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.
The models can’t reproduce the history for very simple and obvious reasons: they do not include multidecadal variations as these are not yet good understood and not accepted by the team as such, as could explain the whole recent warming as natural variation. Just some random variations are wrong, but they have no theory and cannot develop one in the frame of their own definition what is acceptable theory. This puts them in the position to have to be passive waiting development from other skeptical scientists and try to fit is as much as possible to their own theory.
They are based on greenhouse adding the extra warming of the surface in comparison with equivalent blackbody which is wrong assumption, the Earth is a mix of atmosphere and solid & liquid surface radiating body. Their defined theoretical temperature does not apply to the surface of the Earth.
They ignore the oceans as direct influencing the temp difference to a blackbody. The oceans being warmed up to 200 m deep by the sun and losing heat only at the very surface skin are the subsystem that defines 90% of Earth temperature. This is totally different to a rock planet with atmosphere. How can they be so ignorant and treat oceans only as heat storage and redistribution? Long range infrared from atmosphere is heat exchange with the very 0,0001 m deep of the ocean.
So playing with aerosols and some variations the models can reproduce up to a limit some pattern of warming but the longer the time period gets the more obvious is their bias towards excessive warming.
Tamino is fighting on a scientific undefendable position and he should know it.
In fact figure four shows a flat trend until 1975. It misses the 1945 peak at every point and runs flat for 50 years. The questionable adjustments to the land surface data sets appear to mimic the models sst anomaly mean, relatively flat until CO2 kicks in. In the observational SST chart there is a rise (missed by the models because it was to early for CO2 to kick in), an equal fall (missed by the models because they do not show so much natural varibility), another equal rise matching the previous natural rise (this rise caught by the models because of how the attribute the physics of CAGW), and what has the appearnce of another fall, time will tell, (but so far missed by the models because to them CO2 dominates.)
Looking at the trends no wonder they are starting to say it may be twenty years before the “discernible” human influence on climate is identified.
“They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
That is hilarious! Cicada`s preference for 17yr brood cycle is not based on lucky numbers.
Tamino is a tool.
He’s that guy that points fingers at everyone else about doing whatever, but will always have three fingers pointing back at himself.
He also reminds me of those water snakes.
The more you squeeze it the more it tries to get away.
Tamino is no different.
You would have better luck changing the mind of an atheist to believing in God, than getting this real denier of climate change, in admitting he is a cherry-picking, finger-pointing, truth-evading snake-in-the-grass has-been.
And that’s me being nice.
Snip away!
Blaming the warming on the oceans is like blaming cars for population. “Look, every time I see a car stop in the parking lot, a person pops out. Obviously cars produce people.”
That’s auto-correlation and auto-eroticism.
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.
—————
Beats me. I look at that animation 1 and see good agreement between many of the models and the observed sea surface temperatures. I can’t quite establish though if these are multiple models or multiple runs of one model. I’ll have to look into that.
My judgement is informed by the idea that even if you had 2 real earths running side by side you would not get an exact match between the sea surface temperatures.