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.
Aron (12:33:02) :
The public is being sold a message that if we control C02 we control climate change. It is a dangerous message. The BBC story correctly confronts the very real paleo drought cycles- yet only cautions against C02. It is time for us to look at our infrastructure and its ability to withstand known weather/climate variations-drought return does not require global warming, a major hurricane striking NYC does not require global warming etc. Some of our infrastructure needs to be hardened whether or not we agree with climate models. This important question is unfortunately being lost in the heat of the “debate.”
SteveSadlov
I think you’re ignoring the fact that economic forecasts are historically much worse than even climate forecasts. And the current economic crisis is only the latest example of such abject failure. The failure comes by projecting the future as if it would be linearly the similar to today, but it won’t be. Regarding the aging population, the Japanese who are already in the middle of this problem are already using personal robots that will in the future take over vast amounts of menial tasks, freeing up human labour for other areas. Meanwhile in the transition to mass robotry, nobody is currently short of cheap immigrant labour. And what about the effect of the internet, including teleworking and information gathering. Whole classes of work that used to take hours, days, weeks or even years is either rendered unnecessary or is far quicker. Was that predicted? And lets not forget that when you communicate better there is a larger available market. 50% of Nokias business right now is in Africa. And what do Africans want? Everything we have! And what do they have to sell? Huge amounts of those supposedly scarce raw materials! (recyclable of course). I’m not into misplaced optimism but perceived future problems often turn out to be just new opportunities for marketable solutions.
Economists should finally learn some humility now and just shut the heck up. Clearly they can chronicle events with 100% hindsight but for forecasts you’d better with a blindfold and a dartboard. Well ok they won’t ever shut up, but you really shouldn’t listen to them any more: Their simplistic linear theories are obviously just pure rubbish.
As for baby boomers Steve. Expect them to head for Mexico.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030109dnintsellingsouth.3beb5c2.html
JamesG (13:30:43) :
Clearly they can chronicle events with 100% hindsight but for forecasts you’d better with a blindfold and a dartboard.
It would seem to me the Keynesians are using a blindfold and a dartboard for their hindcasts, too. Or simply rewriting what happened.
Mark
“”” Mark T (12:04:38) :
George E. Smith (11:49:03) :
because I’m absolutely sure that the raw data that goes into them is pure garbage.
I don’t disagree.
Until those who make the experimental observations start complying with the Nyquist sampling criterion; that governs ALL sampled data systems; these modesl will always predict nonsense.
I disagree. Actually, it all depends. What are the highest frequencies present in our climate? Most likely the day/night cycle is the highest, or at least, the highest that has any real impact. There may be higher frequencies, but I’ve never seen any discussion that indicates they have significance, which means they won’t cause problems if they get aliased. That said, at what time resolution do GCMs run?
Please wake me up when ANY of these GCMs, run backwards, correctly predicts the LIA and the MWP.
Given that they are likely highly non-linear, this can’t happen, either. An unfortunate consequence of non-linearity, indeed.
Mark “””
Surely you jest Mark ? From all the postings I have seen here; GISStemp inputs are based on daily max/min readings of what; Anomalies; or temperatures ? Either way, a min/max can only be a suitable sample if the signal is a pure sinusoid, or some other time symmetrical waveform; which is most unlikely. Clearly the morning heat up is faster than the evening coolbdown so there is no way that the daily cycle is time symmetric. So it has to have at least a second harmonic component; which means that two samples per day is already a Nyquist violation by a factor of two which is all it takes to give aliassing errors of the zero frequency or average of the signal.
Even at 4 times per day; one is forced to conclude that the effect of clouds cannot be included; so already there is a gross departure from reality.
So already we have a failure in temporal space.
There”s that little matter of spatial sampling. Given that 73% of the earth surface is ocean; just think of the sampling failure there.
The Arctic (north of +60) has somewhere in the 70-80 surface sampling locations.
Don’t even mention Antarctica; as the Steig paper demonstrates; that place is a textbook case of sampling genius; was it 12 stations or some similar number that were used to concoct his analysis ?
Just as wild guess, I would guess that the spatial undersampling would be by 4-5 orders of magnitude at the minimum.
I just have to look at the 6:00 PM weather report for the SF Bay area, to see how high the spatial frequencies can get.
Nyquist does not require uniform sampling; which is the minimum sample solution; but the maximum sample spacing that occurs in a non uniform sampling still has to conform to the highest signal frequency. Maybe its six orders of magnitude undersampling.
