Tamino Misses The Point And Attempts To Distract His Readers
By Bob Tisdale
The obvious intent of my recent post “17-Year And 30-Year Trends In Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies: The Differences Between Observed And IPCC AR4 Climate Models” was to illustrate the divergence between the IPCC AR4 projected Sea Surface Temperature trends and the trends of the observations as presented by the Hadley Centre’s HADISST Sea Surface Temperature dataset. Tamino has written a response with his post “Tisdale Fumbles, Pielke Cheers.” Obviously he missed the point of the post. Since he does not address this divergence, his post is simply a distraction. That fact is blatantly obvious. Everyone reading his post will realize this, though it is doubtful his faithful followers will call his attention to it. Tamino resorts to smoke and mirrors once again. But let’s look at a few of the points he tries to make.
Tamino objects to this statement that is included on all of the graphs in the “17-year and 30-year trends post”:
The Models Do Not Produce Multidecadal Variations In Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies Comparable To Those Observed, Because They Are Not Initialized To Do So. This, As It Should Be, Is Also Evident In Trends.
The reason I included that statement was because I have illustrated and discussed the lack of multidecadal variability in the IPCC AR4 models in earlier posts and I wanted to draw the readers’ attention to the difference between the trends of the model mean and the observed trends. It’s really that simple.
Tamino makes the following statement toward the end of the post:
“There are definitely problems with the models. For one thing, they don’t reproduce the rapid warming of sea surface temperature from 1915 to 1945 as strongly as the observed data indicate. But overall they’re not bad, and the amount of natural variability they show is realistic.”
But the fact that “For one thing, they don’t reproduce the rapid warming of sea surface temperature from 1915 to 1945 as strongly as the observed data indicate” means the Sea Surface Temperatures of the models also don’t flatten from 1945 to 1975 as the observations do, and it’s those two portions of the multidecadal variations in sea surface temperatures that are known to be missing in the models. That’s what’s being referred to on each of the graphs in red. The models capture the rise in temperature from 1975 to 2000, but they do not capture the rise and flattening from 1910 to 1975.
Tamino presents a comparison of 30-year trends for HADISST, the model mean, and the 9 runs of the GISS Model ER, which I’ve reproduced here as Figure 1. He then writes:
Note that the individual model runs show much more variability than the multi-model mean. In fact they show variability comparable to that shown by the observed data.
I’ve highlighted a portion of his graph in Figure 1 that he obviously overlooked. Look closely at the significant rise in trends of the HADISST data in the early 20th century, and then the equally impressive decline in trends. Do any of the GISS model runs produce the “Multidecadal Variations In Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies Comparable To Those Observed” during the early part of the 20thcentury? No. So thank you for confirming one of my points, Tamino. It also contradicts your nonsensical statement, “In fact they show variability comparable to that shown by the observed data.”
Figure 1
Tamino also goes into a detailed discussion of how the model mean can obscure any multidecadal variations in the individual model runs. But note that he doesn’t use the actual model runs. He uses “Artificial Models”. Refer to Figure 2. Artificial models?
Figure 2
Why doesn’t Tamino use the real models instead of artificial ones? Because then Tamino would have to show you that the majority of the models do not have multidecadal variations in trend that are similar in timing, frequency, and magnitude of the observation-based SST data. Refer to Animation 1.
Animation 1
I could have provided that animation in my post, but I elected not to present it because it added no value to the post.
CLOSING
As I noted earlier, Tamino’s post is simply a distraction from my post “17-Year And 30-Year Trends In Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies: The Differences Between Observed And IPCC AR4 Climate Models”, which showed the divergence between the trends of the IPCC AR4 model mean for global Sea Surface Temperatures and the observed Sea Surface Temperature trends.
Tamino makes a few statements in his post that I will be happy to agree with:
There are definitely problems with the models.
And:
Certainly the models need more work.
Thanks for the opportunity to call attention to my post once again, Tamino.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Funny Mr. Tisdale. I posed on Grant’s site to thank him for stating the obvious, but for some reason the post hasn’t shown up.
And that last graph in Grant’s post to your article is priceless.
I do have a question tho.
How do you get a mean value way above the multiple model run values? The methodology is not explained so that a layman could understand this.
The eagle-eyed among us will have spotted the empty wine glass in the photo. This doesn’t excuse dogmatic fundamentalism or the demonisation of dissenters on his very closed-minded blog, but it may well explain the inability to distinguish between reality and the products of an Xbox..
REPLY: No, that’s a water glass, typical of what many hotels who host conferences use. I’ve had many like that myself at tables during conferences. I may disagree with what Mr. Foster publishes, but I won’t suggest he’s drinking while presenting, That’s a bridge too far. – Anthony
So, does Tamino suffer from Cogitative Dissonance, or Confirmation Bias, or both?
