Note: Short term predictions are relatively easy, it remains to be seen if this holds up over the long term. I have my doubts. – Anthony
Guest post by Frank Lemke
The Global Warming Prediction Project is an impartial, transparent, and independent project where no public, private or corporate funding is involved. It is about original concepts and results of inductive self-organizing modeling and prediction of global warming and related problems.
In September 2011, we presented a medium-term (79 months) quantitative prediction of monthly global mean temperatures based on an interdependent system model of the atmosphere developed by KnowledgeMiner, which was also discussed at Climate Etc. in October 2011. This model describes a non-linear dynamic system of the atmosphere consisting of 5 major climate drivers: Ozone concentration, aerosols, radiative cloud fraction, and global mean temperature as endogenous variables and sun activity (sunspot numbers) as exogenous variable of the system. This system model was obtained from monthly observation data of the past 33 years (6 variables in total: the 5 variables the system is actually composed of (see above) plus CO2, which, however, has not been identified as relevant system variable), exclusively, by unique self-organizing knowledge extraction technologies.
Now, more than a year has passed, and we can verify what has been predicted relative to the temperatures, which have really been measured (fig. 1).
Verifying the prediction skill of the system model from April 2011 to December 2012, the accuracy of the most likely forecast (solid red line) remains at a high level of 75%, and the accuracy relative to prediction uncertainty (pink area) is an exceptional 98%. Given the noise in the data (presumably incomplete set of system variables considered, noise added during measurement and preprocessing of raw observation data, or random events, for example), this clearly confirms the validity of the system model and its forecast.
In comparison, the IPCC AR4 A1B projection currently shows a prediction accuracy of 23% (September 2007 – December 2012, 64 months) and just 7% accuracy for the same forecast horizon as applied for the system model (April 2011 – December 2012, 21 months).
The two models, IPCC model and atmospheric system model, use two very different modeling approaches: theory-driven vs data-driven modeling. The IPCC model is based essentially on AGW theory by emission of greenhouse gases, namely CO2, the presented atmospheric system model on the other hand is a CO2-free prediction model. It is described by 5 other variables. The IPCC model shows a prediction accuracy of 7% and the atmospheric system model an accuracy of 75% for the same most recent 21 months of time…
The climate system is a complex system that consists of a number of variables, which are connected interdependently, nonlinearly and dynamically and where it is not clear, which are the causes and which are the effects. The simplistic linear cause-effect relationship “more atmospheric CO2 = higher temperatures” the IPCC model is based on is not an adequate tool to describe the complexity of the atmosphere sufficiently.
Read the complete post here:
http://climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2013/1/21_What_Drives_Global_Warming_-_Update.html
@frank Lemke
Can you explain the difference between the prediction show in this post, and the prediction shown in the slideshow on the climateprediction.eu site? There are a number of differences between this post’s prediction and hindcast relative to the slideshow.
There are two main differences:
1. This older model is based upon temp data only (HADCRUT3), which where separated into 9 latitudinal bands (so it is in a sense an auto-regressive model), and
2. It uses monthly data from 1890 to 2010.
So this new model presented in this post is much more complete (adequate).
“blockquote”Moe says:
January 24, 2013 at 9:48 pm
Never be surprised how people can rationalise their beliefs. Eleven of the last 12 years have been the hottest in 34 years. We hear all sorts of excuses, including it is cooling, the temperature has plateaued, the measurements are wrong, the people measuring it are corrupt etc. What they won’t admit is that it is getting hotter. They ignore or make up various stories to explain the reduction in the Arctic ice cap, the rising sea, the retreat of the glaciers, the number of broken heat records broken being nearly three times the number of cold records broken.
So I imagine they will cry you a river of tears when it doesn’t get colder. They will be crying because they missed the opportunity to do something about it when they could.”/blockquote”
“Eleven of the last 12 years” The highest points on any hill are always at the top; this is meaningless.
CO2 emission rates and atmospheric concentration increasing with no increase in temperature?
A planet which has entered previous ice ages with CO2 concentrations many times current levels?
Anthropogenic CO2 3% of the total?
Do what about it while “they” could?
Pamela Gray says:
January 24, 2013 at 1:33 pm
“The modeler that gets it right will use ENSO patterns of oceanic circulation and SST (a much slower lagged effect) with a variables related to other atmospheric circulation patterns that come and go (more immediate effects), that kick in after a certain value is reached (IE beyond neutral).”
