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 says: “I would encourage folks to see what Hansens actual paper stated…”
And that’s why I linked the paper in the first chapter of the post, KR. Scroll up and read the opening chapter. Hmm. This indicates that you’ve been here complaining for a day without having read my post. BTW, I don’t provide links to papers and posts to discourage readers from reading them.
You continued, “This is a physics based model, not a linear trend, and hence actually responds to ENSO, solar cycle, and other influences.”
Apparently you, KR, did not bother to “see what Hansens actual paper stated”, because if you had read it, you would have discovered that Hansen et al state quite clearly that their model does not model ENSO. They write:
“However, excessive tropical warming in our model is primarily in the Pacific Ocean, where our coarse-resolution ocean model is unable to simulate climate variations associated with El Niño–Southern Oscillation processes.”
And that sentence appears in the paragraph just before the section on Ocean Heat Content. You must of skipped important things like that.
Regarding your comment that Hansen et al does not use the word trend, do you understand extrapolation? Do you know that it is commonly used by climate scientists in their OHC blog posts when they’re trying to show how well they’re models project the rise in OHC? If not, refer to 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/
The rest of your recent comment is a regurgitation of your previous comments, to which I have already replied. It also appears you have not read my earlier January 29, 2012 at 3:39 am reply to you in full.
You know, since you continue to have such a hard time grasping this, I’m considering writing another follow-up post, and I think I’ll title it “Tamino’s Disciples and an Author from SkepticalScience Still Don’t Understand.”
If you see that post or something like it, you’ll know you’re one of the reasons for it. I’m sure Tamino and John Cook will thank you for it.
Ciao.
The common practice of extrapolating a person’s calculation into the future, as you call it, should be done only if the author of that function suggests it is a valid practice. If he has stopped using it that is tacit evidence it is wrong.
The climate is never a straight line for long and to just draw a line into the future indefinitely, particularly where the topic is climate, is just a little crazy. It creates a false comparison. You know and I know the climate change trend is not going to be a flat line, and so does Hansen. There will always be a divergence with observation and the original model will be modified in some way or replaced to allow for the new knowledge and observations. Those will be wrong, too. We get it.
There is a reason you provide updates to the data you track – it cannot be predicted well. The honest thing to do with Hansen’s now obsolete guess is to ignore it. If the climate can be modeled it will be modeled some day – that day is not here yet. Except that he appears to be a nutter I can’t even imagine why he makes these crazy predictions at all given the state of the skill of the models and his lack of success.
In any event your making it a contest using your observed data against a static best-effort seems a pointless exercise. It is well known that Hansen’s work did not create any useful prediction tools. To endlessly rehash it is bickering, not science.
For all your effort you are in no better position to predict where we will be climate wise than Hansen was in 2005. Everyone should stop SWAG’ing this and just say “I don’t know”. That would be accurate.
Lies, Damn lies, and Tamino.
dp says: “The common practice of extrapolating a person’s calculation into the future, as you call it, should be done only if the author of that function suggests it is a valid practice. If he has stopped using it that is tacit evidence it is wrong.”
A GISS associate of the author, at his blog posts for the past two years, has been extending the GISS Model-ER hindcast with a linear trend based on the period of 1993 to 2002, “to get a rough sense of where those runs might have gone.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
You wrote, “The honest thing to do with Hansen’s now obsolete guess is to ignore it.”
Your assumption in that sentence is that the Hansen guess is now obsolete. Since his associates are using it, I believe it would be safe to say that they do not consider it obsolete.
You wrote, “In any event your making it a contest using your observed data against a static best-effort seems a pointless exercise. It is well known that Hansen’s work did not create any useful prediction tools. To endlessly rehash it is bickering, not science.”
It may be well known to you that Hansen’s did not create any useful projections, but there are many other visitors here and at my blog who do not know. You can skip over the graphs that you feel are bickering, since they are not intended for you.
Fig 2 of Hansen 2005 shows the observed increase in OHC (Ocean Heat Content) between 1993 and 2003 and compares it with 5 model runs and their average. Reading from the graph the increase over the period is 6 WattYears/m^2 or 0.6 WY/m^2 per year and we can draw a straight line with that slope and crossing the y-axis at 1993. That’s not a linear regression because the actual data is not available (at least not to me – I could not find the data of the model runs). Bob Tisdale converts to Giga Joules which results in 0.0189 GJ/m^2 per year. The straight line is y = B + Ax where A=0.0189. We calculate B by setting 0 = B + 0.0189*1993 which gives B = -37.6677. On Bob’s figure the y-axis is translated so that OHC for 2003 is 0. So our straight line points are y = B + Ax – T where T = 0.189, is the y-axis shift. Then the line Bob Tisdale should have plotted starts at y=0 for x=2003 and for x=2012 the point should be -37.6677 + 0.0189*2012 – 0.189 = 0.1701. But this is the value on Bob’s figure. The extrapolation seems to be entirely correct.
