Guest post by Bob Tisdale
My blog post October to December 2011 NODC Ocean Heat Content Anomalies (0-700Meters) Update and Comments was cross posted by at WattsUpWithThat here. (As always, thanks, Anthony.) Starting at the January 27, 2012 at 8:44 am comment by J Bowers, I was informed of a critique of my ARGO-era model-data comparison graph by the Tamino titled Fake Predictions for Fake Skeptics. Oddly, Tamino does not provide a link to my post or the cross post at WattsUpWithThat, nor does Tamino’s post refer to me by name. But I believe it would be safe to say that Tamino was once again commenting on my graph that compares ARGO-era NODC Ocean Heat Content data to the climate model projection from Hansen et al (2005), “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications”. If he wasn’t, then Tamino fooled three persons who provided the initial comments about Tamino’s post on the WUWT thread and the few more who referred to Tamino’s post afterwards. The ARGO-era graph in question is shown again here as Figure 1. Thanks for the opportunity to post it once again up front in this post, Tamino.
Figure 1
Take a few seconds to read Tamino’s post, it’s not very long, and look at the graphs he presented in it.
My graph in Figure 1 is clearly labeled “ARGO-Era Global Ocean Heat Content Model-Data Comparison”. The title block lists the two datasets as NODC/Levitus et al (2009) and Hansen et al (2005) Model Mean Trend. It states that the Model Mean Trend and Observations had been Zeroed At Jan 2003. Last, the title block lists the time period of the monthly data as January 2003 to December 2011.
In other words, my graph in Figure 1 pertains to the ARGO-based OHC data and the GISS model projection starting in 2003. It does not represent the OHC data or the GISS model hindcast for the periods of 1993-2011 or 1955-2011, which are the periods Tamino chose to discuss.
Do any of the graphs in Tamino’s post list the same information in their title blocks? No. Do any of Tamino’s graphs compare the climate model projection from Hansen et al (2005) to the NODC OHC observations? No. Does Tamino refer to Hansen et al (2005) in his post? No. Do any of Tamino’s graphs present the NODC OHC data or the Hansen et al model projection during the ARGO-era, starting in January 2003 and ending in December 2011? No.
In other words, Tamino redirected the discussion from the ARGO-era period of 2003-2011 to other periods starting in 1955 and 1993. ARGO floats were not in use in 1955 and they were still not in use in 1993. He also redirected the discussion from the projection of the GISS model mean to the linear trend of the data itself. Yet Tamino’s followers fail to grasp the obvious differences between his post and my ARGO-era graph.
In my post, I explained quite clearly why I presented the ARGO-era model-data comparison with the data zeroed at 2003. Refer to the discussion under the heading of STANDARD DISCUSSION ABOUT ARGO-ERA MODEL-DATA COMPARISON. Basically, Hansen et al (2005) apparently zeroed their model mean and the NODC OHC data in 1993 to show how well their model matched the OHC data from 1993 to 2003. Hansen et al explained why they excluded the almost 40 years of OHC and hindcast data. The primary reason was their model could not reproduce the hump in the older version of the Levitus et al OHC data. Refer to Figure 2, which is a graph from a 2008 presentation by Gavin Schmidt of GISS. (See page 8 of GISS ModelE: MAP Objectives and Results.) I presented that same graph graph by Gavin in my post GISS OHC Model Trends: One Question Answered, Another Uncovered, which was linked in my OHC update from a few days ago.
Figure 2
I zeroed the data for my graph in 2003, which is the end year of the Hansen et al (2005) graph, to show how poorly the model projection matched the data during the ARGO-era, from 2003 to present. In other words, to show that the ARGO-era OHC data was diverging from the model projection. Hansen et al (2005), as the authors of their paper, chose the year they apparently zeroed the data for one reason; I, as the author of my post, chose another year for another reason. I’m not sure why that’s so hard for Tamino to understand.
And then there’s Tamino’s post, which does not present the same comparison. He did, however, present data the way he wanted to present it. It’s pretty simple when you think about it. We all presented data the way we wanted to present it.