Such a model must predict ENSO beyond a year if it is to produce predictions valid beyond a year. I’m a realist. ENSO is part of a cause / effect chain. It does not “just happen.” A major objective of climate science must be to predict ENSO over decadal time scales and beyond. When this can be done a lot of pieces of the puzzle will fall into place. If not, ENSO will continue to be the noise that obliterates the signal.
pochas says:
January 25, 2013 at 6:19 am
“Such a model must predict ENSO beyond a year if it is to produce predictions valid beyond a year. I’m a realist. ENSO is part of a cause / effect chain.”
The model would only have to account for the effects on ENSO, as long as it’s already dependent on the variables the equations rely on. This was why I suggested that with 33 years of input temp data, it might or might not have enough data to model longer time frame effects. Until you get enough satellite temp data to include all of the ENSO cycles changing state, we won’t know if the equation has the independent variables required to model ENSO. Even if it doesn’t, it would not make the equation useless, only that there was some addition inputs required.
MiCro says:
January 25, 2013 at 6:44 am
Mod’s this:
“effects on ENSO”
should have been
“effects of ENSO”
You can change my post or add this one as clarification.
MiCro says:
January 25, 2013 at 6:44 am
“The model would only have to account for the effects on ENSO, as long as it’s already dependent on the variables the equations rely on. ”
I’ve seen studies of the ENSO cycle that conclude that the cycle is linked to the annual cycle (shows up at Christmas), and, if linked, recurs at either 2 or 3 year intervals, or not at all. It is a phenomenon that feeds back on itself but seems dependent mostly on the annual cycle but also on outside factors that are also cyclic and nonstationary.
There are a lot of posts and I didn’t have time to read them all, but a couple caught my eye. Why use sun spot counts as a variable was the gist of them. According to the posts I read, it’s all about enso and ocean temperatures. May I ask a silly question? You really don’t think that big ball of fire that heats the world has any effect, thus the increases and decreases of the furnace’s output wouldn’t be a valid variable in ANY model? Are you serious?
===============================================
Thanks for explaining and clarifying. I had misunderstood where you were coming from.
================================================================
I often find myself tasting my toes. That’s the risk we all take when we voice our opinions. 😎
Horse says:
January 25, 2013 at 6:07 am
“blockquote”
========================================================
Replace the quotation marks with the .
See “Rick Werme’s Guide to WUWT” on the right sidebar for more details.
pochas says:
January 25, 2013 at 7:20 am
“but also on outside factors that are also cyclic and nonstationary.”
And it’s these inputs that might not be derive-able from the inputs used. What will be needed are enough cycles on ENSO, that cover all of it’s various cycles, and then various inputs that might be the source of the cycles that developed, then new inputs that might be the root cause of the cycles would then be added to the model and more adaption runs, to determine if the network “finds” the required inputs to enrich the equation. Once they are identified, they would be added to the required inputs list.
I could see it might take a number of rounds of this process to identify all of the inputs that control climate(well temperatures any ways).
It’s really just a method to select from a bunch of signals to find a combination and an equation that references some of those signals that result in another signal as output.
Once you have an equation, you can potentially decompose that equation into physical effects that cause the results. It’s the ultimate way to solve the physical system that causes a set of specific results for a non-obvious complex system.
Currently, climatology says this is something like TSI * CS * aerosols * scaling factors * orbital factors, etc, etc. These equations are expressed in GCM’s, and then run iteratively over a model of the earths surface (the grids). It too is self referential, they just tried to start from first principles, but the main first principle was that CO2 controls the system. Most of the people here disagree with this, that’s why we’re looking for evidence that proves this wrong.
Moe,
Skeptics need not rely upon “beliefs” or ways to “rationalize” them.
The 11 of the last 12 years being the hottest in 34 years is no more meaningful than any other 11 years out of the 34. Or within any previous 34 year period.
It’s your own “belief” that needs perpetual rationalizing excuses.
The past 16 years is what it is. No one need label with anything other than what the record shows.
Forget about whether it is cooling or a plateau. But the global temperature is surely not getting hotter. Despite your foolish clamoring to view various observations as “evidence” of your belief.
Proof of your hapless delirium appears with your fantasy that “something” can be done “about it”.
You haven’t any idea what “it’ is, what “something” is or how it would do anything at all.
Yet you’re certain the opportunity to do something is being missed?