In any case; even a correct sampling regimen, to give a believable average is of little value, since the thermal processes that determine the energy balance of the planet are non linear functions of local temperatures; are terrain dependent; and in the case of radiative transfer are at least fourth power of temperature.
When it comes then to the effect of GHGs such as CO2, then it is a fifth power function of temperature.
The central limit theorem and other prestidigitations can’t buy you a reprieve from Nyquist violations.
But climate “Scientists” are only too happy to drill a handfull of ice cores in antarctica and/or Greenland, and then declare the results pertinent to the entire planet.
They need to watch more horse operas on TV, to watch the wheels go backwards, as the hero rides to rescue the damsel in distress on the runaway wagon.
By the way; the average of the Nth power of any cyclic function, is always greater than the average of the function; so taking the 4th power of some fictional earth average temperature, to compute the radiative balance always underestimates the true cooling that is occurring (due to radiation).
George
Populaton explosion. Perdictions vs reality
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8000402.stm
Every prediction about population size since the 50s has in turned out in medium and long terms to be wrong.
I should have said the Nth root of the average of the Nth power of any cyclic function, is always greater than the average of the function; but then you already knew I meant that; Right ?
George
The BBC article clearly shows that parts of Africa experienced drought during the Little Ice Age which reversed as temperatures rose back up to their Holocene average. Global warming or climate change since 1750 according to the article has seen an increase in precipitation and rainfall which has increased the health of Africa’s tropics. How then within the same context does Richard Black or anyone else gather that, pay attention to the dramatic wording, mega-drought will occur?
It reads like it comes from the same spinmasters who sold the Maldives-is-drowning story in order to get its politicians on board the gravy train. Now they want Africans to stop using their source of energy, live off high interest loans from the World Bank and IMF, and accept welfare cheques from developed countries. I consider that as saying Africa should sit at the back of the bus in order to save the white man’s wealth….I’m sorry…I meant planet.
Sorry Charles; just trying to keep a smile on your face; in view of the dismal predictions of scientifically dismal substitutes for observations.
George; who likes to laugh too !
I suspect those “models” could perfectly run in an old commodore computer…
You have to love that Monckton. His letter to Congress and the president, linked in the comments above, is a highly recommended read. If only we could find a way to insure that they all read it, though that would probably entail strapping them all in chairs and stapling their eyelids to their foreheads until they were done. Alas, given Obama’s continuing reputation for “brilliance”, which strongly indicates that possessing a room temperature IQ puts you 2-3 sigma above the mean inside the Beltway, most of them wouldn’t be able to understand it, even if they had any inclination to actually consider the evidence before sending us all to carbon phobia induced Hell, which it is fairly obvious they do not. I’d say the probability that Algore will respond to Monckton’s challenge and agree to a public debate can now officially and permanently be posted at negative infinity.
Tom P (08:55:55) :
Thanks, not sure I understand what you meant by basis but here’s what I did.
Data was Hadcrut3.
Plot was done using R and the lm function, “straight with no chaser” (ordinary least squares linear fit). 240 or 360 contiguous months were used in the fit respectively. The data set was then moved forward by one month using the same number of months and another calculation made. The trend was plotted using the last month of the set as the plot point (so the trend at each month comprises the trend for the previous 240 or 360 month period). Here’s another plot I did with 10 and 50 year trends
Could the twenty year cycle actually be 22 years, just twice an 11 year solar cycle?
Aron:
I consider that as saying Africa should sit at the back of the bus in order to save the white man’s wealth….I’m sorry…I meant planet.
History always laughs at those wishful thinking. Remember that after the II world war a certain general was asking permission to wipe off the communist menace from China…Now China is the first buyer of US debt..
As in the latino song says “vueltas que da la vida” (life turns around ya know)
I’ve just finished the Monckton letter. Great stuff!
In Scots Law I think he woud be charged with “Assault to their severe injury in that he did kick and punch them 50 times about their person to risk of their life”.
The “risk of their life” bit is probably wishful thinking; they’ll probably resurrect themselves like Terminator!
Seriously, this is devastating stuff and sooner or later the politicos are going to realise the extent to which they have been taken for a ride. This might just be the start!
To Aron’s (13:59:02) :
Populaton explosion. Perdictions vs reality.
