The December 2009 and year 2009 University of Alabama at Huntsville lower tropospheric MSU temperature data is available. Thanks to Phillip Gentry and John Christy for alerting us to these figures]. I have several comments following the figures.
This data shows why the focus needs to be on the regional scale and that a global average is not of much use in describing weather that all of us experience.
The news media seem to continue to avoid this perspective. For example, in the article Snow, ice and the bigger picture
excerpts read
“Rather than seeking vindication or catastrophe in this cold snap, now is a good time to remind ourselves that weather, like death and taxes, will always be with us. Spectacular regional swings in temperature and precipitation, sometimes lasting for months, often emerge from the natural jostlings of atmosphere and ocean. By themselves, none of these prove or disprove a human role in climate change.”
“What’s different now is that climate change is shifting the odds towards record-hot summers and away from record-cold winters. The latter aren’t impossible; they’re just harder to get, like scoring a straight flush on one trip to Vegas and a royal flush the next.”
“If you’re craving a scapegoat for this winter, consider the Arctic oscillation. The AO is a measure of north-south differences in air pressure between the northern midlatitudes and polar regions. When the AO is positive, pressures are unusually high to the south and low to the north. This helps shuttle weather systems quickly across the Atlantic, often bringing warm, wet conditions to Europe. In the past month, however, the AO has dipped to astoundingly low levels – among the lowest observed in the past 60 years. This has gummed up the hemisphere’s usual west-to-east flow with huge “blocking highs” that route frigid air southward.”
“Handy as it is, the AO describes more than it explains. Forecasters still don’t know exactly what sends the AO into one mode or the other, just as the birth of an El Niño is easier to spot than to predict.”
See also the post at Dot Earth by Andy Revkin titled Cold Arctic Pressure Pattern Nearly Off Chart
The obvious response to these claims is that if we cannot predict weather features such as the Arctic oscillation or an El Niño under current climate, how can anyone credibly claim we have predictive skill decades into the future from both natural and human caused climate forcings? The short answer is that they cannot.
The article concludes with the text
“If this winter tells us anything, it’s that we’ll have to remain on guard for familiar weather risks as well as the evolving ones brought by climate change.”
This admission implicitly recognizes the focus on the reduction of vulnerability that we wrote about in our paper
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union.
The media, policymakers and others should recognize this evidence of our incomplete understanding of the climate system. We will continue to have surprises such as we have seen this winter.
>> Tom P (09:39:15) :
With the warming of the previous century, that makes about 2.5 C in all. That’s a third of the warming associated with the temperature cycles of the ice ages, so hardly insignificant. Of course this assumes no acceleration in the warming rate. <<
2.5 degrees of warming is insignificant compared to the daily temperature range on all but isolated tropical islands.
And it also assumes that the observed warming 1990-2009 is not the rising and top section of a sinusoid, which fits the historical ups and downs much better than either a straight line or a rising line.
Golly! I’ve been reading over at RealClimate. Apparently I’m supposed to still be freaking out. A half a degree variance of global temperature over a 35-year span! Surely there’s no way that could be natural.
Tom_R (11:05:02) :
“2.5 degrees of warming is insignificant compared to the daily temperature range on all but isolated tropical islands.”
Yes, 8 C is a typical daily variation in temperature. This happens to be the same size as the temperature variations seen during ice-age cycles. However, we fortunately don’t get icesheets appearing and disappearing or sea levels rising and falling by 100 m each day!
You’ve got the timescales of the Earth’s response very confused if you don’t think there’s anything to worry about here.
Smokey (04:56:58) : Tenuc (02:58:30) :
“…only a handful”
“They colluded to try hide the raw individual thermometer & other proxy data, they tried to avoid FOI requests, they tried to subvert the peer review process and colluded with the MSM…”
Dudes, if you had bothered to actually click on the link, you would have noticed that there are over 2000 scientists with statistics of cites and papers on the list. I just spotted you the top 2-1/2 percent. 13 are from the University of East Anglia(CRU). 37 from Hadley, 14 from GISS. ~620 were IPCC authors. Did the other 1400 scientists deliberately falsify data in order to get published, or are they just too stupid to know that the” cabal” is lying? Name someone from either my list or the larger linked list who you think is actually part of the cabal, and give us a link.