You might as well be advocating the sending of radio messages to outer space to prevent the alien invasion you’re convinced is imminent.
=========================================================
Let me try that again.
Replace the quotation marks with the less than and greater than signs. (These are reversed. When I didn’t reverse them they disappeared.) > <
Horse, how did you get your 3%, better check this. The co2 concentration is 40% higher than before industrialisation.
Gail, you suffer from the same problem as DirkH. If there is a cold record on California, there are three warm records broken somewhere else.
Robroy, Nobody ever said co2 concetration was the only thing that determined temperature. There are many factors. However the steady increase in co2 leads to a increase in the trend in temperature. You’re a skeptic, so check out what the statistically significant time should be to discover the trend. Hint, it is longer than 12 years. You have been duped to believe that there hasn’t been any ‘statistically significant warming in the last 12 years’ to mean there is no warming.
DirkH, as I said earlier, people will do anything to justify their belief systems. You asked the question, what would happen if there was a cold year coming up to the people who support the concept of AGW? Well look at the posters here. we are continually get warm years one after another, yet they go to extraordinary lengths to say it is not warming.
The implications of this model is astounding. Recently I read somewhere that the planet is getting greener and crop yields are increasing. Could CO2 actually be of great value as a fertilizer? It would mean that coal is not only providing affordable electricity but is doing double duty by making food more abundant for the masses.
CO2 BASED
I have added Frank Lemke’s forecast to 2017 to the list
JAMES HANSON 1.4 C for A option,
1.2 C for B option
0.6 C for C option
IPCC 0 .750 C [A2, A1B, B1 scenarios perAR4
0.5 C multi-model median [range 0.25 to 1.0C] per leaked AR5 chapter 11
CLIVE BEST 0. 55 to 0 .7 C ADJUSTED BASED ON AIB and B1 SCENARIOS]
MET OFFICE [UK] 0.430 C [0.28 C to 0.59 C] WAS 0.76 C previously
NON CO2 BASED
N.SCAFETTA 0.450 C HARMONIC MODEL [RANGE 0.3 to 0.55 C]
P. MICHAELS 0.4 to o.5 C ADJUSTED TREND OF IPCC
TALLBLOKE 0.4 to 0.5 C BASED ON SEA SURFACE TEMP
FRANK LEMKE 0.4 C SELF ORGANIZED PREDICTIVE MODEL [RANGE 0.5 to 0.3C]
G.ORSSENGO 0.226 C STATISTICAL MODEL BASED ON GMTA HADCRUT gl3 [0.1C to 0.55C lower and upper limit]
D. EASTERBROOK -0.1C BASED ON 1790-1820 PAST TREND
0.0 C BASED ON 1880-1915 PAST TREND
0.4 C BASED ON 1945-1977 PAST TREND
S-ICHI AKASOFU < 0.5 C [BASED ON PAST TEMPERATURE PATTERN
M.VOORO 0.350C LAST 12 YEARS TREND OF OBSERVED HADCRUT3 PROJECTED TO THE END OF 2017
ACTUAL OBSERVED
OBSERVED HADCRUT 3GL TO THE END OF DECEMBER 2012 0.403 C
Moe says:
January 25, 2013 at 12:53 pm
.
The 3% is the amount of CO2 in the atm, so it went from just under 2% to 3 some %.
This is a hypothesis, repeated attempts to actually measure a change in the atm due to co2 that would cause this, has failed.
I’ve studied the entire NCDC GSoD record set, all 120 million records, looking at how much of the day time rise in temps is lost over night, and it shows no loss of cooling.
graphs of the world.
And the US only here:
Now if you look at the last one, the yearly averaging of nightly cooling is negative (it’s colder the next morning than the temp today went up) ~45 of the last 70 years. This is from NCDC’s data, the same data you say proves warming, well if it’s good enough to prove temps are up, it’s good enough (actually better because I use measurements from the same station taken within 24hr’s of each other) to prove there’s no loss of cooling, the hallmark of how CO2 causes global warming. What we do see is when the daily temp goes up, it cools off more that night. Just what thermal dynamics says it should do.
I tried to embed an image, and it doesn’t look like it worked, this is the chart for the Continental US
http://www.science20.com/files/images/Global%20Annual%201940-2010%20Diff_1.jpg
[Reply: Only Anthony, authors, and mods can embed images. But your clickable link works fine. — mod.]