Not to inject any bodily jokes in rather serious discussion, but…
The misspelled word “perdiction” sounds very much like a Russian word that describes an act of flatulence, i.e. farting. I believe that it turned out to be very appropriate in the context it was used:
BBC’s “perdictions” vs reality
I seem to recall from science class, that an experiment is supposed to be documented. When an experiment is finished, the results are reviewed as is the methodology and the data.
_ Results don’t match predicted outcome? – Your hypothesis is likely wrong (assuming no other problems with the experiment).
_ Methodology is poor? – Results are invalid.
_ Data is bad? – Results are invalid.
_ Mistakes in calculating results? – Results are invalid.
Contrast this with the computer climate models.
_ How can the models be verified if the results can’t even be considered a prediction?
_ How can data be verified if it’s not published?
_ How can mistakes in calculations be confirmed if complete, working source code isn’t published?
>2005 El Nino…
“timetochooseagain” 2005 was not an El Nino – it was a neutral year. Indeed, if anything it was influenced more by the weak La Nina of 2004 which makes it more remarkable as a record hot year.
the misspelled word “perdiction” sounds very much like a Russian word that describes an act of flatulence
In South and Central Asia it is ‘pad’ (sounds like pud). Derives from padam meaning to step or to drop an object on the ground. Related to Italian piede, English pedestrian, etc. In this case, the object touching the ground is poop.
In the case of projecting global warming and population explosions, perdiction should replace prediction. Good observation!
Allan M R MacRae (03:09:55) :
Allan, that video was stunning. Thank you.
BarryW (07:26:06) :
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
This looks like what I expected, every thirty or forty years we swap between worrying about freezing and worrying about boiling. How exactly do you figure the trends? How did you do trends at the end points?
At the end of the BBC article on population, an alarmist comment is left by a reader who avoids the facts that birth and death rates have been dropping worldwide for some time. This is the reader’s comment “Something clearly must be done to stem that growth if we’re to avoid future environmental problems and resource shortages.”
It shows you the totalitarian thinking that lies in the minds of these save the world types (which normally means “Save me from coloured people, please! I don’t want them to be wealthy and free! All the resources must belong to me only!!”
He wants something radical to be done to stem population growth. Well, that has been done before. The Eugenics movement sought to eliminate the weak from the gene pool and promote genes which matched certain defined ethno-types so that the planet’s resources would not be “wasted” on inferior members of the human species.
The Nazis sought to sterilise ethnic groups who they felt were physically, mentally and spiritually inferior so that resources would only be for people they deemed of Aryan stock (a fictional ethnic group). The Holocaust of Jews and gypsies was an example of population growth control driven by eugenics and resource allocation.
In China they enforced a one child per family law that caused many female fetuses to be aborted because males were preferred. Female babies were also killed. In some cases when a couple had more than one child, law enforcers would forcibly take babies away from mothers or kill babies to have their organs sold. This again was all done in the name of allocating resources under a model of sustainable development. Not only did the one child per family policy failed but so did the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
Free market policies increased China’s life expectancy, reduced death rates, reduced infant mortality and lowered birth rates despite a relaxing of the one child per family law. At this rate it is highly likely China’s population will drop to below a billion by the middle of the century and so will India’s.
Picking up on errors in code, NASA’s code used to control the flight operations of the Shuttle used to have 1 error per thousand lines of code.
After 25 years and 260 permanent software staff this has dropped to a mere 1 error per 25000 lines.
Do you think climate modelers have this many man-hours applied to their code? I think not. Enough said.
One could easily imagine a similar graph with the plots instead being the public’s willingness to believe in the AGW scam as promulgated by Al Gore, and what the Mainstream Media is reporting. I would expect the same inflection point in about 2006 when folks gradually started waking up to the real science.
BarryW,
Thanks – that’s just the information I was after.
“Could the twenty year cycle actually be 22 years, just twice an 11 year solar cycle?”
The recent solar cycle has been much nearer to 20 years, and I think a lot of the signal energy at this period will be injected into a 20-year trend window. The divergence of the models from the data could partly be due to a failure to predict and include the depth and length of the current solar minimum into the GCMs (fig. 1), compounded by an unfortunate choice of trend window length in the comparison with the temperature data (fig. 2).
For those just getting up to speed on the global warming debate, there is no better place to start than with Christopher Monckton’s report to Congress: click
In the report, Viscount Monckton thoroughly demolishes every claim made by the global warming contingent. Highly recommended! In fact, everyone who reads the report will find new reasons to be skeptical of the climate alarmist argument.