Since I’m not afraid of using real names, mine or others, I’ll help you get started: according to the stolen email file http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=498&filename=1109021312.txt, Phil Jones said “Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !” (In the same circumstances, I might have said “these morons pestering me for data couldn’t pour FOIA from a boot – don’t tell them instructions are printed on the bottom!” – YMMV)
One down, #28 on the list, still 2000+ to go. Next down, #29 Gerald A Meehl; not at GISS, UEA, or Hadley, but published in IPCC AR4. Do You think he is part of the cabal, just falsifying data to get published, or just too stupid to know the difference?
Vukcevic (02:49:51) “[…] global magnetic anomaly, sweeps are in 10 degree steps at 10 years intervals. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm “
I look forward to seeing the time-series of spatial-maps when you have it ready. I would suggest normalization based on the all-time global minimum & maximum to ensure a static color-scheme. If there is drift in the time-series, you may need to plot the first derivative (smoothed over a dominant temporal mode if there are high-frequency oscillations in the differences).
ryancmc:
Mark your second comment pretty much hits on exactly what I was talking about.
Alright. Well I can tell that you weren’t trying to mislead, but I think what you said about “nobody uses the scientific method anymore” is a misstatement. Perhaps you were misinformed by your teachers. It is being used by many fields of research to the best that it can be applied. Like I said, if they don’t have a control, it’s likely they incorporate that uncertainty into the error, so they would be compensating for not having it. That to me still fits within the parameters of the scientific method. My guess is the same is done in cases where perfect repeatability is difficult or impossible.
I had the thought after I wrote my comment that astronomers have searched for and found phenomena in the Universe that they can use as a kind of “control”. For example neutron stars have a very regular rotation cycle and they put out a consistent “on-off” signal. I’ve also heard that when astronomers are observing a galaxy that supernovae occur on a regular basis that can be predicted. And last I checked, scientists still consider the speed of light to be constant. So in terms of checking their results about time against a “control”, they have those things.
As I heard physicist Michio Kaku say recently, “Science is done by the seat of your pants.”
I think what the more critical comments on here have been saying is that the sharing of all data (including code and data for models), and the inclusion of all testable theories are important to the scientific method, as well as the independent verification of results, including making models and results available to mathematicians/statisticians who can do a “sanity check” on the results.
ryancmc:
A word about how science is taught in public schools and such. I don’t know your background. Maybe you had it better than this, but I’ve found by looking back at how I was taught science in the public schools that I wasn’t getting the full sense of what science really was. You probably already know most of this (or all), but in real science you come up with your own hypotheses, you design your own experiments, and you make your best guess at what the error is. The latter is still a big question for me. I asked a scientist about this recently and the answer I got suggests that error is determined by statistical/probabilistic methods. When I had science classes in school the error was determined (I even recall this in undergrad physics) by taking our results and comparing them against a model that was already determined to be very good. But in real science that’s not how it’s done, because you’re venturing into new territory to begin with. What do you have to compare against, unless you’re researching something that’s a “one off” from something that’s already done (which I hear is done a lot these days)? And even then, you’d have to consider that there may have been flaws in research that your own is close to. You just have to think about the likelihood that you’ve missed something.
Re: the comments about who’s funding whom, etc.
This is really trivia when it comes down to it. It’s good to be conscious of the funding sources on the one hand, because that can tell you why there’s so much “noise” in the discourse about climate, but it doesn’t answer the question of “what’s happening with climate?” That my friends comes down to the data, and all that has been discussed about the scientific method. I personally don’t care if a scientist was funded by the government or an oil company. What I do care about is if the scientific method is allowed to progress (and we don’t have to get tangled in the weeds about whether it follows a strict prescription, so long as the basic principles are applied, of falsifiable theory, observation, determination of error, and a complete reporting of methods and results for independent review) so that research can be checked and something closer to the truth can be found. You would think this is like “Well duh!”, but in the field of climate research, at least when it comes to looking at the causes of climate change (not its effects), this process has been royally messed with by the CRU crew. I just wish those in the field would be honest about that so that the process of science can move forward.
Tom P
I am now assuming that we finally agree on the following graph:
http://users.vianet.ca/paulak2r/AGW/ipcc_ar4_ts-26.JPG
As to your strawman argument, the IPCC is not worried (yet) about the 95% confidence limits as you say.
What worries them is the recent trend that shows at best a lack of warming. Their models do not include a forcing that can prevent the expected warming for four or more years save large volcanic eruptions. There have been no large volcanic eruptions since 1991.