Some of the readers might wonder why Tamino failed to provide a similar ARGO-era comparison in his post. Could it be because he was steering clear of the fact that it doesn’t make any difference where the model projection intersects with the data when the trends are compared for the ARGO-era period of 2003 to 2011? See Figure 3. The trend of the model projection is still 3.5 times higher than the ARGO-era OHC trend. Note that I provided a similar graph to Figure 3 in my first response to his complaints about that ARGO-era OHC model-data comparison. See Figure 8 in my May 13, 2011 post On Tamino’s Post “Favorite Denier Tricks Or How To Hide The Incline”.
Figure 3
Figure 3 shows the ARGO-era OHC data diverging from the model projection. But the visual effect of that divergence is not a clear as it is in Figure 1. I presented the data in Figure 1 so that it provided the clearest picture of what I wanted to show, the divergence. That really should be obvious to anyone who looks at Figure 1.
Some might think Figure 1 is misleading. The reality is, those illustrating data present it so that it provides the best visual expression of the statement they are trying to make. The climate model-based paper Hansen et al (2005) deleted almost 40 years of data and appear to have zeroed their data at 1993 so that they could present their models in the best possible light. Base years are also chosen for other visual effects. The IPCC’s Figure 9.5 from AR4 (presented here as Figure 4) is a prime example. Refer to the IPCC’s discussion of it here.
Figure 4
The Hadley Centre presents their anomalies with the base years of 1961-1990. Why did the IPCC use 1901-1950? The answer is obvious. The earlier years were cooler and using 1901-1950 instead of 1961-1990 shifts the HADCRUT3 data up more than 0.2 deg C. In other words, the early base years make the HADCRUT anomaly data APPEAR warmer. It also brings the first HADCRUT3 data point close to a zero deg C anomaly, and that provides another visual effect: the normalcy of the early data.
Base years for anomalies are the choice of the person or organization presenting the data. Climate modelers choose to present their models in the best light; I do not.
Those familiar with the history of Tamino’s complaints about my posts understand they are simply attempts by him to mislead or misdirect his readers. And sometimes he makes blatantly obvious errors like using the wrong sea surface temperature dataset in a comparison with GISS LOTI data. His post Fake Predictions for Fake Skepticsis just another failed critique to add to the list.
ABOUT: Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
SOURCE
The NODC OHC data used in this post is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
KR
A couple questions for you if you don’t mind. if CAGW is real then please xplain how the ocean level is now dropping, the ocean average temp(whatever that is) is also dropping. Of course all of this verified data is also during a continual rise is CO2. We await your explanation.
I just read the motto for the royal society.
Nullius in verba, is Latin for “Take nobody’s word for it”.
How far they have fallen…..
Just eyeballing it, I’d say unless Tamino immediately triangulates to the center, he’s lost the political battle.
Nobody really need facts to destroy such a biased political position, nor would the scoundrel ever accept them.
scepticalwombat says:
January 28, 2012 at 7:29 pm
When I saw the shennanigans they use in “fudging” missing data in the ARGO buoys, I lost any and all confidence in that data set. It might represent an average, it might represent somebody’s average, it might represent something else entirely.
How would you recommend they “make up” for missing data in a temperature profile? Please give me several methods you favor so we can all understand what your level of competence is–after which we’ll know whether to apply any confidence in what you say.
Help me out here – Hansen’s charts end at 2003 but your chart depicts his predictions going out another decade. Where did he provide that time period prediction? It is not in the 2005 paper. I can’t imagine anyone would predict a straight line anyway, and nobody in the top echelons of this industry are going to allow a decade to pass without adjusting and refining using observed data, so I’m missing something.
I have managed to post this comment on SkS which has stuck for a few minutes at least. I’d appreciate any supporting comments thereon on the “Its cooling” thread.
http://earth-climate.com/SkS120129e.jpg
Some mistakes have been made. Data handling and incorrect interpretations of the PDO etc.
Some ground has been given, but protecting ones ego is not sustainable. The most important aspect is to sum up the evidence and take it on the chin. Having an aggressive attitude to those that have evidence that suggest you may be incorrect, is poor form.
