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.
Dessler’s phase plane analysis is without merit. The relationship is most assuredly a negative stabilizing feedback, as becomes evident when you analyze the data with the proper tools.
“Dessler’s phase plane analysis is without merit.”
To expand on why: Dessler assumed zero phase lag, and signals polluted with mere noise. The dominant component has a time constant of almost 5 years and a very nonlinear phase characteristic otherwise with variable delays across the entire frequency spread. Fitting a linear regression to such data in the phase plane is meaningless.
“…a very nonlinear phase characteristic otherwise indicating variable delays for different frequency localized components …”
Ammonite says:
September 23, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Models purport to model Gaia’s climate. Warmista use “radiation only” models. That is, they strive to treat all climate phenomena as some aspect of radiation. Many Warmista proudly treat ENSO as statistical noise. None of them treat it as a natural process that is not just an epiphenomenon of radiation.
Trenberth’s recent discovery of heat stored in the deep oceans contradicts the “radiation only” approach and the assumption that Earth can be treated as a black body. Trenberth hasn’t figured that out yet.
Ric Werme;
In partial recompense for “tinker’s dam”, here’s the scoop on Humpty D., anent nothing in particular:
The Earth is grey:
Twixt blackbody and greybody,
The difference ain’t slim;
A blackbody shines quite brightly;
A grey one’s rather dim.
🙂
;p
A footnote to your rant: it seems all that thermal expansion has resulted in a sea level drop of about 6mm in the last 12 months.
Odd, that!
😀
Theo Goodwin says: September 24, 2011 at 10:24 am
“Models purport to model Gaia’s climate. Warmista use “radiation only” models. That is, they strive to treat all climate phenomena as some aspect of radiation. Many Warmista proudly treat ENSO as statistical noise. None of them treat it as a natural process that is not just an epiphenomenon of radiation.”
“Warmista”, “strive to treat all”, “proudly”? How about climate modellers attempt to use known physics to simulate various aspects of climate across various timeframes. The problem is more constrained than many are aware. A model initialized with an even temperature distribution from pole to pole will gradually alter its state to resemble regular earth-like conditions. This is not “programmed-in”. It is a test to ensure physics is represented correctly. Models must also be able to represent the effects of volcanic eruptions, climate response post deglaciation and so forth.
Climate modelling represents an ambitious endpoint to a mass of basic research. Claims by “KnR says: September 23, 2011 at 2:28 am” that calls for CO2 reduction rest on models alone ignore this point. It is clearly an evolving discipline. It is clearly a difficult task.
Ammonite says:
September 24, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“How about climate modellers attempt to use known physics to simulate various aspects of climate across various timeframes.”
Sure, modelers use physics. They use Arrhenius’ work, for example. However, they have produced not one physical hypothesis of their own. You really cannot bring yourself to accept that fundamental truth, can you? I offer you the challenge that I offer everyone. If modelers have created one reasonably well confirmed physical hypothesis that goes beyond Arrhenius’ work, then produce it. Post it in all its glory here. You will find that there is not one. Therefore, modelers are either failed physical scientists, not physical scientists, or practicing a science that is in its infancy.
Brian H says:
September 24, 2011 at 10:38 am
You are good!
Ammonite says:
September 24, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“A model initialized with an even temperature distribution from pole to pole will gradually alter its state to resemble regular earth-like conditions.”
“A model initialized with Miller Brewing’s existence packaging infrastructure will gradually alter its state to resemble actual shipping patterns for the brewing company.”
Now, do you really think that a model of Miller’s shipping patterns amounts to a set of scientific hypotheses upon which one can base predictions and from which one can discover new and unknown scientific hypotheses?
steptoe fan;
First, are there additional software models acceptable/relevant, not listed by the IPCC ?>>>
Just to clarify, Dr Spencer’s paper compared to 8 of the 23 models. He was criticized for only comparing to those 8, and so he added the other 14 in this article to supplement the actual paper itself. The IPCC uses 22 of the 23 models for their “average”, I’ve long forgotten what the reason was to exclude the 23rd one from the average.
