The Rest of the Cherries: 140 decades of Climate Models vs. Observations
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Since one of the criticisms of our recent Remote Sensing paper was that we cherry-picked the climate models we chose to compare the satellite observations of climate variations to, here are all 140 10-year periods from all 14 climate models’ 20th Century runs we analyzed (click to see the full res. version):
As you can see, the observations of the Earth (in blue, CERES radiative energy budget versus HadCRUT3 surface temperature variations) are outside the range of climate model behavior, at least over the span of time lags we believe are most related to feedbacks, which in turn determine the sensitivity of the climate system to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. (See Lindzen & Choi, 2011 for more about time lags).
Now, at ZERO time lag, there are a few decades from a few models (less than 10% of them) which exceed the satellite measurements. So, would you then say that the satellite measurements are “not inconsistent” with the models? I wouldn’t.
Especially since the IPCC’s best estimate of future warming (about 3 deg C.) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is almost exactly the AVERAGE response of ALL of the climate models. Note that the average of all 140 model decades (dashed black line in the above graph) is pretty darn far from the satellite data.
So, even with all of 140 cherries picked, we still see evidence there is something wrong with the IPCC models in general. And I believe the problem is they are too sensitive, and thus are predicting too much future global warming.
davidmhoffer says:
September 22, 2011 at 7:41 pm
I’ve noticed a sparsity of trolls or even well meaning warmists. Poor sharpar00, everyone’s piling on.
There just aren’t enough trolls to go around!
———————
One look at Dr. Spencers graph of the model results and even the trolls are silenced.
Could that display of the model results be placed in a spray can and be marketed as ‘Trollaway’?
Anthony Watts says:
September 22, 2011 at 10:04 pm
“Dave Springer check your email”
Done. You certainly knew the right topic where that would catch my eye. I haven’t been watching my email much lately. My best friend in the world, a six year old german shepherd who’s been a constant loyal companion to me all his life, is dying from lymphosarcoma and I’ve been at his side 24/7 trying to make his final days as comfortable as possible before I do the final duty that I owe him. This particular dog saved my young daughter’s life when he was but one year old and transformed all our lives during his trajectly brief lifetime. I owe him more than I could ever possibly repay and thank God quite frequently for giving him to us. I find some comfort in thinking his mission has been completed and God’s calling him back in preparation for sending him back out to transform some other family’s life in the same manner he transformed ours.
What do you mean the models are not accurate? Accord to the graph they were right on three times which is better than a stopped clock over a 24 hour time frame. 😉
If Trenberth’s missing heat is being sequestered in the deep ocean it would behoove future generations to sequester as much as possible because the average temperature of the global is a bone chilling 3.9C and that is unquestionably a reflection of the ocean’s average surface temperature taken over a complete 120,000 year glacial/interglacial cycle. The 16C average surface temperature that living things have been enjoying for 12,000 years in the modern interglacial period won’t last forever and is statistically due for an ending any time now. My feeling is that any one of the next globe-cooling volcanic eruptions happening in concert with a solar minimum will be straw that breaks the camel’s back. The Milankovich orbital parameters that favor glacial advance are within a few thousand years of their peak. So once again I don’t ask if there’s too much anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere but I rather wonder whether there’s enough to provide an adequate safety margin for the next perfect storm that would otherwise be the final straw.
davidmhoffer says:
September 22, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Nice job, David. You are right on the money.
I am going to respond to Curt. I didn’t quite see what he meant. I will clarify my comment for him. (I am scrolling up.)
Curt says:
September 22, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Curt, I didn’t fully understand you late last night. Let me take another go at it.
“ANY prediction of the future is based on a model, whether explicit or implicit. Furthermore, this model must be a simplification of the real system about which the prediction is made — otherwise we would need a full duplicate universe (but run in faster time…)”
By “model,” I think that you mean a version of a physical theory that has been put through a process of selection and simplification to yield a much more manageable version that can be used successfully for special purposes, such as launching and managing space craft, satellites, and such. I do not call this kind of thing a model but rather an “idealization of a physical theory.” Of course, it is fine to call it a model but it is not what we have been talking about here when referring to “computer models.” More on that below.
“Now physical “laws” may be applied to that model, as in Newton’s laws applied to AJ’s orbital systems. But that in no way means that absolutely accurate predictions can be made. (We now know that Newton’s laws are only an approximation, and they failed to predict key features about, for example, Mercury’s orbit.)”