I am not sure I understand this at all.
Bob presents a graph showing a straight line fit representing the model results.
Tamino presents a graph showing a straight line fit that is in fact the long term SST trend. This is a measurement. And then he displaces a portion of that straight line fit by some amount that he considers bogus and misleading as an object lesson in misleading graphs.
The odd thing here is that tamino’s modified SST plot looks identical to Bob’s model heat content plot. Which means the trends are identical and refutes, apparently, Bob’s claim that model and observation do not correspond.
Did Bob just fall into a trap? Pwn-ed? Is that the modern slang?
Rocky Road says
When I saw the shennanigans they use in “fudging” missing data in the ARGO buoys, I lost any and all confidence in that data set. It might represent an average, it might represent somebody’s average, it might represent something else entirely.
How would you recommend they “make up” for missing data in a temperature profile? Please give me several methods you favor so we can all understand what your level of competence is–after which we’ll know whether to apply any confidence in what you say.
I am not defending the ARGO data – Bob on the other hand is at least claiming that it is the best data we have available. I am merely saying that it wrong to say that the ARGO data has diverged from a projection of Hansen’s regression line.
Let me put this differently. As far as I am aware Hansen did not actually predict what the Ocean Heat Content would be at the end of 2011. But if he did he would presumably have used the dotted line in Tamino’s fourth graph (I wish he would number them) and would probably have given an error range based on the variability of the data he had available at the time. A cursory glance at the graph (I don’t have the numeric data) would suggest that the actual level would fall well within 1 standard deviation of the estimate. In fact it is remarkable that the last two observations actually straddle the extrapolation of Hansen’s line.
Incidentally while I agree with Tom that the slope is different, I am not convinced that the difference is statistically significant, and as far as I can make out Tom is not claiming that it is.
Finally it is a complete non sequitor to claim that my credibility on how to extrapolate a line is dependent on my knowledge of methods of estimating missing data.
Smokey, your requests were way too vague and contained subjective and undefined terms. You seemed to think you were setting some kind of test, too, rather than suggesting a topic for an article. Try again, define your terms properly, and suggest a topic instead of presuming to think you are setting some kind of exam question.
dp says:
January 28, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Help me out here – Hansen’s charts end at 2003 but your chart depicts his predictions going out another decade. Where did he provide that time period prediction? It is not in the 2005 paper. I can’t imagine anyone would predict a straight line anyway, and nobody in the top echelons of this industry are going to allow a decade to pass without adjusting and refining using observed data, so I’m missing something.
dp, Mr. Tisdale did not say this was Hansen’s prediction. This is the model mean trend, projected forward from 2003. Bob set the ARGO data and the trend line to the same starting point, to show that the trend of the model did not match the trend shown by the most accurate data we have available. It suggests that the trend in the Hansen model may have been fitted to a particular set of data, rather than actually being able to be a predictive tool. It failed to predict the current shallow heat response as well as failed to account for a heat rise earlier in the 20th century. It has only been shown to work well with one particular time period’s data.
After reading Tamino’s critique of Montford’s ” The Hockey Stick Illusion” I reread the book and every point that Tamino made was an illusion just like Mann’s hockey stick.
Tamino is a warmist fool.
dp says: “Help me out here – Hansen’s charts end at 2003 but your chart depicts his predictions going out another decade. Where did he provide that time period prediction? It is not in the 2005 paper.”
The GISS model projections on my Figure 1 and 3 are extrapolations of the 0.6 watts/m^2 projection from Hansen here:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/1116592hansen.pdf
It is common practice of the climate science community in blog posts to extrapolate model projections into the future. Refer to OHC model-data comparisons in the RealClimate posts here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
And here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
scepticalwombat says: “Let me put this differently. As far as I am aware Hansen did not actually predict what the Ocean Heat Content would be at the end of 2011. But if he did he would presumably have used the dotted line in Tamino’s fourth graph (I wish he would number them)…”
Tamino did not present a model projection. He presented the linear trend from the OHC data.
