Climate Models -vs- Climate Reality: diverging or just a dip?

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.

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.

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.

http://scientificprospective.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/hadcrut_models_01.png

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Graeme Rodaughan

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.

EricH

Very interesting and very easy to understand maybe dear Al and all other AGW fanatics would like to comment.
Enjoy

Philip_B

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.

Leon Brozyna

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?

Richard deSousa

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.

MarkoL

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.

Kohl Piersen

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.

Mike Bryant

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.

Mike Bryant

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.

DJ

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/

John Edmondson

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!

Graeme Rodaughan

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.

Lance

“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.

David Watt

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

Allan M R MacRae

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

MattN

How many years must the models and reality diverge before it is accepted that the models are wrong?

old construction worker

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) ????

Richard111

MarkoL (23:59:29) :
“Scaring people sells.”
Absolutely. Just wait until the become aware of the coming reduced growing seasons.

schnurrp

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?

Darren Krock

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?

matt v.

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.

anna v

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.

Dan Lee

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.

Jack Green

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.

Thank goodness the models only provide projections. Had they provided real predictions, the authors would have to go back and change the hypotheses behind the models.
I like Richard deSousa’s “I think the models are demonstrational.” Fits well with the status “operational” for weather prediction software once it’s put into service.

Frank K.

matt v. (04:33:19) :
“…their credibilty will continue to be zero.”
In my opinion, the credibility of many climate models will be close to zero because the code developers (in particular the NASA GISS Model E) do a horrible job documenting and validating their codes (there are some exceptions). In the case of Model E, we don’t even know for sure what equations it’s attempting to solve – which in my mind makes it’s value to science zero! Yet, year after year GISS scientists publish papers about tipping points and AGW scare scenarios using Model E. I’ve been harping on Model E for some time now, but appears that the people at GISS are simply NOT interested in documenting their code…
Another aspect of these temperature anomaly comparisons that I find striking is that we have scientists running spatially 3-D, time-dependent calculations on large supercomputers to get a zero dimensional (“global average”), time-averaged (over a calendar year) result, which is then smoothed further to get running averages! And if it’s within 50% of reality, they claim their models are “accurate”! It has always amused me that people would claim that their codes “get the physics right” and have wonderful “predictive skill” based on a set of 3-D spatially averaged values, averaged in time and smoothed. And they need to ** tune ** their models to even get that set of numbers to show any reasonable agreement with reality…

Jon Jewett

“Lance (02:14:41) :
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.
RIP National geographic, I’ll miss you.”
Lance,
Welcome to the club, not only with the NG but with dozens of publications of all sorts. That happened to me with National Public Radio back in 1994 and I started to question most everything I was told by most everyone.
The next question is:
Now that we know this is a lie and we know why they are lying, are they just stupid or are they “evil”?
The second question is:
What other lies have they told us?
Regards,
Steamboat Jack

David Watt (02:25:27) :

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.

The graphs are not easy to read, at least they’re not intuitive.
The first graph’s legend is wrong, the caption is right. What it’s showing is the trend from 1979 to the time along the X-axis. I.e. the 1999 point is showing trend over the years 1979-1999. at 2005, it shows the trend from 1979-2005.
It might have been nice to include shorter time frames, but having the 20 year minimum is a good lead-in the the second graph. Note it starts 2 years earlier. (Augh!) At 1999, the data points are the trend over the previous 20 years and match the 1999 points on the first graph. Subsequent points look at the previous 20 years, so the 2005 points reflect 1985-2005 which emphasizes recent years more than the first graph.

Mike Bryant

Lucia and Anthony,
I really appreciate the way these graphs have been flattened or normalized. It seems that most temperatore graphs have been squeezed left to right and stretched up and down to exaggerate spikes. Maybe since we have been seeing the scare graphs for so long, it would be fair play to flatten them even further. If you did that, I think it would be even closer to what people really feel.