IT grows ever more tiresome to see such misdirection. We have the EU forbidding bottled water companies from claiming water hydrates. We have Australia sending out Sharia like police to stop businesses from claiming their prices are rising due to carbon taxes. Perhaps Naomi Klein captures the ultimate purpose: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate
Thanks Bob for continuing to educate the rest of us on the truth about the over-hyped claims. Whatever choices that are at hand to make future world better than today I hope those decisions are made from the best science known rather than propaganda.
Ryan:
No, he is using the famous yet effective “Chewbacca Defense”.
“Look at the monkey—look at the crazy monkey!”
Ryan:
No, Tamino seems to be getting it.
“There are definitely problems with the models”
And then:
“Certainly the models need more work”
I can even understand that. Ok…..I will admit that it seemed to take an aweful long time for someone as smart as Tamino thinks he is, to realize this. I give him Kudo’s for reading Mr. Tisdale and learning what Mr. Tisdale and the rest of us have known for 2 decades.
What is an “artificial model”? Aren’t all models artificial?
Camburn says: “How do you get a mean value way above the multiple model run values? The methodology is not explained so that a layman could understand this.”
Please expand on your question and refer to a graph, please.
Camburn says:
November 20, 2011 at 10:08 am
Funny Mr. Tisdale. I posted on Grant’s site to thank him for stating the obvious, but for some reason the post hasn’t shown up.
And that last graph in Grant’s post to your article is priceless.
I do have a question tho.
How do you get a mean value way above the multiple model run values? The methodology is not explained so that a layman could understand this.
The answer is in figure 2, there is all the model runs.
Good post again Bob. 🙂
Fantastic work as always Mr. Tisdale.
But I’m a little curious – would that be the same mysterious
FosterTamino that the BBC’s Richard Black refers to as “the enigmatic climate blogger who runs the Open Mind site and keeps his identity deeply under wraps“?!?Who could that conundrum of a man really be?
http://tinyurl.com/6pnww28
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/comment_on_schwartz.pdf
REPLY:He’s not under wraps and hasn’t been for sometime, though why he keeps the moniker presently is a curiousity. His identity is published right on his website, on the sidebar at his website, see his book “NOISE” which has his name on it. He self outed. – Anthony
“”””” Tamino makes the following statement toward the end of the post:
“There are definitely problems with the models. For one thing, they don’t reproduce the rapid warming of sea surface temperature from 1915 to 1945 as strongly as the observed data indicate. But overall they’re not bad, and the amount of natural variability they show is realistic.”
But the fact that “For one thing, they don’t reproduce the rapid warming of sea surface temperature from 1915 to 1945 as strongly as the observed data indicate” means the Sea Surface Temperatures of the models also don’t flatten from 1945 to 1975 as the observations do, and it’s those two portions of the multidecadal variations in sea surface temperatures that are known to be missing in the models. “””””
“”””” they don’t reproduce the rapid warming of sea surface temperature from 1915 to 1945 as strongly as the observed data indicate. “””””
Talk about weasel words. What the hell is wrong with saying: ‘ They don’t reproduce the rapid warming of sea surface Temperature from 1915 to 1945.’
Other than (presumably) there was OBSERVED ‘rapid warming of sea surface Temperature from 1915 to 1945’ What OTHER evidence for ‘ ‘rapid warming of sea surface Temperature from 1915 to 1945’ is Tamino suggesting that may or may not have been a reason for saying: “as strongly as the observed data indicate.”
Isn’t the WHOLE IDEA of modelling, to reproduce the OBSERVED DATA; nothing else matters !
Yeah I would say that all that extra garbage is a distraction. Glad you are on the case Bob.
“Why doesn’t Tamino use the real models instead of artificial ones?”
Gosh – I thought he explained EXACTLY why in his post. Perhaps you missed it. He used artifical models that INTENTIONALLY matched the natural variability to demonstrate that when you average those models the result does NOT match the natural variability. This is a simple, logical, demonstration that EVEN IF the models were perfect, the technique you used would not show a good match between a multi-model mean and the natural variability.
It is a good point. It would be interesting to see you address it and it is odd that you currently seem to not understand it.
I noticed the lack of reproducibility in Tamino’s model. So how come a model gets different results each time you run it. (his GISS-ER Realizations) Some gret model if you can’t depend on the answer.
FergalR says:
November 20, 2011 at 10:55 am
“But I’m a little curious – would that be the same mysterious Foster Tamino that the BBC’s Richard Black refers to as “the enigmatic climate blogger who runs the Open Mind site and keeps his identity deeply under wraps“?!?”
Great, Fergal; the investigative minds of the Beeb! LMAO… Missed that!
Uh-oh Bob, I watched your Animation and kept track. While apparently showing Ensemble Members 0 to 31, the numbers 18 and 30 are missing. Hope there’s a good explanation or Tami’s Troupe will pounce on you for cherrypicking!