And it is common practice of the climate science community in blog posts to extrapolate model projections into the future. Refer to OHC model-data comparisons in the RealClimate posts here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
And here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
LazyTeenager says: “I am not sure I understand this at all.”
A tip: It’s always a mistake to start a comment by stating that you don’t understand the subject matter. Because all YOU then do is confirm your misunderstandings with the rest of your comment.
LazyTeenager says: “Tamino presents a graph showing a straight line fit that is in fact the long term SST trend.”
The dataset being discussed is Ocean Heat Content (OHC) not sea surface temperature (SST).
LazyTeenager says: “And then he [Tamino] displaces a portion of that straight line fit by some amount that he considers bogus and misleading as an object lesson in misleading graphs.
The odd thing here is that tamino’s modified SST plot looks identical to Bob’s model heat content plot.”
In reality, Tamino’s modified OHC plot does not looks identical to my OHC graph. Tamino did not present a graph that starts in 2003 and ends in 2011. His graph does not include a model projection. And his graph does not include the linear trend of the OHC data from 2003 to 2011.
LazyTeenager says: “Did Bob just fall into a trap? Pwn-ed? Is that the modern slang?”
No. Bob did not fall into a trap. LazyTeenager hasn’t a clue about the topics being discussed, as he admitted in his opening sentence.
I’ve just been banned again (about the 9th time) on SkS for posting about 6 posts in the last 6 hours and then being complained about by Tom Curtis. I was talking about the plots in this thread, so it is relevant. This would have been my response to Tom Curtis, but you may wish to read today’s posts in the “It’s cooling” thread on SkS first.
To Tom Curtis (if you are reading this) ….
Tom Curtis.
Very clever getting me banned (again) from SkS for so-called “trolling” so you could make the last post and appear to “win” the argument.
The first joke is that you presented a plot of temperatures including ones which showed declining temperatures prior to 1900. When 30 year moving average trends are applied the figures fit quite nicely and extend the sinusoidal like trend in my plot to the left a bit as it goes down to about zero just around 1900 – ie 60 years before the minimum in 1960.
It doesn’t make any significant difference anyway, The second joke is that your talked about cherry-picking and you yourself truncated most data after 2000.
The third joke is that if you had fitted a linear trend to your data the rate of increase is still less than 0.06 deg.C per decade, so how are you going to get over 2 degrees in the next 89 years?
I applied an “axis trend” to an apparent sinusoidal trend, albeit it a little incomplete.
—————-
Regarding “Computational Radiation Theory” you are even more way out. Johnson actually provides a computational proof of the very laws you say he rejects.
You ask for empirical evidence. There will be much more this year produced by Nasif as I jave gleaned from discussion and suggestions I have made to him. Be patient.
You already have DeWitt Payne (of all people) telling you gases don’t absorb if they are warmer than the source. What makes solids and liquids so different?
There is nothing in standard physics textbooks that says such gases do absorb when warmer. Backradiation is an invention to suit climatologists and so they should have produced empirical evidence that it warms a hotter surface.
You will not be able to find empirical evidence of such warming as you well know, which is why you avoid answering the question and will continue to do so.
I put my reputation on the line: if you can prove backradiation warms the surface I will post your proof on my website and alter such accordingly, deleting all reference to Claes from the site and my book about to be published. Meanwhile the hit counter is about to pass 30,000.
Doug Cotton
http://climate-change-theory.com
I think Bob they are trying to wear you out., new tactic LOL They are getting very desperate… current UAH temps at -06C onc e again no trend whatsoever, A lot of MSM now doubting AGW, there quite desperate as they could lose their funds jobs etc quite understandable.
Mooloo says: “He may well be misrepresenting the prediction, as made in the model.”