John M Reynolds
jmrSudbury (17:15:48) :
HadCRUT shows three years of falling temperatures followed by last year’s rapidly rising temperatures. Three-year declines are commonly seen in model runs under all the emissions scenarios, see for example fig 10.5 in IPCC AR4. Hence the last few years of HadCRUT temperatures are quite consistent with the natural variability that is incorporated into the models.
@ur momisugly Mark Miller (15:26:52) :
Mark you misquoted me. You added the word ‘anymore’ which actually changes the meaning of my statement quite a bit.
Other than that I agree with pretty much everything you said.
My take on it is that we haven’t actually found and wrongdoing from the scientists involved in climategate, just some petty behavior.
They need to be 100% transparent, as do all scientists. In fact I think that would have been a much better strategy for presenting their side of the story. Instead they tried to hide the data that could be cherry picked and taken out of context to spread misinformation.
So, in general the scientists were kind of douchy. What I haven’t seen though, is actual falsified data, or how climategate somehow discredits all of the other research from other independent organizations.
It’s a very interesting subject though, I still have a lot to learn.
Tom P
Look again. The temperatures have been, at best, flat since 2002. The year 2008 was a La Nina, so it should be lower than the others. As for 2009, it was a El Nino year, so it should be higher. The trend for the past several years has not been modelled. You may be correct that 3 year declines are possible with some combination of the IPCC’s chosen forcings. Six years without warming is not.
John M Reynolds
jmrSudbury (10:00:50) :
“The temperatures have been, at best, flat since 2002. The year 2008 was a La Nina, so it should be lower than the others. As for 2009, it was a El Nino year, so it should be higher. The trend for the past several years has not been modelled.”
The IPCC projections are not designed to predict ENSO events, but to show the longer term trends under various forcing scenarios. They are not expected to follow every squiggle in the temperature.
“You may be correct that 3 year declines are possible with some combination of the IPCC’s chosen forcings. Six years without warming is not.”
Did you have a look at fig 10.5 in IPCC AR4? The models show periods of more than a decade without warming.
Archimedes: “Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough, and I will move the Earth.”
Smokey: “Give me ‘various forcing scenarios’ for longer term trends, and even I will make a good guess.”
Brian Dodge (12:39:43),
As always, you turn the Scientific Method on its head, and call it science. But it’s not. The CAGW hypothesis – which specifically claims that a rise in human-emitted CO2 will cause runaway global warming – is the central pillar of that new and repeatedly falsified hypothesis.
In order to succeed, CO2=CAGW must falsify, or explain reality better, than the long-accepted theory of natural climate variability. It fails, because it can not make accurate or reliable predictions.
Only by giving numerous different “projections” can a random one of them even approach reality. That is the reason the IPCC shies away from predictions, calling its assumptions “projections.”
Predictions, unlike projections, must be validated. The CAGW hypothesis is literally invalid. It doesn’t explain reality, and it can not make accurate predictions.
Based primarily on computer models, and on circular studies fueled by grant money, which cite similar studies that cite others, which in turn cite the originals in self-reinforcing circular appeals to authority, the CO2=CAGW hypothesis can not falsify the theory of natural climate variability – which shows that the current climate is well within its long term natural variability parameters.
Nothing unusual is happening regarding global temperatures. Nothing. In fact, the current climate is extremely benign, and even planet Earth laughs at the rent-seeking hubris of the ethics-challenged AGW crowd, by cooling as CO2 rises. Notify us when the global temperature goes outside of its historical parameters.
The papers cited have one recurring theme: they all rely on the argumentum ad ignorantiam: the fallacy of assuming that something is true, simply because it hasn’t been proven false.
As Einstein pointed out in his retort to 100 scientists who signed an open letter claiming his theory of relativity was wrong: ”To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
Climatologist Roy Spencer points out: “No one has falsified the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” That is what the Scientific Method says must be falsified. Your citations only have the effect of trying to prove a negative. They have not falsified the theory that what is being observed is anything except natural climate variability.
By turning the Scientific Method upside down, and demanding that their own ‘studies’ must be falsified, rather than the prevailing theory of natural climate variability, the alarmist crowd has made an unscientific argument. It isn’t based on the Scientific Method, it is only rhetoric.
Trumping your relatively small list, there are currently more than thirty thousand signers – including more than 9,000 PhD’s – all with degrees in the hard sciences, who have downloaded, printed [no emails accepted], signed and mailed in the following statement:
How have we arrived at this juncture, in which the long-accepted Scientific Method is disregarded, or even more ridiculous, the false claims that the Scientific Method has not been central to the enormous progress in health and living standards? The answer is that money and status have perverted science. The leaked emails show corrupted scientists discussing how they fabricated temperature data in wholesale lots in order to promote their grant funding alarmism.