In any event, one of the chapters is about models and their evaluation. there is a large table in there which shows what factors each model take into account. A lot of the models for example, do NOT account for variations in solar radiance. If memory serves me correctly, none of the models take into account GCR levels. Research into GCR’s and climate has been pretty recent, to make it into AR4 the papers would have had to been published around 2006. You’ll also note if you read the AR4 section on models that they admit to a considerable amount of uncertainty in regard to clouds. but the bulk of them assume a large positive feedback, which CERES data, and Dr Spencer’s paper, show is very likely erroneous.
Ammonite;
How about climate modellers attempt to use known physics to simulate various aspects of climate across various timeframes.>>>
They do? What “known physics” supports the idea that increasing CO2, which by the known physics is logarithmic, meaning that it is subject to the law of diminishing returns, somehow causes feedbacks that are increasingle amplified by secondary processes? Can you explain what physics known to man since…oh…400 BC or so, supports that idea? Can you name one experiment that has ever shown this to be possible in a simple or complex system?
How is it that the models presume that 100 ppm added to our current 400 ppm will somehow have 1/2 the direct effect of the previous 100 ppm, but a linear or accelerated total when feedbacks are included? If that were the case, any tiny bump in CO2 levels would have resulted in the planet’s temperature running away thousands of times in the past, yet the geological record whos that CO2 levels HAVE been many times what they are currently, and nothing of the sort happened.
There is NO KNOWN PHYSICS to suggest that it would, and substantive geological evidence to show that the ‘experiment” had been done and the notion falsified many times already.
If you can produce known physics to the contrary, I’d be very interested. As would Einstein, Millicken, Newton, Bohr, Curie, Pascal, Farraday, Fermi, Stefan, Boltzmann, Joule, and many others who will rise from the grave, so great will be their interest.
thanks, dmh.
I will continue my study of ch 8.
steptoe fan;
Chapter 9, page 636
“Therefore, cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.”
The table listing the various “forcings” each model takes into account is on page 646. That’s not actually the table I was thinking of, there’s another one somewhere else that goes into more detail. I just can’t recall at the moment where it is. If you’re going through Ch8 in any detail, don’t forget the “supplementary material” which is a separate document. It has a lot of those graphs that they wish people couldn’t refer to anymore in them as I recall.
davidmhoffer says: September 24, 2011 at 7:53 pm
What “known physics” supports the idea that increasing CO2, which by the known physics is logarithmic, meaning that it is subject to the law of diminishing returns, somehow causes feedbacks that are increasingle amplified by secondary processes?
Causes of positive feedback: increased water vapour, degassing of CO2 from warming oceans, albedo reduction, CH4 escape from degraded permafrost… Please note, as thrashed out many times in many blogs, positive feedback need not imply runaway.
Indeed so, here is how the planet responds.
Atmospheric cycle:-
Higher surface temperatures :. more evaporation of marine water.
More evaporation of marine water :. more atmospheric condensation of fresh water.
More atmospheric condensation of fresh water :. more solution of carbon dioxide gas from the air.
More solution of carbon dioxide gas from the air :. more acid rain.
Terrestrial Cycle:-
More acid rain & higher surface temperatures :. more chemical weathering of basaltic rocks.
More chemical weathering of basaltic rocks :. more release of new calcium (and magnesium) ions into the soil.
More new calcium ions in the soil from basaltic rocks & acid rain :. more new calcium carbonate in the soil.
More new calcium carbonate in the soil & acid rain :. more new calcium bicarbonate in solution in the hydrosphere.
More new calcium bicarbonate in solution in the hydrosphere :. more transport of calcium bicarbonate into the ocean.
Marine Cycle:-
Higher surface water temperatures :. more evaporation of marine water in shallow tropical seas.
More evaporation of marine water in shallow tropical seas :. more inorganic precipitation of calcium carbonate and more return of carbon dioxide gas from the ocean back into the atmosphere via the bicarbonate to carbonate transition.
