Here’s something really interesting: two comparisons between model ensembles and 3 well known global climate metrics plotted together. The interesting part is what happens in the near present. While the climate models and climate measurements start out in sync in 1979, they don’t stay that way as we approach the present.
Here are the trends from 1979-”Year” for HadCrut, NOAA, GISSTemp compared to the trend based on 16 AOCGMs models driven by volcanic forcings:
Figure 1: Trends since 1979 ending in ‘Year’.
A second graph showing 20 year trends is more pronounced.Lucia Liljegren of The Blackboard did both of these, and she writes:
Note: I show models with volcanic forcings partly out of laziness and partly because the period shown is affected by eruptions of both Pinatubo and El Chichon.
Here are the 20 year trends as a function of end year:
Figure 2: Twenty-year trends as a function of end year.
One thing stands out clearly in both graphs: in the past few years the global climate models and the measured global climate reality have been diverging.
Lucia goes on to say:
I want to compare how the observed trends fit into the ±95 range of “all trends for all weather in all models”. For now I’ll stick with the volcano models. I’ll do that tomorrow. With any luck, HadCrut will report, and I can show it with March Data. NOAA reported today.
Coming to the rescue was Blackboard commenter Chad, who did his own plot to demonstrate +/- 95% confidence intervals using the model ensembles and HadCRUT. He showed very similar divergent results to Lucia’s plots, starting about 2006.
So the question becomes: is this the beginning of a new trend, or just short term climatic noise? Only time will tell us for certain. In the meantime it is interesting to watch.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Who would like to bet the following outcomes on the models being correct.
[1] Higher taxes.
[2] Increased energy costs.
[3] Greater Government control.
[4] Biofuel induced food price increases.
[5] Intermittent electricity supplies.
[6] Increased export of manufacturing to other countries (i.e China).
[7] Reduced jobs as business costs increase.
Of course, if the models have no basis in reality and AGW Catastrophism is an artefact of modelling – then the above outcomes can be avoided by pretty much doing nothing.
Very interesting and very easy to understand maybe dear Al and all other AGW fanatics would like to comment.
Enjoy
The climate models are just an exercise in trend fitting. They have no predictive power over and above the trend.
Its clear that the warming trend of the late 20th century is over. And because CO2 levels (or at least CO2 emissions) continue to rise, it’s also clear CO2 wasn’t the cause of the late 20th century warming.
Excellent work Lucia.
Easily fixed — adjust the models to reflect the reality…
… which reality — HadCrut/GISSTemp/NOAA or UAH/RSS? …
Then, tout how the models have been improved and predicted the current climate all along and then go on about how the models forecast even greater warming in the future.
Isn’t this how science now is done? Cook the books till it tastes right?
I think the models are demonstrational… 😉 and not based on facts. It’s based on the fantasy that more CO2 = steady rising temperatures. In the real world, rising CO2 doesn’t = rising temperature… but just the opposite as the temperatures have been declining since 2004 as CO2 levels have increased.
Have you seen this last bunch of scaremongering that has spread in the web?
“Coral Fossils Suggest That Sea Level Can Rise Rapidly”… and yet again a claim that is stated as fact and reported as fact by most newspapers in the world. Makes me mad that there is NO room for discussion and NO room for climate cooling news, yet one study gets over-the-top media attention. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090415-sea-levels-catastrophic.html
Scaring people sells.
Philip B says –
It’s clear that the warming trend of the late 20th century is over
Well….O.K. if all you mean is that it’s now the 21st century and therefore any warming in the 20th century is over (!)
I’m sure that’s not what you mean, but I don’t think that such observations are worth much. Yes, they state the fact. But that doesn’t mean a great deal all by itself.
I think that it is just not possible to draw general conclusions on the basis of just 9 years.
To get anything meaningful you need to have a look at records which are much more extensive. Then the maxima and minima of trends and their sign, can be discerned accurately.
Of course, the same thing has to be pointed out to AGW proponents who point to a few years around 1998, or rabbit on about the Arctic ice losses in a particular year compared with the previous couple of years. For me that is all interesting but the excitement it seems to generate is rather vacuous.
