We still need to study nature’s contribution to trend
Published Saturday, September 27, 2008, Fairbanks AK News-Miner
Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001. Further, NASA data shows that warming in the southern hemisphere has stopped, and that ocean temperatures also have stopped rising.
The global average temperature had been rising until about 2000-2001. The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and many scientists hypothesize rising temperatures were mostly caused by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide (CO2), and they predicted further temperature increases after 2000. It was natural to assume that CO2 was responsible for the rise, because CO2 molecules in the atmosphere tend to reflect back the infrared radiation to the ground, preventing cooling (the greenhouse effect) and also because CO2 concentrations have been rapidly increasing since 1946. But, this hypothesis on the cause of global warming is just one of several.
Unfortunately, many scientists appear to forget that weather and climate also are controlled by nature, as we witness weather changes every day and climate changes in longer terms. During the last several years, I have suggested that it is important to identify the natural effects and subtract them from the temperature changes. Only then can we be sure of the man-made contributions. This suggestion brought me the dubious honor of being designated “Alaska’s most famous climate change skeptic.”
The stopping of the rise in global average temperature after 2000-2001 indicates that the hypothesis and prediction made by the IPCC need serious revision. I have been suggesting during the last several years that there are at least two natural components that cause long-term climate changes.
The first is the recovery (namely, warming) from the Little Ice Age, which occurred approximately 1800-1850. The other is what we call the multi-decadal oscillation. In the recent past, this component had a positive gradient (warming) from 1910 to 1940, a negative gradient (cooling — many Fairbanksans remember the very cold winters in the 1960s) from 1940 to 1975, and then again a positive gradient (warming — many Fairbanksans have enjoyed the comfortable winters of the last few decades or so) from 1975 to about 2000. The multi-decadal oscillation peaked around 2000, and a negative trend began at that time.
The second component has a large amplitude and can overwhelm the first, and I believe that this is the reason for the stopping of the temperature rise. Since CO2 has only a positive effect, the new trend indicates that natural changes are greater than the CO2 effect, as I have stated during the last several years.
Future changes in global temperature depend on the combination of both the recovery from the Little Ice Age (positive) and the multi-decadal oscillation (both positive and negative). We have an urgent need to learn more about these natural changes to aid us in predicting future changes.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu is a former director of the Geophysical Institute and the International Arctic Research Center, both on the campus of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
“Water Vapour is increasing as predicted”
No. Water vapor increases with temperature, but increased temperature is not evidence of AGW. Warming is not a “fingerprint” of AGW, unless you are a tautologist. And:
“Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades. ”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5835/233
In a nutshell, climate models are wrong.
Icecap fans …
The icecap graph you posted
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg
is labelled as TS Fig 26 updated. That is, Figure 26 from the IPCC Technical summary, which is here …
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts26.jpg
In the icecap graph, the scenarios start at 2000, but, strangely, the observed temperature at this time is at least 0.15C below the scenario projections. However, in the original IPCC graph the observed and projected are no more than 0,01C apart at this point. This discrepency seems to be because the IPCC graph uses a 10 year moving average to smooth out the interannual variability whereas the ‘icecap’ graph simply plots the annual values. That 0.15C represents about 7 years projected warming so it is not surprising the scenarios appear to be doing so badly. Not the most honest science. An accurate update of the graph using the same smoothing would look very different.
Confirmation bias?
Glenn, please reread my post. the water vapour post was in response to anna’s asertion that we are not seeing feedbacks. We are.
In a nutshell, climate models are wrong.
Oh please. The precipitation results demonstrate that the measurements do not match the model projections, and the paper considers the possibility that the timescales are too short to be conclusive or that the satellite measurements are incorrect. If it turns out that the satellite measurements are incorrect and the models correct, it would not be the first time this has happened (The Christy / Spencer TLT saga)
[…] Former director of International Arctic Research Center says: “Global warming has paused̶… We still need to study nature’s contribution to trend Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Community Perspective Published Saturday, […] […]
John Philips (14:57:58) :
I think the black speckles on the IPCC graph must be the annual temps not smoothed.