Douglas DC

I say cooling further.Soon too…

PeteB

Can anybody reconcile with this ? This is quite heavily cited in the scientific literature – I would have expected any major flaw to have been raised in the literature
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf
We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.
Giventhe relatively short 16-year time period considered,
it will be difficult to establish the reasons
for this relatively rapid warming, although
there are only a few likely possibilities. The first
candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the
climate system. A second candidate is climate
forcings other than CO2: Although the concentration
of other greenhouse gases has risen
more slowly than assumed in the IPCC scenarios,
an aerosol cooling smaller than expected
is a possible cause of the extra warming. A third
candidate is an underestimation of the climate
sensitivity to CO2 (i.e., model error). The dashed
scenarios shown are for a medium climate sensitivity
of 3°C for a doubling of CO2 concentration,
whereas the gray band surrounding the scenarios
shows the effect of uncertainty in climate sensitivity
spanning a range from 1.7° to 4.2°C.

hareynolds

Lance (02:14:41) said:
RIP National geographic, I’ll miss you.
Personally, I gave up on them a few decades ago when they, along with everybody else in the coated stock four-color full page bleed world (antique publishing talk), threw-out DDT with the bathwater.
In the interest of preserving a select group of high-food-chain avian predators (the Peregrine Falcon was the cause celebre, IIRC), we ENTIRELY BANNED DTT worldwide. Not restricted it’s use in some way (e.g. within 100 meters of homes and schools, or even inside only), but an outright, total, worldwide ban.
“Even” the pesticide companies got on the bandwagon, but nobody at the time seemed to notice that DDT had years, nay decades, before gone off patent, and could be made simply and locally pretty much everywhere (a combination that is REALLY bad for what the economists call “excess rents”)
Meanwhile mosquito-borne diseases sky-rocketed in Africa and elsewhere equatorial, but the white folks (that means me) got to feel good about “saving the Peregrine”.
I consider the WW ban on DDT to be the first “Mob Action” on the environment, that is, an uncontrolled unconsidered irrational public outcry which leads to over-reaction and. not incidentally, corporate profit-taking (in this case, on patent pestidcides which are more expensive and don’t work as well.
We are on the cusp of another episode of Mob Action, but this time BP, XOM and RDS making plans to be in the vanguard of carbon sequestration. As I’ve mentioned before, pumping carbon dioxide into a petroleum reservoir (so called “CO2 flood”) is a tertiary production technique already well established to increase oil production from old fields. It would be irrational for the oil companies NOT to jump on a bandwagon which promises to PAY them to use a technique to increase their profits.

Douglas DC (06:21:40) :
I say cooling further.Soon too…
Could you be more specific. What do you mean by “soon”?

wws

Question: “How many years must the models and reality diverge before it is accepted that the models are wrong?”
Easy answer – until just after cap’n’trade become enshrined in law, and then we can all be told it will be too “disruptive” to change things back, especially when we will need years and years and years and years of study to find out what to do next.
It’s not about the science, anyone who thinks that is missing the boat. The science is inconsequential – it’s all about the money. Whether it’s the governments, or the publications, or the grant getters – it’s all about the money.

Allan M R MacRae (03:09:55) :


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.

Thank you for that… it actually brought tears to my eyes. I really needed a smile this morning. 🙂

John Galt

The climate models don’t show how the climate actually works but how it must work if the run-away greenhouse effect exists.
They started with an hypothesis and built a model to demonstrate it. That’s all fine and can lead to better understanding of the actual climate. But the models must not be confused with the real-world.
Most of the gloom and doom projections are based not on observation but from models and statistical extrapolation. But the doomsayers seem to always forget to have a look outside to see if the models match the real world.
Each year, the models diverge from the observations. Eventually, the models get tweaked and updated. Most people don’t seem to notice that the models were reset. This is not how a scientific study is supposed to be run.

Ray

I’m sure if they ran their models based of the effect of temperature on the concnetration of CO2, this time they would get it right.

BarryW

If you extend the time period using Hadcrut, you get a graph of the 20 yr trends that has a sinusoidal shape with a 60 yr wavelength and with one of the peaks at the end of the twentieth century. Very obvious in the 30 yr trends.
Here’s a plot: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3623/3446920199_52496549cb_b.jpg
If the models don’t show this sort of large structure then they are going to diverge from the observations.

MattB

hareynolds and others… there has never been an outright, total, worldwide ban on DDT. If you can’t even get something as basic as that right is it any wonder you don’t get AGW.
Have you ever thought of doing some independent research rather than just picking up lies from blogs that suit your views?

Graeme Rodaughan (23:28:42) :
I think there is an error in your line:
“6] Increased export of manufacturing to other countries (i.e China).”
It should be read like this:
6] Increased IMPORT of manufacturing FROM OTHER countries (i.e China).
Reasons:
1.Decreased production due to your poits 1 to 5
2.Decreased production of crops due to increased cold in winter time.
3.Decreased production of crops and cattle due to great droughts in wide reagions of the USA.