Having said all of that, nevertheless it is true that the “global average” has not risen in the current decade and that is interesting when compared with the models.
I have a feeling that the Catlin sea ice thickness data will mesh perfectly with the climate models. Hansen’s adjustments have not been sufficient to mesh with model reality. NOAA, GISS, Hadcrut, UAH and RSS need to get together BEFORE releasing the monthly anomalies or we will never have a concensus.
We MUST catlin the temperature data.
It’s interesting that the divergence that began in 2006 fits perfectly with the flattening of the sea level graph at CU. I wonder what caused the march spike in Mauna Loa CO2. Since recent studies show simultaneous rises in CO2 in both the NH and SH, perhaps it is tied to recent volcanic activity above and below sea level.
Those forecasts are darn impressive – an error of just 25%.
Meanwhile only 2 months to go before we get to verify this forecast
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/prediction-of-the-may-2009-uah-msu-global-temperature-result/
I e-mailed the Met office some time ago about their model. There were a couple of interesting points. 1. There model could not be run backwards in time. 2. I got no sensible answer as to what would happen in they ran from 1600 AD (effectively the same as point 1 but asked differently)
This is the e-mail
FWD: Re: FWD: RE: re[2]: FWD: Climate prediction model
From: Dan ********** (enquiries@met************)
Sent: 06 January 2009 10:37:40
To: John Edmondson (john_edmondson@**************)
1 attachment
tett_etal…pdf (4.5 MB)
Dear John
Thank you for your email.
The attached (rather large) pdf is a scientific paper which you
might like to read to answer your follow-up questions.
I hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Dan
Weather Desk Advisor
Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB, United Kingdom.
Tel: 0870 900 0100 Fax: 0870 900 5050 Email: enquiries@meto**************http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google Earth
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/
>
>
> ———————– Forwarded Message ———————–
>
> From: John Edmondson
> To: “”
> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:15:00 +0000
> Subject: RE: re[2]: FWD: Climate prediction model
>
> Hi Suzanne,
> Very interesting. So are you saying you could run your
> model from a starting point of 1600 AD, plug in your assumptions for
> what might have an influence on temperature and see what happens?
> What exactly are your asumptions? Not in any detail
> just as probable variables.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Edmondson
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:35:35 +0000
> > From: enquiries@metoff************
> > Subject: re[2]: FWD: Climate prediction model
> > To: john_edmondson@***************
> >
> > Dear John,
> >
> > We do not run climate models with time going backwards
> > in a literal sense as climate models are complex numerical tools
> that
> > are definitely not designed for this purpose (an analogy being to
> try to
> > operate a car by injecting exhaust gases through the tail pipe and
> > expecting it to drive itself backwards and for petrol to accumulate
> in
> > the tank – clearly nonsensical).
> >
> > Running a model “prediction” with time going forwards but climate
> > forcing (such as greenhouse gases and aerosols) changing in a way
> that
> > reverses what has happened in the past is possible, but we have no
> > particular reason to do this since it does not help much in
> answering
> > relevant scientific or modelling questions.
> >
> > We do, however, run climate models regularly (in a forward sense) as
> a
> > means of evaluating their ability to reproduce past climate changes
> (of
> > the last 150 years, or of more ancient periods when the Earth’s
> orbit
> > around the Sun presented a significantly different pattern of solar
> > insolation through the year at given latitudes).
> >
> > I hope this helps.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Suzanne.
> > (On behalf of an expert)
> >
> > Weather Desk Advisor
> > Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB, United Kingdom.
> > Tel: 0870 900 0100 Fax: 0870 900 5050 Email:
> enquiries@met************* http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
> >
> > Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google
> Earth
> > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/
> >
> >
> ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
> > >
> > > From: John Edmondson
> > > To: “”
> > > Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 13:31:00 +0000
> > > Subject: Climate prediction model
> > >
> > > I have a question about the model used to prrdict future possible
> > > climate.
> > >
> > > What happens if it run backwards in time?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > John Edmondson
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > >
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Get Windows Live Messenger on your Mobile. Click Here!