Well, yes, the idealized model is a version of Newton’s physical theory as explained above. Right, you do not have to use Newton’s entire theory.
“Maybe AJ’s model treated the Earth as a perfect sphere of uniform density. For all of my engineering purposes, that model is sufficient for my needs. It certainly is not good enough for the purposes of the GRACE satellite, which depends on gravitational variations. It’s not good enough to predict the precession of the Earth’s axis. Whether AJ’s models assume this or not, their model of the earth and its gravitational attraction is certainly an imperfect simplification.”
In referring to treating Earth as a perfect sphere, you are referring to a particular idealization within the ideal model. Yes, those are very useful for your practical purposes. Yes, they retain their scientific integrity.
“There are other factors that need to be modeled as well. Satellites in low-earth orbit experience slight atmospheric drag. Do the models assume this drag is constant? (It’s not.) If not, how well can they predict how it changes? Will the drag have a tendency to twist the satellite? How will this affect the future orbit?”
Maybe there is need for additional scientific work on atmospheric drag. I would recommend that. But, I see your point. When your idealized physical theory does not quite handle drag, you have to proceed using your own temporary best estimates. Happens all the time.
“AJ says his models are insufficient to predict the trajectory to sufficient accuracy more than about a week out. Hmm — sort of like weather models.”
For your practical work, that week long window is sufficient. But things will be much nicer when the science advances.
“Our weather/climate models are good enough to predict reliably that summers will be warmer than winters, that days will be warmer than nights. I don’t believe they have much long term predictive ability as to weather a given summer in a given region will be warmer or cooler than average, or whether a decade will be warmer or cooler than average globally. It’s all about how good the models’ predictive abilities are compared to the quality of information we need out of them.”
Back to computer models used by Warmista. Warmista do not have the benefit of a physical theory that explains all or most of the phenomena of global warming. The only physical theory they have comes from Arrhenius’ equations for the behavior of CO2 molecules in Earth’s atmosphere. Those equations cannot cover the behavior of phenomena such as cloud formation in Earth’s atmosphere or any natural process such as La Nina. When running a computer model, Warmista must make guesses about those phenomena as you have to make guesses about atmospheric drag. (I don’t mean to compare you to Warmista. There is some physical theory behind your guesses but none behind theirs.) In principle, cloud behavior could cancel all of the effects of CO2 molecules. So, Warmista computer models do not cover most of the phenomena whose behavior is crucial to matters such as global warming and they have no physical theory in the background, as you have Newton’s, to keep them on the straight and narrow.
Ammonite says;
“declaring a GCM wrong because it does not reproduce ENSO when it was never intended to seems misplaced.”>>>
The GCM’s were designed to model the CLIMATE. They do not. Not reproducing ENSO would be a reason WHY they do not. That is not a “misplaced” criticism, it is dead centre on target.
Ammonite says;
Declaring a GCM wrong over short time frames is perhaps too hasty as well.>>>
You’re speaking from the perspective of trend analysis. This isn’t about trend analysis, it is about models that are supposed to be based on the physics that govern the climate’s behaviour. Dr Spencer has clearly shown that the models do not accurately account for the amount of heat energy lost to space. Period. Unitl they do, by definition, THEY CAN’T EVER BE ACCURATE ON ANY TIME SCALE.
Ammonite says;
Possibly better is to ask “is a given model useful with respect to what it was designed for?”.>>>
They were designed to predict the climate, they do not, and they don’t because they assume heat is being sequestered in the climate system that clearly is NOT being sequestered in the climate system. Hence, they are useless for the purpose for which they were designed.
Ammonite says;
(Please note that I am not declaring models infallible nor commenting on Dr Spencer’s work nor attacking Theo Goodwin.)>>>
But you are both commenting and attacking. You have posited reasons for not throwing the models out entirely based on spurious and misguided reasoning. You have suggested reasons for allowing the models to retain credibility that are…incredulous. You are comparing a model of a purely artificial environment, which operates by known, documented, and regulated mechanisms down to every last penny with models of the climate. You seem to think that if they sometimes get the general trend right, like your stock market model does, they may be of some use. That is utter nonsense. Their purpose is not to emulate general trends. Their purpose is to determing the effects of SPECIFIC CHANGES to the general trends.
