and educated in Manchester, so I’ll give OZ partial credit for having not impeded his work, as for the medics and H. pylori, everyone can have their outliers.
It was an Australia who figured out that ulcers are not caused by stress.
In the early 1950’s they were treating ulcer patients with antibiotics…successfully.
So it may be more correct to say he re-discovered it.
How the knowledge was lost is a big mystery to me.
I cite the ulcer example as a prime case of how every expert in the world can be and has been completely wrong, even in the very recent past.
Being highly paid as an expert in a particular field does not tend to make people correct, but it does tend to make them believe they can never be wrong.
Mark: see http://www.whitehat.com.au/australia/inventions/InventionsA.html
You may be surprised at the list.
Black box flight recorder, inflatable escape slide, permaculture, the differential in your car, degaussing, latex gloves, 2 stroke lawn mowers, the notepad, roller doors, salt water chlorination, poymer banknotes, blast glass, refrigeration, wine cask, zip heater, the secret ballot, National Integrity System, the pacemaker, penicillin, bionic ear, Begg orthodontics, the humidicrib, Relenza flu vaccine, spray-on skin for burns victims, cervical cancer vaccine, self constructing crane, thrust bearings, Uniloc software protection, internet WiFi, Google Maps, Synroc, gene shears………
Yes, as evidenced by the list above Australia is actually one of the most innovative countries in the world per capita. Or used to be….
What we have always been crap at though, is backing ourselves with hard cash and commercialising many of these inventions. Normally the new inventions get touted around Oz for several years with no joy before some cluey investor from the US/Japan/Europe sees it and backs it with hard cash – with production in their own country of course.
The result has been an effective drain on Australia of scientific minds as far too many of those brightest scientists and engineers who ‘do’, head overseas to do it!
>>the differential in your car…
Sorry, but the car differential was patented by Pecqueur, a Frenchman, back in the early 19th century. Most Australians were still wearing striped long-johns when the differential was patented. 😉
R
kenskingdom,
Yes I was surprised by the list of Australian ‘inventions’ mainly because the first ‘invention’ I checked out was not ‘invented’ by an Australian.
Penicillin was discovered by a Scottish scientist, Alexander Fleming in 1928. In 1930, an English pathologist used it to cure several people of eye infections. The Australian pharmacologist, Howard Florey, involved in the development of penicillin was leader of a team at Oxford University and spent almost all of his working life in England. Fleming, Florey and Ernst Chain (a German in Florey’s research team) shared a Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on penicillin.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to claim penicillin as an Australian ‘invention’.
Don’t have time to look into the rest …
This has been my thoughts on the quality of Ozzie science for some time. I noted before that when you have to name yourself the ARC ‘Centre of Excellence’ for Climate Science Systems, you are revealing that there is considerable doubt about the quality of science goes goes on there – for sure in the minds of the creators of the centre. Good examples of the ‘protesteth too much’ distortion are “The New ‘Democratic’ Party” for a Canadian socialist party (just in case you might not think they are democratic), The ‘Democratic’ Republic of the Congo (they know and everybody else knows they ‘aren’t), or for perhaps the most famous distortion:”Deutsche Demokratische Republik”, possibly a more despotic government than the USSR. I-don’t-beat-my-wife bumper stickers are in the same category.
Only nimrods in the ‘Centre of Excellence’ would be unaware of the effect and their poster boy, Dr. Chris Turney of the “ship of fools” fiasco, (noted above by Anthony Watts) is a revealing product of the ‘Centre’. Didn’t they give Turney an award or consolation prize of some kind for his buffoonery. This paper on patchy global warming doing a tick-tack-toe global tour by country illustrates that the antonym of excellence is rife throughout the institution. They also don’t realize, the name of the joint would keep talented researchers away!
Guess that’s what you get when a country ships all of it’s criminals, morons and others of the like to a continent and let them evolve… ; ) I love the Aussies.
Some more “Climate Bollocks” not fit to be toilet paper.
“ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science”
In the words of Inigo Montoya, regarding the use of the word “Excellence”: “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means”.
BTW, this certainly proves my adage: stop reading when you get to “model”, unless they mean a Kate Upton-type model.
That, and the disproportionate drop in certainty between the headline, the story, the press release and the actual paper is usually pretty steep.