Ah, right. The caption for the figure is within http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf and says “Figure TS.26. Model projections of global mean warming compared to observed warming. Observed temperature anomalies, as in Figure TS.6, are shown as annual (black dots) and decadal average values (black line). Projected trends and their ranges from the IPCC First (FAR) and Second (SAR) Assessment Reports are shown as green and magenta solid lines and shaded areas, and the projected range from the TAR is shown by vertical blue bars. These projections were adjusted to start at the observed decadal average value in 1990. Multi-model mean projections from this report for the SRES B1, A1B and A2 scenarios, as in Figure TS.32, are shown for the period 2000 to 2025 as blue, green and red curves with uncertainty ranges indicated against the right-hand axis. The orange curve shows model projections of warming if greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations were held constant from the year 2000 – that is, the committed warming. {Figures 1.1 and 10.4}”
It appears to me that the IPCC graph points are annual data points and not subject to the decadal averaging that the black curve got, so I don’t see how you can call D’Aleo’s data point vs data point as not the most honest. Perhaps both data sets could be subject to 10 year averaging, but the point Joe was trying to make was that the recent PDO-induced cooling is taking the temperatures away from the IPCC projections.
As I’ve pointed out to you before in this thread, the PDO shifts seem to come with short term changes, so 10 year averaging would mask that out. It might also delay for years the recognition that models need to handle climate oscillations better than they now do.
That would be fantastic if it really would stop. It’s depressing to think what the world will become if the trend continues.
Sunil, it would be even more depressing if the trend quickly reverses.
“Oh please. The precipitation results demonstrate that the measurements do not match the model projections, and the paper considers the possibility that the timescales are too short to be conclusive or that the satellite measurements are incorrect. If it turns out that the satellite measurements are incorrect and the models correct, it would not be the first time this has happened (The Christy / Spencer TLT saga)”
Sheesh. “If it turns out” is your argument that the climate models are not wrong? You must be joking. Everything at anytime might be wrong; that doesn’t mean that everything gets a free pass, especially over and over again. Maybe the assumptions about CO2, positive feedbacks and such are wrong in the climate models, and satellite and ground observations are wrong. All that can be said at anytime is that climate models are either supported or falsified by current observations. And there are many that falsify climate models. This observation is just one of them, although the authors did not use that language.
Do you use this argument when talking down a hypothesis that doesn’t include CO2 as a major player? What is your opinion of ground station temperature data?
I am sorry to be repeating here stuff I put up in the other thread , but I have already given references for the non fit of humidity feedback of CO2;
John Philip (16:55:17) : on the cooling thread
“Smokey
That graph turned out to be invalid … A few days ago I posted a story highlighting the drop in water vapor in the atmosphere which initially looked like the entire atmosphere due to a labeling issue by ESRL, but turned out to be only at the 300 millibar height and not up to 300mb as the ESRL graph was labeled.
JP.”
mislabeled, not invalid.
Quoting from a later and more thorough examination:
“” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/
“So, what do these time series tell us?
To begin with, what atmospheric moistening is believed to have occurred is at altitudes basically well below the surface altitudes of the major ice shields, Greenland and the East & West Antarctic and much of Earth’s land surfaces.
Secondly, the atmospheric region of most interest from a weather/climate perspective appears to be on a drying trend, contrary to that expected under the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis.
Simply eyeballing the time series suggests the 1977 Pacific phase shift is a much better fit with changes in trends than is the steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Bottom line is that the regions climate models are programmed to expect atmospheric moistening are not actually doing so, making either the models or the atmosphere wrong. ”
Thus the fourth point: that the huge humidity feedback driven by anthropogenic CO2’s tiny contribution, predicted by the models, is invalidated. “”
Also this :
There is a very good mathematical reason why any linearized models as these GCM models are, will diverge from reality when applied to real data. If you know mathematics, follow this:
The GCM models make grids (boxes) of the atmosphere and apply linear approximations to the solutions of SOME of the differential equations that have to apply at the boundaries. Let us ignore SOME.
It is very well known that coupled differential equations lead to chaotic systems. This is because the beats of the different solutions that are pushing and pulling in mathematical reality can unpredictably build up enormously, or disappear ( the seventh wave, the 100th lightning,…). This means that linearity in any modeling can be reasonably applied for a limited number of time steps before the true nonlinear nature of the solutions explodes. These same models are used to predict the weather for next week, with different boundary conditions than when they are turned climate. It is evident for even non mathematical people that the time stepping of the models fails after ten days or so.
When the meteorology models are turned into climate models, i.e. even more linearization of the true solutions by applying many more average values at boundaries, this stepping problem does not disappear; the approximations will inevitably fail after some steps because the true solutions are drastically not linear. They do not fail in a week because of the averaging, but they do fail in ten years.