MattB

How come nearly every post has ignored the blog’s conclusion:
“is this the beginning of a new trend, or just short term climatic noise? Only time will tell us for certain.”
If this was a statistically relevant diversion do you honestly think it would not be stated pretty clearly, rather than pondering if it means anything?

MattB

Oh yeah – in my post about DDT… I was not referring to WUWT when I said “picking up lies from blogs”… sorry if it reads as a dig at this blog.

neill

awe-inspiring video! Kind of feel like we’re that lady on stage BEFORE the song.
OT, FYI:
SCIENCE MEETING
California’s leading experts on the potential effects of climate change on
the state will gather at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego next
week to discuss recently released findings and gather feedback from the public.
The Science Meeting will take place:
APRIL 20, 2009
9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Robert Paine Scripps Forum for Science
8610 Kennel Way (formerly Discovery Way) La Jolla, California
There will be a no-host lunch at noon.
The state Climate Action Team (CAT) draft assessment report, released on April
1, uses updated, comprehensive scientific research to outline environmental and
societal climate impacts. Members of the science team who conducted the
assessment will deliver presentations and the public will have the opportunity
to ask questions or give comments on the presentations. The feedback will be
used to guide future CAT Research Group actions.
Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting are asked to RSVP to ensure
that adequateparking, transportation and accommodations are available. (See
link below).
Parking and campus loop shuttle service is available at Birch Aquarium at
Scripps, 2300 Expedition Way, La Jolla. The campus shuttle from the aquarium to
the Scripps Oceanography Director’s Office runs every 15 minutes. Shuttle
space is limited. Limited street parking on La Jolla Shores Drive is also
available.
Hope some from SoCal can make it as well.

Re: Frank K. (05:29:12) :
“In my opinion, the credibility of many climate models will be close to zero because the code developers (in particular the NASA GISS Model E) do a horrible job documenting and validating their codes (there are some exceptions). ”
This is a sore point with me as well, since I have some background in programming.
On RealClimate.org, Gavin Schmidt argues against industry standard practices of source code management, configuration management, and disclosure of code and data. Here’s a salient quote from Schmidt in a response to comment 89 in the post On Replication:

“My working directories are always a mess – full of dead ends, things that turned out to be irrelevent or that never made it into the paper, or are part of further ongoing projects. Some elements (such a one line unix processing) aren’t written down anywhere. Extracting exactly the part that corresponds to a single paper and documenting it so that it is clear what your conventions are (often unstated) is non-trivial. – gavin]”

If this isn’t a reason to use source code control, documentation and configuration management, I don’t know what is.

SteveSadlov

Some things are just very obvious. The overall set of leading indicators is that we are in a cold period. The only questions are how far down, and for how long?

Tim Clark

Anthony:
I know this is OT from this thread and is political, but there isn’t really a good thread for it and it may interest your readers what is currently happening in Washington. If the link works, it opens a document mostly based on cap and trade legislative options.
NACD Submits Climate Document
The U.S. House Agriculture Committee recently distributed a questionnaire on climate legislation and related policy issues to more than 400 groups, including NACD. The questionnaire explored policy options for potential climate legislation. The NACD Legislative Committee completed the Association’s responses based on policy set by the NACD Board of Directors, and submitted the document to the Committee on Friday, April 10, 2009. To view a copy of the document, please click:
http://nacdnet.org/policy/naturalresources/energy/climate_legislation_questionnaire.pdf
The next steps of the House Agriculture Committee are not clear: the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which holds primary jurisdiction over climate policy, has released draft legislation and is expected to review and pass legislation by Memorial Day.

Chilling stuff!

CodeTech

Regarding DDT:

And the 1972 ban in the United States led to an effective worldwide ban, as countries dependent on U.S.-funded aid agencies curtailed their DDT use to comply with those agencies’ demands.

That is the reality. Maybe not an outright legal worldwide ban, but since strongarm tactics were used to stop its use, what is the difference?
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0904/0904ddt.htm

Mark T

MattB (07:41:21) :
If this was a statistically relevant diversion do you honestly think it would not be stated pretty clearly, rather than pondering if it means anything?

You ponder if it means anything because you don’t know what conclusion to draw without more information, but still find it interesting, correct? What exactly is wrong with that? The simple fact that it is happening calls into question the predictive power of the models in the first place, so it is clearly worth mentioning on that basis alone.
Mark

George Bruce

“The next question is:
Now that we know this is a lie and we know why they are lying, are they just stupid or are they “evil”?”
“The second question is:
What other lies have they told us?”
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
Jack: The complete answer to both questions is “yes.”