To understand how we have arrived at this point, a little history of the IPCC is very helpful: click. Keep in mind that the usual ad hominem response means that is all the alarmist contingent has to offer.
Tom P
Yes, I did look at fig 10.5. It is irrelevant without knowing the causes of the cooling periods. What matters is what is causing THIS lack of warming period.
The ENSO events like La Nina and El Nino are called natural variation and don’t last much more than a year and a half on their own. There is no single natural variation acknowledged by the IPCC that can cause 6 years or more of no warming that is happening now. There was no large volcanic eruption, and I have not seen any data showing a sudden huge surge in sulpher emissions. This negative forcing is not in their models. What is causing the current lack of warming? That is the question.
John M Reynolds
Smokey (12:34:02) :
Since you can’t answer my challenge and actually name any scientist who committed fraud, but want to move the goal posts to another area, I’ll play along.
You say “In order to succeed, CO2=CAGW must falsify, or explain reality better, than the long-accepted theory of natural climate variability. It fails, because it can not make accurate or reliable predictions.” By all means. let us begin to “explain reality”
Absent a greenhouse effect, thebalance between incoming solar radiation and outbound (greybody) thermal radiation would result in an earth average temperature much lower, ~245 K, than it is, ~288 K. (Fourier 1820)
CO2 and water vapor, being a polyatomic gases, absorb infrared radiation. (Tyndall 1850)
Increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere will:
1. Raise the average temperature.(even though the sun is getting slightly dimmer – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/offset:-1366/mean:10/scale:0.5/plot/hadcrut3vnh/mean:30/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.008/offset:-2.6)
2. Because of the difference in albedo between water and land, the difference will be larger in the Northern hemisphere.(http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page29.htm)
3. Because of albedo feedbackas the ice melts, warming will be greater at the pole(http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2008.jpg) and higher altitudes(http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/img/5-9.jpg)
4. Because the relative humidity will stay the same, but absolute humidity will increase with rising temperatures, nighttime temperatures will increase more than daytime temperatures.(http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp)
[predicted by Arrhenius in 1896 with a greatly simplified and therefore inaccurate, but generally correct model calculated by hand.
The links are to observations that “validate” his predictions; although inaccurate, e.g.”doubling CO2 will cause temperatures to increase between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees C” is not the same as wrong-“CO2 does not cause global warming”]
What “prevailing theory of natural climate variability” accounts for the collapse of ice sheets 6-11 thousand years old, that somehow managed to survived the Medieval European Warm Period? A recent post on RealClimate posited “The oceans are potentially free to both cool and warm as they like and take the global temperatures along with them” but I think that a theory requiring the oceans have a mind of their own violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
How can the “…the observed temperature changes” of increasing temperatures, causing loss of Summer ice in areas that have been permanently covered for many millenia, be”… a consequence of natural variability” such as the periodic ups and downs of ENSO, PDO, NAO,or other observed cooling forcings such as Milankovic cycles or the decline in TSI and increase in GCR?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:10/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vnh/mean:30/from:1900/offset:0.4/plot/sidc-ssn/scale:0.002/mean:10/from:1900
“Trumping your relatively small list, there are currently more than thirty thousand signers – including more than 9,000 PhD’s – all with degrees in the hard sciences…”
I’ll see your list of doctors, lawyers, economists, and if memory serves me correctly, a Spice Girl or two and some fictitious characters, and raise you with
the national science academies-
* of Australia,
* of Belgium,
* of Brazil,
* of Cameroon,
* Royal Society of Canada,
* of the Caribbean,
* of China,
* Institut de France,
* of Ghana,
* Leopoldina of Germany,
* of Indonesia,
* of Ireland,
* Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
* of India,
* of Japan,
* of Kenya,
* of Madagascar,
* of Malaysia,
* of Mexico,
* of Nigeria,
* Royal Society of New Zealand,
* Russian Academy of Sciences,
* of Senegal,
* of South Africa,
* of Sudan,
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
* of Tanzania,
* of Uganda,
* The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
* of the United States,
* of Zambia,
* and of Zimbabwe.
plus
American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, European Science Foundation, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, American Geophysical Union, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, American Meteorological Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), World Meteorological Organization, American Quaternary Association, International Union for Quaternary Research, American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, American Society for Microbiology, Australian Coral Reef Society, Institute of Biology (UK), Society of American Foresters, The Wildlife Society (international), World Federation of Public Health Associations, and World Health Organization. The scientists in these organizations support the conclusions of the IPCC, are already seeing the adverse effects of global warming in many disciplines, and expect them to get worse. In 2007, even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists changed their policy statement which rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, because the “…statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.”