Now SOME, like the PDO. I have read the paper of Keenlyside et al, they are trying to include some of the SOME to save the sinking boat and keep up the AGW mantra. It cannot be done. The only solution is to go the chaos way, as Tsonis et al have done in a limited way ( PDO and the Atlantic Oscillation) in a fairly recent paper using neural nets for the modeling. Complexity is a subject that crosses over all scientific disciplines and is at the frontier of research at the moment. I have a hard time understanding the tools ( I am retired and follow interesting lectures in my region) but I think it is the only way to go for weather system modelings.
I’ve always thougght it strange that two of Maggie Thatchers colleagues, Mockton and Lawson should be so outspoken about whether there is man made climate change or not.
It does make me wonder if politics is coming into it, what with the Labour government being pro AGW.
Regards
Andy
I don’t see how you can call D’Aleo’s data point vs data point as not the most honest. Perhaps both data sets could be subject to 10 year averaging, but the point Joe was trying to make was that the recent PDO-induced cooling is taking the temperatures away from the IPCC projections.
Let me expand further (and btw the graph seems to originate from John Christy) … The IPCC scenarios are the mean of a series of model runs. Individual runs show a fairly wide variation about this mean: http://www.realclimate.org/images/runs.jpg
which corresponds to the relatively wide variation in the observed global annual mean temperature.
To compare like with like the IPCC graph plots the smoothed 10 year moving average. Christy plots just the mean of the scenarios, without showing the spread, and compares these with the actual annual observed values, effectively comparing apples and oranges.
Secondly, as a scientist Anna will confirm that when you give a quantative value, you must also state the uncertainty in that value. On a graph this usually done by the use of error bars. Now the smoothed observed temperatures are actually well within the scenario uncertainty range, so what does Christy do? simple, he erases the IPCC error bars!.
So labelling this as an ‘update’ of the IPCC graph is less than scrupulous. The IPCC figure is good science, Christy’s graph is closer to scientific fraud.
@John Philip(s):
Some of us are still waiting for you to answer the questions about that survey you posted or retract your claims.
Please don’t let this matter go unresolved.
Dee
I have to request that you retract the claims you made using a poll in this comment
And I am going to have to disappoint you. I merely reported the results of a poll, with a link to a more detailed summary from the Harris Organisation. They state that the details you seem so interested in are available on request, so may I suggest you contact Harris? Be sure to post their response here.
You are entitled to your view that the poll was either reported or conducted in bad faith, but it is not a view I share; Harris seem a reputable firm.
The poll results are in line with other evidence. For example, the American Geophysical Union, the professional body that most US climate scientists belong to, has this position statement …
The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
Does this reflect the views of most of their 20,000 members or is there a conspiracy going on here?
And in this smaller scale poll of senior climate scientists the most popular response by a large margin was:
The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. At least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence.
with a further 10% agreeing with:
The IPCC WG1 seriously understates the human influence on climate. I agree with those scientists who say that major mitigation responses are needed immediately to prevent catastrophic serious warming and other impacts projected to result from human emissions of CO2. We are seriously damaging the Earth’s climate, and will continue to face devastating consequences for many years.
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/22/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1/
JP.
PS Dee – about one in five posts here makes an unsupported claim of some sort, e.g. global temperatures are falling, the IPCC scenarios have been falsified, some of the additional CO2 is natural etc etc – I look forward to your repeated and indignant demands for detailed, supporting evidence.
I wonder how many more years of cooling/flat temps would be required until CAGW is generally accepted as having been discredited.
Shall I tell you what would do it for me? I would regard AGW to be discredited :-
If GHG concentrations continue to increase and there was a statistically significant drop or reversal in the rate of GW. Given that average temperatures are now about 0.5C above what they were in the 1970s, I guess a 15 year hiatus would do it for me. However I think it more likely that the next 2-3 years will actually bring a new record high.
and If a study, or preferably studies, was published and accepted in the academic climate science literature that demonstrated either that global warming was not occurring or that there are fatal flaws in the Greenhouse gas explanation for modern global warming, or that the warming will not continue with continued emissions, causing serious consequences for the planet.
I fear a retired Professor writing in The Fairbank Daily News doesn’t do it for me. The last credible review of the scientific literature on this topic found papers –
Supporting the concensus or neutral : 928
Contradictory to the concensus : 0
and If the Joint National Academies of Science of the G8 + 5 (and professional bodies in relevant disciplines btw) were to retract their statements that AGW is a real and present danger:
E.g : http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf
thenI would heave a huge sigh of relief. Heck, I’d even accept two out of three.