This shallow water warming and saline concentration of sea water produces more inorganic precipitation of calcium carbonate as oolitic carbonate beach sand in littoral tropical environments .
Geological Result:-
More generation of primary source inorganic oolitic carbonate beach sand which results in more sequestration of carbon dioxide, as new calcium carbonate rock, to add the repository of 40,000,000 petagrams of limestone (half of which is of inorganic origin) already stored in the sedimentary rocks of planet earth throughout the last 600 million years.
Ammonite;
Causes of positive feedback: increased water vapour, degassing of CO2 from warming oceans, albedo reduction, CH4 escape from degraded permafrost… Please note, as thrashed out many times in many blogs, positive feedback need not imply runaway.>>>
Those are a list of theories. Not one can be described as known physics and not one has been demonstrated through experimentation. Noting a list of things that that in theory would happen is not known physics.
davidmhoffer says: September 25, 2011 at 9:05 am
Ammonite: Causes of positive feedback: increased water vapour…
dmh: Not one can be described as known physics and not one has been demonstrated through experimentation.
David, you might want to recheck your sources. A simple google sholar search reveals dozens of articles examining water vapour response to increased temperatures. In particular, the increase has been measured directly by NASA “AIRS temperature and water vapor observations have corroborated climate model predictions that the warming of our climate produced as carbon dioxide levels rise will be greatly exacerbated — in fact, more than doubled — by water vapor,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Ammonite;
David, you might want to recheck your sources>>>
predictions that the warming of our climate produced as carbon dioxide levels rise will be greatly exacerbated — in fact, more than doubled — by water vapor,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.>>>
You know what I really love about this debate Ammonite? What I love is people who claim to know what they are talking about and then quote an example that proves MY point.
For starters, Andrew Dessler quotes results based on climate models. You cannot prove the existence of a physical law by the use of an artificial computer model that produces an estimate. The laws of physics can be proven by one, and only one, thing, which is experimentation and measurement of real world results. What you are arguing is that 2+2=5 and that someone wrote a computer program which add 2 +2 and gets 5, so that must be the right answer. Computer models prove nothing. They simply produce estimates based on the assumptions of their programmers.
The fact that no single model has gotten anywhere close to real world results ought to tell you something.about the quality of their assumptions. Further, the assumption that increased water vapour would have “double” the effect of CO2 alone CANNOT be supported by the actual physics, just look up the properties of water on wikipedia or engineers toolbox and you’ll find that one degree increase in temperature cannot possibly increase water vapour that much, then check out the absorption spectrum and properties of water vapour and you’ll find that it is logarithmic, so given the concentrations it is already at, the amount of additional water vapour needed to get two more degrees from the initial one degree from CO2 would be MASSIVE, and a one degree increase in temps just won’t accommodate that much more water vapour in the atmosphere.
I doubt that Andrew Dessler said any such thing by the way. Even as a warmist cheer leader, his grip on physics is much stronger than that. What he is more likely to have said (in accordance with the IPCC btw) is that more water vapour = more warming + more clouds and that clouds have a net positive feedback…for a total of +1 to +3 degrees more than CO2 alone.
Balderdash. Read Spencer’s paper. Read the ACTUAL data he has posted. What does it say? It says that the MEASURED heat being lost to space is much higher than what the models predict. You can either conclude that the measurements are wrong, or that the models are built on assumptions that are wrong.
But most of all, you have to understand that you’ve quoted an example of a known law pf physics that isn’t a known law of physics at all.
Try again. Swing and a miss on this one.
dmh: My last response. Water vapour increase has been measured, (physically measured not modelled) due to temperature increase. Consider reviewing http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2-1.html or google scholar. This acts as a positive feedback. You can argue the toss as much as you want with respect to the size of that feedback, I merely point out that positive feedbacks do exist and this is one of them.