By “usual ad hominem response” do you mean “corrupted scientists”, “alarmist crowd”, http://ubama.org/algore_believe.jpg, “Meehl is an idiot”???
jmrSudbury (05:10:45) :
“I did look at fig 10.5. It is irrelevant without knowing the causes of the cooling periods.”
It is very relevant. The IPCC models incorporate both forcings and natural variability and show that extended periods of cooling are possible even when there is a long-term warming trend. This contradicts your claim that such models cannot explain a few years’ flat temperatures.
“What matters is what is causing THIS lack of warming period.”
As to why a continuous forcing might result in the plateau in temperatures seen since 2002, I would suggest atmosphere-ocean coupling and the much greater heat storage capacity of the the oceans might be relevant here.
“What is causing the current lack of warming?”
Currently we’re very much warming! November was a record warm month as measured by UAH and January is heading in the same direction. It looks like we might be about to see a very large amount of stored energy released from the oceans this year. Have a look at the similarity between the latest RSS anomaly map and December 1997:
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1599/rssdec20091997.png
jmrSudbury (05:10:45) :
“There is no single natural variation acknowledged by the IPCC that can cause 6 years or more of no warming that is happening now.”
I think you are conflating “acknowledged” with “identified” or “explained”. Clearly the models can’t include unknown mechanisms, and with the known mechanisms that are included, they create 10+ years of cooling in some runs. It is also known that although the models do produce behaviors like ENSO, they don’t accurately capture the timing and magnitude of events like the ’98 spike. The 95% confidence levels of the models cover most, but not all, of the observed temperature excursions from the mean trend; they still do a pretty good job of approximating the upward noisy trajectory of temperature. see http://www.imagenerd.com/show.php?_img=ipccgistemp-a47CE.jpg .
The biggest science question right now is can we do better parameterization of cloud behavior, or will it require models with much denser (cloud size) grid cells and better understanding of the physical processes driving cloud formation. Lindzen and Choi (GRL2009) suggests that the parameterization should produce less positive water vapor feedback because of more clouds, but Trenberth, Fasullo, O’Dell and Wong(GRL2010) note that LC09 analysis is sensitive to chosen endpoints, and a moth or two change produces a more positive feedback. Forster & Gregory (JC2006) , in a similar analysis which was not limited to the tropics like LC09, also produced more positive water vapor-cloud feedbacks. Chung, Yeomans and Soden(AGU: in press) compare satellite radiation measurements with the models and find that the current models accurately reflect the overall interaction of water vapor-cloud feedbacks and temperature forcing even though there are large intermodel and spatiotemporal variations.
The biggest policy question is, over the next 25 years, do we invest trillions to push the economy towards employing more people building windmills, solar cells, concentrating solar thermal powerplants, geothermal, and wave/tidal power plants,(not “destroying the economy”) based on what we know about the science, or do we continue BAU, ” invest” trillons in fossil fuel profits(exxon-$40bnX25yr=1trillion, just one company), betting that some as yet unsubstantiated GCR/solar/cloud iris feedback will magically appear to bring back the glaciers, arctic sea ice, ice shelves, 500+ cubic kilometers per year of the Greenland ice sheet, and lower the sea level?
Brian Dodge (07:14:59) :
“Since you can’t answer my challenge and actually name any scientist who committed fraud…”
I didn’t think anyone could be serious who actually believes there is no fraud exposed in climategate. But since you’re still demanding an example, one that occurs to me is the ongoing fraud charge filed by Dr Doug Keenan against Wei-Chyung Wang. In their emails, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley and others were also discussing damage control on behalf of Wang. Wigley essentially agreed with Keenan’s fraud charges.
I’ve followed the Wang fraud case since the charges were first filed. Although a final determination is pending, it is interesting that the university clearly violated its own ethics policy by barring Dr Keenan from his right to fully participate. That is understandable, since Wang is one of the school’s rainmakers, bringing in over $7 million in grants.
The essence of Keenan’s fraud charge is that Wei-Chyung Wang published using data from 84 weather stations in China in his peer reviewed paper, and misrepresented that his conclusions were supported by the raw temperature data.