Given that the models are demonstrably incapable of modeling the amount of heat that the earth loses to space, they are by default incapable of predicting the temperature of the earth at any point in the future due to increases in CO2. Or any other factor that changes.
If AJ’s model used 9.00 m/s/s as the value for earth’s gravitational force instead of 9.81, he’d lose his satellite in seconds. Oh, he might get the general direction it was trending in, and how fast it might be speeding up or slowing down as a trend…would that make it useful? Nope. It would make it entirely wrong, and AJ would be out on the carpet in front of his bosses trying to explain how he could possibly keep track of a $10 Billion satellite with a model that knowingly used the wrong value for gravity.
How it is that climate modelers are allowed to use the wrong value for the amount of heat escaping to space and retain any credibility at all is beyond me.
Ammonite says:
September 23, 2011 at 12:42 am
“Hi Theo and all. Good computer models often embody a theory…”
Cool. Show us the hypotheses that constitute the theory and the record of successful predictions that makes them reasonably well-confirmed. Also, describe the kind of even that your theory is about. For example, are the events that you predict each and every change in the price of a stock? In that case, your theory would enable prediction of each price rise for a stock indefinitely into the future. Statistics are acceptable if you use objective statistics of the type used by Gregor Mendel and his descendants, the Population Geneticists.
“…and it is important to understand what a model attempts to reflect before declaring it void where it does not match a particular observation.”
Now, you are talking models. I thought you had a theory. If you have a theory then you do not need models, except for the purpose of simplifying your work in practical cases, something that Curt was explaining.
“They do NOT predict general market direction and therefore do NOT predict market crashes.”
Then it is a falsified theory and requires revision.
Richard S Courtney says:
September 23, 2011 at 12:26 am
“I am not a Warmista but I point out that you are mistaken.
The underlying ‘theory’ of all the climate models is that global climate is governed by radiative forcing. More properly,it is an assumption (i.e. not a theory) that radiative forcing governs global climate.”
You and I are not in disagreement. My point is that radiative forcing is at best a part of a theory of global warming. Arrhenius’s hypotheses about CO2 molecules cannot address matters such as cloud behavior, La Nina, or many other items that require actual empirical research leading to physical hypotheses which describe the natural regularities that are found in cloud behavior, La Nina, and all the other non-radiative matters.
Spencer introduces one issue at a time. He has not yet contradicted the consensus on the importance of radiative forcing. However, his work will inevitably take him to that point.
Also, my critique emphases scientific methodology. In a phrase, computer models cannot substitute for physical theory. Yet Warmista have lashed themselves to the computer models and embraced their fate.
DM says:
September 22, 2011 at 10:08 pm
@Theo Goodwin says:
September 22, 2011 at 7:51 pm
“Presumably, the code is based on the idea the if things are currently in state X, then event Y occurs then you end up in state Z. In order to get from state X to Z, you’ve got to have some sort of theory or hypothesis about how that change occurs. I’m sure that some of the theories are based on descriptive extrapolations from observed data as you say, but hopefully (he says naively) there are at least some components of those models that have a fundamental physical theory/hypothesis behind them, even if they’re not good ones. What those theories might be, I have no idea.”
You have strong scientific instincts.
There are equations based on Arrhenius’ hypotheses. But Warmista believe that these equations explain it all. In fact, Warmista theory posits the existence of radiation only and fail to describe any natural phenomena that exists apart from the effects of radiation. So, their models do not cover the behavior of clouds, of La Nina, and most other natural phenomena that can be described by physical theory apart from radiation theory. To illustrate how bad it is, the models treat La Nina as statistical noise. Yet the behavior of clouds and other natural phenomena can over-ride all the warming effects of CO2. (Trenberth has inadvertently admitted this point when he claimed that the missing heat from the sun’s radiation is hidden in the deep oceans. Maybe he will become aware of what he is saying.)
Apart from Arrhenius’ equations, Warmista modelers are extrapolating the future from graphs of past behavior of clouds and other natural phenomena. It is no different than looking at graphs of past Arctic sea ice melt and extrapolating from them coming Arctic sea ice melt. Some people and all Warmista call this prediction. I am sure that you know that it is not scientific prediction.
davidmhoffer says:
September 23, 2011 at 9:16 am
Wow! You are hot! I respectfully request to become a student of yours. (The implied reference is to Lao Ze and Chuang Ze.)
