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.
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.
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…
“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) :
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.
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.
I say cooling further.Soon too…
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.
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”?
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. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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!
Regarding DDT:
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
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
“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.”