Ammonite;
dmh: My last response. Water vapour increase has been measured, (physically measured not modelled) due to temperature increase.>>>
And so? Did I ever say that there would be no increase in water vapour? I said no such thing. I said, and I quote:
” What “known physics” supports the idea that increasing CO2, which by the known physics is logarithmic, meaning that it is subject to the law of diminishing returns, somehow causes feedbacks that are increasingle amplified by secondary processes?”
and
“How is it that the models presume that 100 ppm added to our current 400 ppm will somehow have 1/2 the direct effect of the previous 100 ppm, but a linear or accelerated total when feedbacks are included?”
You have not answered the question. you have spouted drivel about “known physics” that isn’t known at all, and then attempted to pass of measured increases in water vapour as “known physics” resulting in an additional warming double that of CO2. I repeat, what known physics justifies this? This time, instead of making references out of context to others, misquoting both their words and their intent, how about you explain the actual physics itself. Here’s an example:
1.CO2 is logarithmic. (IPCC and your prescious Dressler agree on this)
2. Doubling of CO2 = 3.7 w/m2 = 1 degree C of warming. (IPCC and Dessler agree on this)
3. Baseline “normal” levels of CO2 (prior to the advent of the industrial age beginning in 1920) was 280 PPM (IPCC and Dessler agree on this)
4. This means that for direct warming by CO2, “double” means going from 280 PPM to 560 PPM.
5. If 560 PPM results in ONE DEGREE of direct warming by CO2, then TWO degrees of direct warming would require 1,120 PPM.
6. We are currently at 400 PPM. Based on the logarithmic properties of CO2, that means that direct warming (versus 280 PPM) should be about 0.6 degrees. (IPCC and Desller, no dispute there either).
7. If we increase from 400 PPM to 520 PPM, we would expect, based on the logarithmic properties of CO2, that this would result in about 0.3 degrees of direct warming from CO2. (again, no dispute from IPCC etc on this either, though they studiously avoid beinbg drawn into this kind of discussion).
So, I repeat my additional assertion. What known laws of physics result in a linear or accelerating temperature trend DESPITE the driving factor (CO2) being subject to the law of diminishing returns? For temperature increases to remain linear or to accelerate in response to increaseing levels of CO2, then the only possible explanation for that to occurr would be for feedbacks to ALSO increase, and to do so EXPONENTIALLY.
What known laws of physics can you point to, what known properties of materials, would substantiate such a notion? No quoting of other people’s opinions, or other people’s estimates, all you accomplish by doing so is show that YOU believe what THEY say. If you dispute what I have written, then explain which of the rough calculations or explanations above is incorrect and why.
You’re on your second swing and a miss, btw.
…and since we’re on the topic Ammonite…
the next 120 PPM, to a total of 640 PPM (vs 520 PPM) would mean another 0.15 degrees of direct warming.
And from 640 PPM to 760 PPM would add yet another… 0.075 degrees of direct warming.
So, versus the 400 PPM we are at now, and using the last 50 years of CO2 increases which have hovered around 2 PPM per year, in 180 years we should expect… another 0.525 degrees C before feebacks.
See the problem here? How do you get linear or exponential warming out of that?
SKs has claimed to “debunk” both Spencer and Lindzen.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dessler-2011-Debunks-Roy-Spencer-And-Richard-Lindzen.html
DCA;
That was their shot at debunking, but it was published before Dessler actually contacted Spencer about the mistakes in Dessler’s paper that Spencer pointed out on his own blog and on WUWT, and Dessler admitted them and commited to correcting his own paper.
Ammonite;
No comment on the actual science? Asked to respond to actual science rather than just quote something by somebody else that just winds up showing you don’t actually understand the question, and…. silence. Have you had cause to think over the facts I have presented? If you have no rebuttal, is that an admission that you were wrong?
dana1981;
took ball, went home. came back, whined, went home again. still haven’t answered the SCIENCE questioned posed to you, just complained about the kinds of words used to describe you. Any chance you’ll step up to the science questions and give good cause for a more respectfull vocabulary?