When challenged by Keenan to produce that evidence, Wang maintained for a year that it existed and he could provide it. But he never has been able to. His only corroboration comes from one associate in Beijing, who, according to Wang, claims that she can ‘remember’ the 19 year old temperature data from 49 out of 84 temperature stations in which Wang claimed that raw data exists. [I would sure like to have a memory like hers!]
Wang published based on his assertion that he referenced the data from all 84 temperature stations. Thus Dr Keenan’s charge of fraud [which, according to university policy does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but only a preponderance of the evidence. There is much more to this case; I’m just providing the basics here.]
In one of the eastanglia emails, Dr Benny Peiser comments on the Wang fraud charges:
And Tom Wigley comments in another email: “Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point.”
In another post, you don’t simply “allege” that these emails were stolen – you state it categorically. I personally think they were leaked by an insider who had an admin password. I could be mistaken. But since you state unequivocally that the emails were “stolen”, which means they were illegally taken by someone who had no right to view them, such as a hacker, please cite your proof.
And finally, neither your endless appeals to authority, nor the authorities themselves, falsify the theory of natural climate variability. Those appeals to authority are a red herring argument, intended to distract from the fact that natural causes of climate variability have not been falsified, and are sufficient in and of themselves to explain climate fluctuations. Insisting, without any empirical, measurable evidence that CO2, a tiny trace gas, is the central driver of climate change which will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe is looking more and more ridiculous. You know, it’s still possible to admit you were wrong about that.
I did not claim that IPCC models cannot explain a few years’ flat temperatures. I am saying that the forcings included in the models do not explain the past 6 years of no warming. Brian Dodge said that “… with the known mechanisms that are included, they create 10+ years of cooling in some runs.” Great. Thanks Brian. What caused the 6 years of lack of warming? If Tom P is correct that the oceans caused the six years to not warm, then that is something that has not been included properly in the models. If natural known phenomenon cannot be included in the models then they will never be reliable.
John M Reynolds
jmrSudbury (11:21:23) :
“If Tom P is correct that the oceans caused the six years to not warm, then that is something that has not been included properly in the models.”
The IPCC AR4 models incorporate ocean-atmospheric coupling and the model runs do show multiyear pauses in warming. Your repeated criticism here is groundless.
If you are insisting on the prediction of exactly which years will have flat temperatures, that is certainly well beyond any current model. That, though, is hardly a valid basis for discounting the long-term projections any more than than aerodynamic engineers’ current inability to precisely model turbulence is a valid reason never to fly in a plane.
Tom P
Multi year is not as long as 6 years.
Of course I would not expect them to predict which specific years would have an el nino, la nina, or flat temperatures. That is a ridiculous fallacious strawman argument.
The IPCC ensemble of models has no forcing that could counteract their heavily weighted green house gases for 6 years like we just had. They missed something big or their big thing was vastly overstated or both.
John M Reynolds
jmrSudbury (18:15:01) :
“The IPCC ensemble of models has no forcing that could counteract their heavily weighted green house gases for 6 years like we just had.”
By shifting the basis of your argument to the ensemble of models, you’ve just demonstrated the weakness of your point.
The ensemble averages out the random variations to produce a much smoother trend – it will not reflect the interannual variability either observed or seen in the individual runs.
Once again;
1. The IPCC models incorporate both external forcing and natural variability.
2. The individual model runs show periods of a decade or more with no warming together with a long-term warming trend.
3. The claim that IPCC models fail because of the observed lack of warming from 2002 to 2009 is therefore incorrect.
By the way, have you seen the current UAH global anomaly – 0.7 C – the highest value since the super El Niño of 1998. This really could be “something big”.
It has always been about the ensemble of models. That is one of the problems. The individual model runs do not tell us what forcings they combine to create a decade of no warming. This kills your second point. If they were able to explain using a smaller group of models, then they could get rid of several individual models from the ensemble. We do not qualify for the constant commitment scenario, but it is still included. You are trying to divert from the main idea. They have not been able to explain the 6 years of a lack of warming.
They are missing a forcing or have given a forcing too much weight. This kills your first point.
Apparently, you have no explanation for it. Others do. Keep reading. This is getting interesting.
John M Reynolds
jmrSudbury (02:28:11) :
“It has always been about the ensemble of models.”
No it hasn’t – you can’t hope to reproduce interannual variability from an ensemble of models. Your criticism of the IPCC models has no statistical validity.