David quotes Ammonite:
Ammonite says;
“declaring a GCM wrong because it does not reproduce ENSO when it was never intended to seems misplaced.”>>>
Ammonite, you have Warmista arrogance down pat. Their typically arrogant stance is that La Nina cannot be explained by radiation theory alone so it is not actually part of climate. No, I am not kidding. The models treat La Nina as statistical noise. Unfortunately for Warmista, radiation theory cannot explain most of what makes up Earth’s climate, including such matters as cloud behavior. Cloud behavior alone can over-ride all the warming that comes from manmade CO2.
But Warmista arrogance does not stop there. Svensmark and Kirkby claim that cosmic rays influence cloud behavior. Heresy, scream the Warmista! Only radiation from the sun can influence cloud behavior. Warmista are doing their best to nail Svensmark and Kirkby. Do you want to help them?
I was in the lab again researching and I observed clouds in the shape of he-who-shall-not-be-named, but it rhymes with Corporal Bore. I’ve run millions of computer simulations and discovered that this would be a impossibility without direct influence of a sinister nature. I fear the worst. Even the scientific process is being undermined and mind-manipulated. Furthermore, I have discovered that Plato was incorrect and Zeus does not exist either so we can also file that case closed. Still, does anyone have data to support that theory as well? Thanks, Dr.W
“Also, my critique emphases scientific methodology. In a phrase, computer models cannot substitute for physical theory. Yet Warmista have lashed themselves to the computer models and embraced their fate.”
A model is a test of science as to how well a system is understood. If the system is well understood, results from a model reflecting that understanding will match reality. If the model does not match actual data from the functioning system, it’s a good indication that you do not understand the system.
The Climate model results I’ve seen the reported snippets of, as here, indicate that as far as climate is concerned, the science so far is clueless.
David Falkner says:
September 22, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Answer One: Warmista are committed “radiation only” theorists.
Answer Two: To be something other than a committed “radiation only” theorist, you have to leave the supercomputer lounge, go into the world, create hypotheses about the natural regularities that make up phenomena such as cloud behavior or La Nina, design experiments to test your hypotheses, honestly report all results to the world, and accept that you are neither divine nor Stalin.
Greg says:
September 22, 2011 at 4:01 pm
“When a model does not produce an accurate result it is wrong. When it says 2+2 = 5 it is wrong.”
Not so fast. The other 1/5th may well be hiding in the depths of the oceans…
++++++++++++
2+2 does = 5 for very large values of 2
The correct model for the correct purpose is a wondrous tool. To the uninitiated magical.
Taking actions based on an incorrect model – will kill you DEAD. Quickly. No magic to it! GK
Theo Goodwin:
” I have been asking every Warmista for that set of hypotheses. Where is it? Is it in the deep oceans with Trenberth’s missing heat?”
I have been a long WUWT veiwer and greatly adminre your knowledge and logic. Please forgive me for bring this up.I am currently debating this isse on a local blog and this is a rely I have recieved.
You might want to hold your nose when you read it.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/23/327298/hottest-decade-deep-oceans-warming-may-be-on-its-way/
Thank you in advance.
DCA says:
September 23, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Thank you very much for the compliment. Thank you for the reference. Maybe Anthony will do a post on what you reference. If not, I will get back to you.
DCA says:
September 23, 2011 at 1:53 pm
I checked out the article and there is nothing beyond what was covered in the recent wuwt post on the matter. As Pielke, Sr., explained in a post here yesterday, there is a major problem with the deep ocean warming theory, namely, that the heat did not pass the ARGO sensors.
In addition, even if the deep oceans were warming, that should tip off the Warmista to the fact that there are natural processes other than radiation processes and that they have to be taken into account when attempting to measure global warming. Warmista need to get out of their “radiation only” approach to global warming and start describing the natural regularities that radiation must pass through.
DCA;
I took a look through that article you linked to. It is chalk full of the usual misrepresentations.
1. Look at the graph. Looks scary doesn’t it? What is shows is that we’ve had about one degree of warming inthe last century. Now think about that same graph, only instead of a scale from -0.8 to plus 0.1, imagine it as -40 to +40. See what happens? Suddenly that scary rise in temperature is almost a flat line.