Cognitive dissonance anyone?
JP: Does this reflect the views of most of their 20,000 members or is there a conspiracy going on here?
Please. Not the same, tired, AGW “conspiracy” strawman argument. Can’t you people come up with anything new?
I’m sure you know, and are therefore simply being disingenuous, that the AGU position statement on AGW is simply put forward by their BOD, and was never voted on by the members.
As far as the position statement itself, it’s simply boilerplate AGW propaganda. It’s amazing that anyone with half a brain still even believes that crap.
John Philips (01:57:01) :
“To compare like with like the IPCC graph plots the smoothed 10 year moving average. Christy plots just the mean of the scenarios, without showing the spread, and compares these with the actual annual observed values, effectively comparing apples and oranges.”
Errors enter if you give the chi2 s for the difference between experimental and predicted. It is the mean that one compares.
Moving averages are deadly, particularly ten year ones as the PDO has shown. Why not a hundred years and be done with it?
Are you saying that the errors of the IPCC models are so large that they are meaningless in predicting anything, even a trend? ( in this case we agree) Over at the Blackboard Lucia has exhausted the statistical means by which a trend can be evaluated in the data, and the trend shows diminishing temperatures. Are you saying that if the errors are included in the IPCC spaghetti the trend is diminishing?
“Secondly, as a scientist Anna will confirm that when you give a quantative value, you must also state the uncertainty in that value. On a graph this usually done by the use of error bars. Now the smoothed observed temperatures are actually well within the scenario uncertainty range, so what does Christy do? simple, he erases the IPCC error bars!. ”
Scenarios are deadly and one of the things that made me pull my hair. Scenarios are not substitutes for error bars. I do not trust the IPCC error bars, that they got them the kosher way. It seems to me they probably varied the scenario within each model instead of varying all the parameters by 1 sigma ( probably because the error bars would become huge and make the models meaningless).
Scenarios are video games in a virtual reality and have nothing to do with rigorous statistical proofs. Just the prejudices of the modelers:
8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model Reliability from the AR:
“The above studies show promise
that quantitative metrics for the likelihood of model projections
may be developed, but because the development of robust
metrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations presented
in this chapter are based primarily on experience and physical
reasoning, as has been the norm in the past.”
errors? what errors? In the eye of the modeler’s virtual reality?
@ur momisugly John Phillips:
The position statement you provide is interesting. It includes this sentence:
“Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.”
Is it just me, or does this seem like an instruction? The members of the AGU are not only to believe in CO2 as the primary cause of climate change, but to support and justify that belief to the public and political classes.
With that command, I am not surprised that the majority of members will answer ‘Yes!’ to the question ‘Do you believe…?’. But is it normal for bodies such as the AGU to have to issue such an order to their members? I can’t remember Plate Tectonics, the Copenhagen Interpretation or Relativity being the subject of such a direction.
Mind you, I can remember the Congregation of the Index delivering such a directive against geocentrism. Robert Bellarmine is your man here. Details may be found here (Items 5 and 6, just after the minutes and consultants report: http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#certificate
John Philips (01:57:01) :
One problem with a graph that compares model output with observed data is that you are comparing apples with oranges. If you wish to call it comparing apples with kumquats, go right ahead, but don’t give me credit. I doubt we will ever agree that 10 year moving averages are like the mean of lotsa model runs. Unfortunately we don’t have anything better to compare.
I had written a sentence or two about this, but then realized you hadn’t mentioned anything about error bars in the thread, at least not the thread I was responding to.
Please refer to http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts26.jpg . Note that there are shaded areas and there are lines. The shaded areas are ancient history and come from the F, S, and T ARs. (Why couldn’t they number them AR1, AR2, and AR3? Don’t these guys have computers or something? or TAR->AR2001?). That data ended at 2005, but Christy’s main point is recent conditions and those old projections don’t reach that far. The remaining lines come are as you describe, but the only error bars are on the right side of the graph. They may also be for 2025 and may be larger than for 2008. My guess is that Christy’s software probably has a mechanism for error bars on each line but not on the right side like IPCC’s graphic. Error bars on each line would obliterate any understanding of the curves.