MarkoL (23:59:29) :
Have you seen this last bunch of scaremongering that has spread in the web?
“Coral Fossils Suggest That Sea Level Can Rise Rapidly”… and yet again a claim that is stated as fact and reported as fact by most newspapers in the world. Makes me mad that there is NO room for discussion and NO room for climate cooling news, yet one study gets over-the-top media attention. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090415-sea-levels-catastrophic.html
Scaring people sells.
MarkoL – All too true. We must remember that most MSM is publically owned and in the business of returning value to the shareholders. They generate revenue by selling advertising space. The value of that space is driven by ratings, ratings by the ability of the MSM to capture and hold peoples attention. Scare stories work.
However – people get bored….
Boredom with AGW may be a factor in it’s eventual undoing. Any scary narrative must eventually wheel out the true horror – you can’t keep people in suspense forever. The monster must be revealed. The inability of AGW Catastrophism to actually deliver on it’s promise of catastrophy will certainly hinder it’s ability to keep the MSM onside. As the public gets bored they will want to move on, and the MSM must follow the public or die for lack of revenue.
“Have you seen this last bunch of scaremongering that has spread in the web?”
Unfortunately yes, and also with National Geographic.
NG has been a staple of reading for my whole life, a big influence fostered by my grand dad.
A most informative, scientific and exciting digest that has ever been spawned. Most with world class professional photographs, pictures that build an adventure and surpasses the imagination sometimes.
Sadly, I never thought in a lifetime, that one day(one year ago) I’d be forced to send out a E(hate)-mail to the office of National Geographic denouncing the unscientific/fraudulent/bias approach their publications taken in the last few years.
I expected more from this now so called natural scientific journal, it seems a contrary view is not to be had anywhere these days?
AGW science consisting of NO facts, NO evidence, NO out of control warming and as of the last 10 years, this last year has been as cool and ice building as 1979. The year they started measuring from satellite and stopped caring about real temperatures and the temperature stations on earth. We now give ourselves over to Mr. JH’s scientific video game. Based on 30 year old science, when some cycles can last hundreds or thousands of years caused by natural cycles of thermo energy from our sun
But yet, we ignore that the sun has almost 100% of effect on our temperatures and CLIMATE, and why life exists on this rock in the first place.
RIP National geographic, I’ll miss you.
Anthony,
There is something wrong with the graphs or text.
The text and the graph headings talk of 1979 to present but the graphs show 1999 to present.
It looks like it should all be 1999 to present
Repost from Allan M R MacRae (02:26:43) :
Please see http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
The plot of Surface Temperature ST (Hadcrut3 Global anom) versus Lower Troposphere Temperature LT (UAH Global anom) shows a gradually increasing deviation of ST of ~0.2C above LT since 1979.
Probably, all of this 0.2C can be ascribed to ST measurement warming bias.
Absent the ST warming bias, there is no significant global warming since 1940.
I think both GISS and Hadley ST’s are misleading and exhibit significant warming biases that render them practically useless as a basis to infer actual global warming.
The satellite-based LT temperature, while not perfect, is a far superior database for such a purpose, in my opinion.
**************************
OK – that was just an excuse to post something totally OT.
Seriously, you all should look and listen to this:
Moderator – we often get so upset about this global warming fiasco – I’m suggesting we all take a 7 minute time-out, to see something that is rather inspirational. Over 11 million views so far.
Best to all, Allan
How many years must the models and reality diverge before it is accepted that the models are wrong?
Me thinks the “CO2 drives the climate theory” is a little out of whack. Somebody needs to go back to the drawing board.
As a tax payer, I don’t mine funding climate research, but don’t give me garbage.
Who would like to bet the following outcomes on the models being correct.
[1] Higher taxes.
[2] Increased energy costs.
[3] Greater Government control.
[4] Biofuel induced food price increases.
[5] Intermittent electricity supplies.
[6] Increased export of manufacturing to other countries (i.e China).
[7] Reduced jobs as business costs increase.
——
Ah, but did you notice that all of these effects ARE the desired results of the AGW scheme (er, scam) ????
MarkoL (23:59:29) :
“Scaring people sells.”