Moe:
You again assert your ignorance of the carbon cycle when at January 25, 2013 at 12:53 pm you write
Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for each molecule of CO2 emitted by humans. That seems like 3% to me.
I don’t know the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but I want to know. People who think they know are mistaken.
In one of our 2005 papers we assessed the carbon cycle and determined that a quantitative model of the carbon cycle cannot be constructed because the rate constants are not known for mechanisms operating in the carbon cycle. Therefore, we used ‘attribution studies’ as a method to discern mechanisms that are not capable of being the cause of the observed rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the twentieth century.
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
We used three different basic models to emulate the causes of the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century. These numerical exercises are a caution to estimates of future changes to the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The three models used in these exercises each emulate different physical processes. Each model assessed whether the mechanism would explain the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa assuming the rise has
(i) an anthropogenic cause
and
(ii) a natural cause.
Thus, we generated 6 models.
Each model agrees with the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The models demonstrate that the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration may be solely a consequence of the anthropogenic emission or may be solely a result of, for example, desorption from the oceans induced by the temperature rise that preceded it. Furthermore, extrapolation using these models gives very different predictions of future atmospheric CO2 concentration whatever the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Each of the models in our paper matches the available empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.
So, if one of the six models of our paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause. But the above findings demonstrate that there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration are
(a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
but
(b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.
So, please stop disrupting the thread with your unjustifiable beliefs and return to discussion of the climate model which is the subject of this thread.
Richard
mosomoso says:
January 24, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Not only are models wrong, they have to be wrong. This has to do with the fantastic scale, complexity and variability of the thing being modelled and the ludicrously narrow, simplistic and static nature of the models (the best ones, that is).
Apart from all that, models are great. Well, that chick who was married to Billy Joel, at least.
<<<<<<<
Every word you said. A two mile deep slosh of water
divided between EIGHT basins, or so –
A two mile deep slosh of water,
spinning a thousand miles an hour,
having a continuously variable quantity of ice on the ground,
having a continuously variable quantity of ice overhead,
having a continuously variable quantity of radiation impinge on it,
having a continuously variable mixture of air in an atmosphere, around it all.
Can you imagine having so little human dignity you actually take money to publish words in a 'study' wherein you claimed to have "calculated"
"the temperature of the earth"?
The Billy Joel chick's a valid model.
Moe:
In your post at January 25, 2013 at 12:53 pm you also wrongly say
No lengths are required.
Global warming stopped 16+ years ago.
”Being warm’ is not ‘warming’.
Warming consists of rising temperature. Cooling consists of falling temperature.
There has been no discernible trend in global temperature since 1997.
So, there has been statistically significant (at 95% confidence) global warming for 16+ years.
But people like you go to extraordinary lengths to pretend it is warming although it is not.
Richard
Ouch!
I have done it again. Sorry!
I wrote
So, there has been statistically significant (at 95% confidence) global warming for 16+ years.
I intended to write
So, there has been no statistically significant (at 95% confidence) global warming for 16+ years.
Richard
Moe says:
January 25, 2013 at 12:53 pm
“DirkH, as I said earlier, people will do anything to justify their belief systems. You asked the question, what would happen if there was a cold year coming up to the people who support the concept of AGW? Well look at the posters here. we are continually get warm years one after another, yet they go to extraordinary lengths to say it is not warming.”
The US is 1.5% of the surface of the planet. Get over it already. Nothing is warming in Germany, or for that matter, in Russia or China.
Moe,
You’d better go find Harry and Curly.
Because if you believe the world is “getting hotter” you need to be slapped.
Richardscourtney, are you calling Lord Monckton a lier? He knows that the 40% increase in co2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity. He understands that 34 molecules are added to the atmosphere by nature, but he also understands that nature absorbs these 34 molecules out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis. Net effect is zero contribution from nature and the one molecule contributed by humans accumulates in the atmosphere.
Now I am curious to know what sort of skeptic you are. A REAL skeptic would ask the question’ what time period would give me a statistical significant answer to what is happening to the Earth’s temperature?’ And then work it out.
Instead, you are a PRETENT skeptic, by trying to give the impression that there has been no warming in the last 16 years, because the time period is too short to be statistically significant. Your statement ‘no statistically significant warming in the last 16 years’ really means you can tell if it is warming or not. You cannot conclude that it is not warming, which is what you are doing.