2. A lot of to do about the hottest decade on record. So? It is also the warmest CENTURY in the last SEVERAL centuries. Think about it this way. On Monday you put $1 million into a bank account. On Tuesday you put $100,000. On Wednesday you put in one penn thursday you put in one penny, On Friday you put in two pennies. The following, based on graphing your account balance from Tuesday forward on a scale of 1,100,000 to 1,100,00.04 would show that:
a) this is the highest account balance you’ve EVER had
b) the rate at which the account balance is increasing appears to be accelerating…+1, +1, +2..
We’re recovering from an ice age on this planet, every decade (with a couple of dips here and there) as been the warmest for the last several centuries. Measuring the pennies is meaningless without proper context…which was sheets of ice so thick they ground mountains into prairies.
3. Most astounding of all is the assertion that scientists have “known” for a long time that the bulk of the warming was going to go into the oceans. Really? Then why did Hansen, the almighty, all knowing, head of NASA/GISS, argue exactly the opposite? He has insisted for years that the warming is indicated by LAND temperartures, NOT ocean temperatures, hence his reasoning for extending temperature readings taken over LAND by a radius large enough to cover the ocean, but not vice versa (in other words, for any given area with both land and ocean, using the warmer land temperatures instead). On that he makes a certain amount of sense. After all the LW radiance that CO2 supposedly traps CANNOT PENETRATE THE OCEAN AT ALL. It is 100% absorbed in the first few microns (millionths of a meter!) which results in the teeny weeny thin layer of water to instantlyt evaporate,taking the energy from the LW wioth it…back into the atmosphere. So how does it get into the depths of the ocean in the first place then? without anything in between the depths (several thousand feet) and the surface changing temperature at all? Did we spend a few billion dollars on all those Argo buoys to measure the top couple of thousand feet all over the world and they just missed it? All several hundred of them? Did LW suddenly change its known physics and nobody noticed? And if the ocean is trapping all this heat, where is the thermal expansion that Hansen (GISS) and Jones (HadCrut) and Trenberth (Travesty) said would raise the ocean level several meters? HJacve the properties of water also changed their physics?
that’s as far as I got. sorry, but that’s all I could take 🙂
davidmhoffer says: September 23, 2011 at 9:16 am
“declaring a GCM wrong because it does not reproduce ENSO when it was never intended to seems misplaced.”>>> The GCM’s were designed to model the CLIMATE. They do not. Not reproducing ENSO would be a reason WHY they do not. That is not a “misplaced” criticism, it is dead centre on target… You have posited reasons for not throwing the models out entirely based on spurious and misguided reasoning.
I am inviting readers to consider a model’s validity based on what it purports to model. I am not suggesting a stock market model has any validity whatsoever with respect to climate.
“Not producing ENSO” would be a problem for a model that attempts to do so. “Not producing ENSO” would be a problem for a model that doesn’t include ENSO if ENSO turns out to be a signficant climate driver over longer time frames. If ENSO effects were to average out in the long run however, a non-ENSO model may well be valid even though it cannot match measured climactic results across the short haul.
“Dr Spencer has clearly shown that the models do not accurately account for the amount of heat energy lost to space.” I hope Dr Spencer’s work stands the test of time.
Dr. Spencer,
What software are you using for the charts? R? Thanks, Mike S.
Have a hypothesis, regarding climate models:
Dr. Spencer cites using 14 climate models.
I am looking at Ch 8 of the 4th assessment of the IPCC report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
On page 597 of this chapter, section 8.1 there is a table listing 23 models that appear to be acceptable/relevant to the IPCC.
First, are there additional software models acceptable/relevant, not listed by the IPCC ?
I ask this question because I am trying to prove that none of these 23 models consider the possible impact of GCR’s upon earth’s climate. Are there other models I should be searching.
I performed a FIND , using my browser’s edit function, on Ch 8 with respect to the string ‘cosmic ray’ and came up with zero hits. Note that there is a single blank space between the two words.
Can anyone here comment on my hypoth or the existence of a super-set of climate models ?
tnx, Steve
AJStrata;
Your use of “sad” is IMO kinda wishy-washy and mealy-mouth.
Here are some suggested substitutes:
egregious
offensive
despicable
disingenuous
disgusting
outrageous
pathetic
nauseating
risible
…
All of the above.
😉
;p
Luvly. That was always one of those expressions that didn’t quite make sense, but that I’d never got ’round to looking up.