“I have to wonder, do these people even read their own press releases and apply a sanity check?”
Of course not. To apply a sanity check they would first have to go out and try to hire someone sane.
“they would first have to go out and try to hire someone sane.”
🙂
+1000
A tall order, if one only has the ranks of warmistas to pick from.
I’ve run a WW2 simulation many times. According to many of those simulation runs, this paper should have been written in Japanese.
(An old Windows 95 program called “Pacific General”.)
Funny.
This is the same journal that published John Cook, et. al., source of the 97% myth. Pretty much anything having to do with climate science published in this journal is going to be hilarious, don’t you think?
Basil
NEIN! my simulations with Panzer General show the it must be written in Deutsche!
michael
A couple of the simulation runs (with add an on) did turn out that way.
I guess the science isn’t settled after all?
TYPO!
“(with add an on)”
Should be”
“(with an add on)”
(Then again, it DID show up on a computer. Maybe it was correct after all?)
State-of-the-art computer models… well then, should I be impressed? And what is the “state” of their “art” when it comes to computer models? From all accounts they’ve moved in to “impressionist” and away from a more classical “realist” style.
I recall from the late nineties when it was all about drought, melting, drying up, hot and hotter still, snow “what’s that?”, etc. But although the melody is similar the lyrics are now drifting towards wet, a lot wetter, temperature extremes that don’t rule out colder brrrr… wow, be glad when the Paris COP21 dog and pony act is over so we can get a break from this dreck, especially at the weather network – the enquirer of weather reporting.
State of the art=it runs streams of 1’s and 0’s really, really fast
+1000
What the surface record shows is the oceans move heat around, then all of the water that get evaporated follow the prevailing winds over land based stations (where it’s recorded as warming) as it cools to space the whole way.
In NE Ohio “Global Warming” was the Jet Stream moved north, allowing more tropical air, with the 10-20F swing in temps due to the water vapor carried out of the Gulf into the area. These last two summers have had a lot more Canadian dry air. The changes in Ocean SST’s are changing the path of the polar jet streams, changing US temps.
Over 10,000 years ago we first had ‘global warming’ during the present, still very short Interglacial. These guys have no idea about how short Interglacials are and why they end so abruptly and for so long. We have gone way, way backwards in climate science this last 30 years.
Has global warming appeared in England yet, because if so, I haven’t felt it? Will somebody let me know when global warming reaches England?
Me neither. Looks like the UK, too, “isn’t conforming to the expected warming signal”.
Sorry mate, all you Brits are scheduled (pronounce sheshualed) for is some “climate change”.
>>Has global warming appeared in England yet,
>>because if so, I haven’t felt it?
The Papal encyclical obviously did not reach your parish. You are to attend the Warmist mass at 06:00 each day for the next year, and recite one thousand times:
2014 was the warmest year on record in England.
2014 was the warmest year on record in England.
2014 was the warmest year on record in England.
2014 was the warmest year on record in England.
2014 was the warmest year on record in England.
Any dissent or poor attendance will result in a slow roasting over hot coals. This is a religion of peace and goodwill, after all.
(2014 warmest CET year on record.)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2015/Record-UK-temps-2014
There’s no global warming this year in the UK, because the EU have prevented further global warming by restricting the maximum power of all vacuum cleaners manufactured or imported to 1600watt.
And, if you think that this is an impressive result, then just wait until they further limit it to 700watts.
We’ll be freezing our nuts off in mid-July.
Those crafty eurocrats have saved the day, once again.
As for me, I’m sorted, I’m currently warming my backside on the thermal output of a 2300watt Hoover bought before the ban came into effect.
(some sarc. intended.)
appliance running is the new crime in Europe….. sad but true, at least the extra dust layers will keep them warmer.
Reminiscent of the old video game “Sim City”, now the new and improved “Sim Climate” version. Make up whatever you want and publish it as climate fact without disclosure. Where is the BS button?
“Where is the BS button?”
Right next to the biggest climate knob. I’ll leave it up to you to determine who that is.
But this is not science! Who were the peer-reviewers?? This sort of scientific paper you would expect to be sunk within 10 minutes’ critical reading by any competent peer-reviewer. But they all know each other, of course – and they are simply unable to recognise pseudo-science when it emanates from a university.
“any competent peer-reviewer” that’s a tall order, too, in this field.