Bob,
Your ‘Animation 1’ is priceless! Any idea of how much money, time, and human effort was wasted on these 30 ‘Ensemble Member’ hind casts, that seem to have all of the hind cast accuracy of a 3 year old scrawling on the wall with their favorite crayon? If I tried to use analogous model results, perhaps to convince my management that we must spend huge sums of money on a radical diversion from current aircraft design, I would be dismissed as incompetent and a danger to the corporation. I would be pointedly encouraged to seek medical evaluation for my irrational behavior.
The only aspect of your post I disagree with is your statement “Obviously he missed the point of the post.” It sure appears to me that Mr. Tamino is a sophist. He could not refute your analysis and chose to attack through niggling distraction. This is a classic tactic of the sophist school of debate. If you can’t refute the facts and conclusions, then distract attention to some obtuse sideshow or personally attack the messenger. Then pretend these irrelevancies are valid ‘reasons’ to dismiss the solid science at the core of the debate. Perhaps you were just being momentarily kind to Mr. Tamino, though?
Thank You, for your many solid contributions to this debate!
MtK
NygOnly:
I think you miss the point. Even artificial models have problems, along with the currently used models. What is there to address???
NygOnly:
The point is the models, as structured, artificial and supposedly non-artificial can not do hindcast reliably. This proves the structural flaws of the models as written.
We need to examine the models, evaluate the models, rewrite the models so that they work. As the models are currently presented they are useless. Tamino has proved that point in his post.
I believe he’s refering to Figure 1. At around 1970, all the individual model runs displayed appear to be well below the graphed multi-model mean.
Makes no difference what Tamino thinks. He is to climate science what a homeopath is to medicine – on a different reality with a mind bending idea that zero to trace amounts of a molecule can effect an organism or eco system many millions of of times larger, even when far below recognised toxic levels.
NyqOnly says:
November 20, 2011 at 10:57 am
““Why doesn’t Tamino use the real models instead of artificial ones?”
Gosh – I thought he explained EXACTLY why in his post. Perhaps you missed it. He used artifical models that INTENTIONALLY matched the natural variability to demonstrate that when you average those models the result does NOT match the natural variability.”
Nyq Only; if it is possible to create an “artificial model” (whatever that is.) that “matches the natural variability” (I guess you want to say that it shows the right amplitude of the multidecadal variability); and we then run the model several times, randomly initialized, we would get those multidecadal swings out of phase and so on, and an averaging would lead to some cacelling out of those swings, ok, I can follow you there.
But let’s think a step further. Imagine somebody would want to use such a model to forecast, say, a future climate. Would this person then not choose the model runs who are in phase with the observations, and discard the ones that are out of phase, and declare the initial states of the runs that are in phase as the more correct initialisations?
Surely.
But what we have is a bunch of modelers who continue to through all kinds of random runs of random models into one big average, calling it the ensemble mean, and keep on insisting that that’s the way you get reliable future forecasts.
Obviously that’s a rather unwise apprach if one wants to arrive at a future forecast, no?
I think what they really want to achieve with this climatological sausage machine approach is explicitly to arrive at forecasts that cannot be validated by comparison with observations – they use this averaging as protection against scrutiny; to protect their funding. They have learned that as long as they can’t be questioned the money will flow.
NyqOnly says: “Gosh – I thought he explained EXACTLY why in his post. Perhaps you missed it.”
I replied to your comment at my blog, NyqOnly. There’s no reason to post it in to places.
Here’s what I wrote there in reply:
I did not miss it. It’s a distraction from the actual models and a distraction from my post. Nothing more, nothing less.
Bingo. But if you’re trying to get BT to admit the process by which he analyzes data is, to put it kindly, faulty … which it is … Good luck with that.
REPLY: Typical. If you are trying to get Jack Greer to agree with anything published on this blog, good luck with that. You have an MO that precedes you. You complain about anything and everything here. – Anthony
Animation 1 is straight-up flat-out creepy. They really believe in that stuff??
I posted this on the Tamino blog
.
Hi Foster grant aka Tamino.
Would you dare publish this?
I read your post and see a lot of smoke and mirrors. The use of climate model impute data is establish in advance for a predetermined outcome.
As any reasonably intelligent person with an open mind would know and except in the real world models used by engineers and practical professions use mechanisms and endless reviews based on real scientific and mathematical backstops that are there to prevent contaminated theories or desired results from polluting the models outcome.
Otherwise Industry and commerce would grind to a halt, Computers and communication devises, mechanical applications, planes, ships, and satellites would not function. Buildings would collapse. But for Climatologist with a warm bent, flights of fantasy and theoretical models are the normal fare and the only way to achieve the very obvious fraudulent outcomes.
Honest real world scientists, engineers. Architects who can’t and won’t get a way with manipulated data or results. The whole global warming industry has become a what’s in it for me snicker fest, Durban will once again show the hypocrisy and show us all what it is a total fraud it has become.