Absolutely. Just wait until the become aware of the coming reduced growing seasons.
It will be interesting to see how the AGW believers explain this result. And of course they will with the use of their own graphs, etc. One of the most frustrating aspects of this debate for the non-scientists who want to understand what is happening is the lack of graphical data accepted by both sides.
HADCRUT is an accepted metric, I believe, but it appears that the trace of the ensemble of GCMs can change depending on which models are included. Are there only 16 GCMs or are the believers going to include some in their “ensemble” that will expand the confidence intervals to include the current HADCRUT results? Have the skeptics left out some GCMs that should be in the ensemble? Is “Model Mean (No Essence NV)” an ensemble accepted by both sides?
What other climate measurements are out their that are accepted by both sides?
OT, but i thought u might like it.
From Glenn Beck, today’s post. “I learned something from a lawyer friend of mine who won lots of cases in front of judges and lawyers — I asked him how he won so many cases. He said it’s easy: If the law supports my client’s position I argue the law. If not, I argue the facts. If the facts don’t support my client’s position, I just attack the opposition”
Sounds like the AGW crowd doesn’t it?
Until the climate models include the impact of ocean SST and ocean currents such as ENSO,PDO,AMO,SOI, NAO , MOC,THC, SAS, etc, their credibilty will continue to be zero.It points out the problem we have today. If you cannot get the next seaon, the next year or the next decade right you will most likely not get the next 100 years, the next 200 years and even the next 1000 years right. It seems to me that anyyone can make forecasts 100 year ahead. No will be around to hold you accountable or point out your errors.[maybe that is why IPCC uses this long term outlook primarly] You have to demonstrate near term credibilty before anyone will take you seriously. My hat is off to the meteorologists who have to be credible every week , every month and every year and make a living at it.
I will once again point out that the errors given for model projections are not real errors. They are just estimates of the stability of the input conditions when they are testing their fit for chaotic inputs. They are not varying their numerous parameters within +/- 1 sigma . If they did that, the error bars would be close to 1C .
As I have often pointed out when one changes the albedo by 1sigma ( assuming a 1% error) in the toy model http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html more than 0.3C is changed in the temperature projection. Let alone the effect of the systematic change in albedo seen in http://www.leif.org/research/albedo.png durng the years plotted above.
Models are meaningless fitting games.
Its human nature to believe that the conditions we’re experiencing now are how things will always be. Its what drives economic bubbles. When housing prices were flying upward, millions bet their financial futures that they would continue to do so. When gas prices were skyrocketing we were treated endless analyses of why we would be paying $5/gal from now on, and never see oil below $70-$80 a barrel again. When we get into a years-long bull market, only dour curmudgeons complain about banks or insurance companies taking unwarranted risks.
All these things were self-evident at one time or another, and ANY theory that explained them made sense to people. Theories are “self-evident” and “make sense” when they both fit one’s worldview, and offer justification for that worldview by offering some explanation for current conditions.
Its been warming since the 70’s, so most of the world’s population has experienced a warming trend throughout their entire lives. Since trends don’t rise in a straight line, the current leveling of temperatures looks like other plateaus we’ve experienced during that time. When a trend peaks and begins a new trend downward, often that is indistinguishable from a normal plateau until years afterward, after the new trend has had time to establish itself.
Graphs such as these, showing divergence that is well outside the confidence intervals, clearly indicate that the trend models are wrong. Anyone who follows this forum knows that already (or should at least be experiencing a nagging feeling of doubt).
Any curmudgeon who calls the end of a trend is going to be correct sooner or later. It is those who can call it AND show dispassionate, non-worldview-reinforcing evidence for it who will eventually be held in regard by the scientific community. Only time and nature itself will show who is calling the trend correctly and who is simply offering explanations that make sense because they match prevalent beliefs about industry or the environment or the economy.
The models are all 2D simulators. We need 3D to get a good history match from the past several million years. Only then can you project the model into the future. With so many variables we have an indeterminate solution. However; the AGW crowd have focused on CO2 emitted by man. That’s like saying while chewing gum I bit my lip and got lip cancer. Gum causes cancer.