It is too bad they’re missing, as the recent data (the point of Christy’s graph) is well below the IPCC error bars, though Commitment is the only one that has a chance of being compared. The observed data is well below the other three bars. However, I know what you mean, neither of us knows what the IPCC means. Note the realclimate graph suggests smaller error bars for 2008. I don’t know what the UAH measurement error is, I think it’s pretty small, certainly smaller then the IPCC data. Perhaps the IPCC can reduce the range of their parameters to make a similarly sized error bar, though that would make it harder for the Realclimate crowd to claim observations are within the error range.
That’s a reach! Empirical data is better than theoretical data which is better than modeled data. I my mind, that vastly outweighs the problems from both sides.
As far as the position statement itself, it’s simply boilerplate AGW propaganda. It’s amazing that anyone with half a brain still even believes that crap.
Presumably those with fully functioning brains believe therefore that the position statement is unrepresentative and the membership are biting their tongues and sitting on their hands?
Tell me, does the same evaluation apply to similar endorsements from these groups of ‘half-brainers’ : The American Meteorological Society , The Royal Meteorological Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, The European Academy of Sciences and Arts, The Network of African Science Academies, The US National Research Council , The European Science Foundation, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Federation of American Scientists, The World Meteorological Organization, The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, The International Union for Quaternary Research, The American Quaternary Association, The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, The International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, The International Union of Geological Sciences, The European Geosciences Union, The Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences, The Geological Society of America, The American Astronomical Society, The American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Engineers Australia, The Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), The American Statistical Association, The Hadley Centre and the Tyndall Centre, The US National Center for Atmospheric Research, NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science, US Environmental Protection Agency, and The American Chemical Society (the world’s largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members) ….. ?
Anna:
Over at the Blackboard Lucia has exhausted the statistical means by which a trend can be evaluated in the data, and the trend shows diminishing temperatures. Are you saying that if the errors are included in the IPCC spaghetti the trend is diminishing?
You hope to discredit the IPCC with an unreviewed weblog? Yes. Or more accurately over the short period considered by Lucia, a diminishing trend is entirely consistent with the range of temperatures projected by the IPCC. All Lucia has ‘falsified’ is the ‘central tendency’. So what?
It is impossible to learn this from Christy’s dubious graph that you presented for us, however. I see it quite simply: to evaluate model projections vs observed temperatures one could plot:
(a) The results of all the model runs showing the variance between runs.
(b) The mean of the above, with error bars.
(c) The actual annual temperatures, demonstrating the large annual variability.
(d) The averaged temperature, a running mean or a linear fit, with error bars.
Seems to me comparing (a) and (c) is meaningful, comparing (b) and (d) is meaningful but as either of these would validate the scenarios Christy chooses to compare (b) without error bars and (c). Doing this and labelling it an ‘update’ of the IPPC graph is simply not legitimate; I don’t see how you can defend it.
Dodgy Geezer:
Is it just me, or does this seem like an instruction
No, it is just you.
John Philip (04:05:05) :
Being relatively close to retirement (and being “forcibly retired” by my penultimate empoyer), your statement rankles me.
First, when I retire, I will not be leaving my brain behind. In fact, it will open up a lot of possibilities. It won’t turn me into a professional scientist (by definition), but I expect to increase my involvement with several sciences.
Second, in Syun-Ichi Akasofu case (why don’t you use his name?), this frees him from his responsibility in raising money for himself and for his employers. Did you read Richard Lindzen’s paper? It would appear that Akasofu is in his “golden years” without having to deal with corruption that Lindzen documents. At least not until an unsigned deathbed conversion. 🙂 Until then “retired” will be used as a pejorative.
Third, readers in the Massachusetts area: Lindzen will be the keynote speaker at the 2008 Southern New England Weather Conference on October 25, 2008. See http://www.sneweatherconf.org/index.shtml for more. Joe D’Aleo will be there too, and astronomer Ron Dantowitz will have his usual amazing stuff.
John Philip
“Is it just me, or does this seem like an instruction…No, it is just you.”
In that case, why are there no similar comments defining other aspects of science which are ‘settled’?
Rick,
Please accept apologies. I did not mean to imply that retired=decrepit. Rather the sense I meant was shorthand for ‘no longer practicing’, and by implication perhaps not up to date with latest developments and issues. I fully accept your point that retirement can equally wll bring newfound economic and academic independence, but sadly for every such case there seems to be another retired expert who trades on previous eminence or even Emeritus in an unrelated field to muddy the waters on Climate Change. (Fred Seitz springs to mind and the description would apply to a lot of the entries on this short list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming )
I wish you a stimulating retirement.