Of course the models were not run to 2012 and might have done something entirely different if they had been, and drawing a line is not a linear regression. But the basic point is that the models suggest, as far as we can tell, a much steeper increase in OHC than has been observed in reality. No criticisms I have read here challenge that.
On the other hand to be confident that you have understood a criticism you need to feel it’s force and I can’t do that here. The line is in the right place. So why does Tamino think it has been fiddled and KR think it is an error to “offset” Hanson’s prediction?
It seems Tamino still thinks that sceptics can be bullied and sneered at. But the audience for this sort of stuff was always small and is diminishing. He should look at Judith Curry’s blog, or John Nielsen-Gammon’s “Climate Abyss” to see how this debate is now conducted.
Sunspots are not likely to be the only cause of the natural 60 year and ~1,000 year cycles which are readily observed in the data and which are the only factors affecting climate, seeing that anthropogenic contributions are negligible and backradiation has no effect.
Sunspots may be just indicative of an independent cause for both solar activity and Earth climate. Remember that the last long-term maximum in sunspots was nearly 50 years before the 1998 temperature maximum, so correlation is far from perfect.
The ~1,000 year cycle is still increasing and its rate of increase only reduced from about 0.06 deg.C/decade to about 0.05 deg.C/decade in the last 80 years or so. If we are approaching a maximum in a roughly sinusoidal trend for that, we should see such a maximum in that trend by about 2200, roughly 1,000 years after the MWP and 500 years after the LIA. The previous two cycles, however, were a little longer, so the periodicity may be reducing, indicating a possible maximum closer to 2100, though this is not supported by the rate of decrease in the gradient.
Either way, that maximum in the ~1,000 year cycle should only be about 0.5 to 0.8 deg.C higher than present temperatures for the trend itself, with additional variations for the superimposed 60 year cycle. The latter is expected to rise again between 2028 and 2058 and the cooling since 1998 is just the start of a slight decline in that 60 year cycle until about 2028. After the long-term maximum the world can expect about 500 years of cooling, the next Little Ice Age not coming until then.
@Bob Tisdale
Hi Bob,
I personally feel that these graph wars you engage in with Tamino in every few months are pointless. Frankly I don’t even know what either of you are talking about most of the time.
I submit that you would better use your time doing something else, anything else. Crank Froster over at Gambino’s Closed Mind knows as much as resident brown noser J. Bowers. Anybody that heavily monitors internet comments is a bad scientist.
peter2108 says: “Of course the models were not run to 2012 and might have done something entirely different if they had been, and drawing a line is not a linear regression. But the basic point is that the models suggest, as far as we can tell, a much steeper increase in OHC than has been observed in reality. No criticisms I have read here challenge that.”
The hindcasts were run to 2003. The projections were run to 2100.
Tamino mistook political ‘weather’ for political ‘climate’
when he thought CRIME
was going to be legal, forever.
He was wrong.
I’m with Bob. Keep it coming.
If we don’t do this, everyone will be forced to accept Tamino’s and Skeptical Science’s distortions and every global warming prediction (no matter how different they are from each other) will be 100% correct. Even Hansen knows he can’t get away with restating his 1988 projections anymore and has decided to just be objective about it (because there are lots of us double-checking now).
I would suggest that everyone get real basic with Tamino and double check his work. In his post, he claims to have used 1993-2003 for his trend, but he didn’t. He used 1993-2002, and that changes everything. See the initial discussion and the closing comment here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/part-2-of-tamino-once-again-misleads-his-disciples-2/
I would suggest that everyone get real basic with Tamino and double check his work. In his post, he claims to have used 1993-2003 for his trend, but he didn’t. He used 1993-2002, and that changes everything. See the initial discussion and the closing comment here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/part-2-of-tamino-once-again-misleads-his-disciples-2/
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says: “I personally feel that these graph wars you engage in with Tamino in every few months are pointless.”
So do I, but I don’t like seeing my posts misrepresented or having readers redirected from the message of my posts with meaningless chatter.
I’ve just permanently banned a blogger for troll-like behavior at my blog. He’s been posting comments on the cross post there. I wonder if he’ll show up here to complain.