I’m not misrepresenting the projection. Where it intersects with the ARGO-era data depends on the choice of base years. For example, the following graphs present a reproduction of the GISS Model-ER data from a 2008 presentation by Gavin Schmidt of GISS. See Gavin’s OHC graph on page 8:
http://map.nasa.gov/documents/3_07_Meeting_presentations/Schmidt_MAP.pdf
In my graph, I’ve also replaced the older version of the NODC OHC data with the current version. The following graph presents the OHC data and the model hindcast/projection with the base years set to the full term of the data 1955-2010:
http://oi41.tinypic.com/117fx1c.jpg
And here’s the graph of the OHC data and the model projection if I shorten the two datasets to the ARGO-era:
http://i41.tinypic.com/eklz6x.jpg
KR says: “Bob Tisdale -Regarding Willis, I was pointing out that your 2003 baseline didn’t have strong support.”
Willis was stating that all of the OHC data prior to 2005 was questionable, not simply the 2003 to 2005 period. I understand the early OHC data is questionable. It’s primarily a Northern Hemisphere dataset, with little to no data in the Southern Hemisphere south of 30S. This is widely known. I believe I’ve included that discussion in a number of posts
KR says: “And that doesn’t change the fact that, by shifting the offset, you are misrepresenting your trend as Hansens.”
I’ll repeat a reply to another blogger that I just posted.
I’m not misrepresenting the projection. Where it intersects with the ARGO-era data depends on the choice of base years. For example, the following graphs present a reproduction of the GISS Model-ER data from a 2008 presentation by Gavin Schmidt of GISS. See Gavin’s OHC graph on page 8:
http://map.nasa.gov/documents/3_07_Meeting_presentations/Schmidt_MAP.pdf
In my graph, I’ve also replaced the older version of the NODC OHC data with the current version. The following graph presents the OHC data and the model hindcast/projection with the base years set to the full term of the data 1955-2010:
http://oi41.tinypic.com/117fx1c.jpg
And here’s the graph of the OHC data and the model projection if I shorten the two datasets to the ARGO-era:
http://i41.tinypic.com/eklz6x.jpg
Also, see my comment at January 28, 2012 at 6:18 pm.
Argo is a good attempt to get real time data of ocean temperature, salinity and pH but the data is sparse. Consider the number of buoys, 3400, and the oceans area, 335Million sq Km gives an area of 104,768sq Km for each buoy. They can go to a maximum of 2Km depth gives a volume of around 209,536 cu.Km to monitor. Quite a trick if you can pull it off.
The real data (Argo) starts in 2003 or 2005.
If one wants to splice a different record onto that (hockey stick-like) then one should be very clear about what is being done. And one should also explain why there is such a large unphysical jump between the two datasets over the 2001 to 2003 period. Instead of hide-the-decline, it is create-an-incline.
Remember we are talking about anomalies here and one needs a base period to do that. It looks to me like there is a jump of 2.5 X10^22 joules between the two datasets, just enough to make a large difference in the overall trends.
It should have been done more like this.
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/340/argosplice.png
Bill Illis – Your modification looks good to me. It would fit a declining curve as was seen in Trenberth’s trend for sea surface temperatures, now declining in that trend here: http://climate-change-theory.com/seasurface.jpg
John Marshall says: “Argo is a good attempt to get real time data of ocean temperature, salinity and pH but the data is sparse.”
It’s a gazillion times better than it was before ARGO.
RE: “Base years for anomalies are the choice of the person or organization presenting the data.”
An interesting thread from January 2005 . . .
” . . . There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with theREDACTEDnormals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted. ”
And then this bit, “More important, probably, than reliability . . .”
“Would it make a difference in climate monitoring? Yes for those users who make use of the anomaly values it could make a big difference. More important, probably, than reliability is that the climate changes over a decade and takingREDACTEDout and substituting inREDACTEDto the base period calculation may make a big difference in some cases.”
Here’s the context:
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=172
The point Tisdale is making is how well does the observed data fit the prediction. Off set is one component, but not the relevant point. The scientific method for testing predictions is to develop a prediction model based on one set of data, then test that model on a different, independent set of data. In this case, what is the R^2 of the observed independent data and the predicted model? I asked this question at the Tamino website and it was deleted by the moderators, presumably because they know the answer.
Tamino has taken his prediction model, and included the new data to create a new prediction model, then says the two prediction models are in agreement. That is not a valid way of testing a prediction model, since the two data sets are not independent.