John Philip (05:48:07) :
Let me repeat the direct quote from the AR literature, from chapter 8 that is supposed to evaluate the models:
” 8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model Reliability from the AR:
“The above studies show promise
that quantitative metrics for the likelihood of model projections
may be developed, but because the development of robust
metrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations presented
in this chapter are based primarily on experience and physical
reasoning, as has been the norm in the past.””
To paraphrase, you can control some scientists for a long time, and many scientists for some time, but not all scientists all the time. That is why there is some scientific honesty digging through the AR and truth can be found; 600 scientist do not all tow the line and the line enforcers do not have the IQ to catch everything.
You say:
“It is impossible to learn this from Christy’s dubious graph that you presented for us, however. I see it quite simply: to evaluate model projections vs observed temperatures one could plot:
(a) The results of all the model runs showing the variance between runs.
(b) The mean of the above, with error bars.
(c) The actual annual temperatures, demonstrating the large annual variability.
(d) The averaged temperature, a running mean or a linear fit, with error bars.
Seems to me comparing (a) and (c) is meaningful, comparing (b) and (d) is meaningful but as either of these would validate the scenarios Christy chooses to compare (b) without error bars and (c). Doing this and labelling it an ‘update’ of the IPPC graph is simply not legitimate; I don’t see how you can defend it. ”
THE BARS IN THE ORIGINAL PLOT ARE NOT ERROR BARS.
They are what the modelers believe their error bars are, and anybody treating them as error bars, i.e using them to get a chi2 per degree of freedom compared to data ( or whatever the statistical fashion is now) is off.
There IS meaning, if presented with a scenario and if I have the data available, to look at the fit of the scenario to the data which is what Christy has done.
The bars are there in the IPCC plot so that the hoi polloi can be mesmerized that: this is “SCIENCE”, look, there are error bars.
Sorry for the capitals, there is no easy bold or whatnot on this board.
p.s. likelihood has to do with error bars
John Philip:
“I would regard AGW to be discredited :-
If GHG concentrations continue to increase and there was a statistically significant drop or reversal in the rate of GW… I guess a 15 year hiatus would do it for me…AND if a study.. was published and accepted in the academic climate science literature that demonstrated either that global warming was not occurring or that there are fatal flaws in the Greenhouse gas explanation…”
How interesting to need those two requirements.
Let us assume temperatures fail to give you your record high, and continue as they are going at the moment – in another 7 years you would have your hiatus. This is what I anticipate. However, I would also anticipate a continuation of the IPCC to peddle their hypothesis and a continued rejection of papers by people like Steve McIntyre. So your second requirement may be a longer time coming – if ever! Are you saying that you will refuse to believe the evidence of your own senses until the approved consensus allows you to do so?
If that is the case, I would have thought that only the second of your requirements was important. If the AGU and all the other august bodies were to instruct their memberships to deny CO2-driven AGW, would not the state of global temperatures be a matter of minor significance, compared to (as I am sure Gallileo was reminded) the state of your immortal soul?
A cooling anecdote from Whistler:
“Mother Nature Skips Fall
Whistler Blackcomb received over 6 cm/2.4 inches of snow in the alpine Sunday night making Whistlerites wonder if Mother Nature forgot a season. On the first day of fall, Whistler Blackcomb mountain tops were covered with at least six centimetres of snow. With 65 days until the winter ski season and 79 days until the opening of the PEAK 2 PEAK Gondola on December 12, the countdown is on. ”
If all the snow had melted, that would have been a sure sign of AGW (doesn’t that stand for “Al Gore’s Warming”?)
It is too bad they’re missing, as the recent data (the point of Christy’s graph) is well below the IPCC error bars, though Commitment is the only one that has a chance of being compared.
I am not so sure, see below, but even if so – So what? Assuming a 95% uncertainty, the actual value would be expected to fall outside the error bar 1 year in 20. For the last time: compare the mean of the scenarios with the mean of the observations and the ‘problem’ disappears. Compare the predicted range from the model runs with the actual range of the temperature and the ‘problem’ disappears.
And just what is this ‘recent data’? It seems that Christy is using the year-to-date numbers for 2008 (the paler blue and green). The earlier part of the year was cooled by La Nina, so it is very likely that the whole year average will be higher. His Hadley Centre value is a good 0.1C cooler than Hadley’s own prediction. Remove the 2008 provisional numbers and the ‘problem’ disappears.
This simply is not credible work.