Guest post by Paul Homewood
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
The Mail on Sunday ran an article by David Rose a couple of weeks ago, pointing out just how woeful most climate models had been in predicting global temperatures in the last decade or so. Added to other media reports in recent months, the public at large, at least in the UK. are now gradually becoming aware that temperatures have flatlined for several years.
Desperate to counter this, the Guardian have reported on some work by Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science at Oxford University. They report:-
Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists’ modelling of climate change shows.
The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.
The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.
The forecast, published in 1999 by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, was one of the first to combine complex computer simulations of the climate system with adjustments based on historical observations to produce both a most likely global mean warming and a range of uncertainty. It predicted that the decade ending in December 2012 would be a quarter of degree warmer than the decade ending in August 1996 – and this proved almost precisely correct.
The new research also found that, compared to the forecast, the early years of the new millennium were somewhat warmer than expected. More recently the temperature has matched the level forecasted very closely, but the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s has caused many commentators to assume that warming is now less severe than predicted. The paper shows this is not true.
These claims raise a number of issues, but let’s start by looking at the actual numbers. Plotted below are the annual HADCRUT4 anomalies, (based on y/e August, in line with Allen’s workings).
The decade averages, as indicated by the red lines, have increased from 0.196C to 0.467C, so on the face of it, Allen’s prediction was spot on. But we need to delve a little deeper.
1) Let’s start by making a general observation. The Guardian suggest that the results of this one model somehow vindicate climate modelling in general. This is clearly a nonsense, as we will see later, as is their claim that it “should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change”
2) The article also talks about “the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s”. This is more nonsense – warming has not “slowed down”, it has stopped.
3) The first thing to notice about Allen’s prediction is just how low it was, compared with most other models. His forecast of 0.25C warming in 16 years equates to about 1.5C/century, well below other predictions. We’ll compare a couple later.
4) His starting point, the 10 years ending 1996 were, of course, affected by Pinatubo. The years 1992-94 were about 0.15C lower than the years before and after, so it is reasonable to assume the decadal average was about 0.04C lower as a result. In other words, about a sixth of Allen’s prediction of a 0.25C increase is no more than a rebound from Pinatubo.
5) As there was warming between 1986 and 1996, the temperatures at the end of that decade were already higher than the decadal mean. The average of 1995/96 was 0.07C higher than the decadal mean. In other words, part of Allen’s predicted increase between 1996 and 2012 had already occurred before 1996.
6) By the time the paper was written in 1999, Allen, of course, already knew that temperatures had climbed significantly since 1996, with the average of 1997 and 98 being 0.46C. Remember that his model predicted a figure of 0.45C for the decade to 2012, (0.196C + 0.250C).
I wonder why we were not told then that there would be no net warming for the next 13 years?
7) Although the model has, fortuitously, accurately predicted the temperature to 2012, this does not mean that it has been validated. The lack of warming for at least 10 years is a significant feature, and any model that fails to predict this cannot be said to be validated. It is ludicrous to posit that it “should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change”.
8) As I mentioned, many other models forecast much more rapid rates of warming. The Met Office’s decadal forecast in 2007, for instance, which predicted global temperatures in 2012 would be 0.60C higher than 1996.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/met-office-decadal-forecast2007-version/
9) Or Hansen’s famous 1988 model, that predicted more than a degree of warming, even under Scenario B.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/HansenvUAH.png
Conclusion
Contrary to the Guardian’s claims, Myles Allen’s work does not indicate vindicate climate modelling in general, nor does it inspire confidence in current predictions.
Furthermore, Allen’s work fails to explain why temperatures have flatlined in the last ten years, and why his original model did not predict it. More importantly, it has nothing to say about what this pause means for temperatures during the next decade.
But you would not expect to hear any of this from the Guardian.
I see no way to leave comments below the fold on their pages.
I noticed this article liked somewhere on another site last week and was going to leave a comment at the Guardian article disputing their claims. However when I got there there was NO comments facility on this Guardian article despite the fact comments are normally allowed. Do you think they ere afraid of the reaction to their tawdry lies.
Elizabeth says:
March 31, 2013 at 5:29 am
“If I was a Climate Scientist or ex warmist mainstream news reporter, I would run now. When the depth and scale of this scam is realized (as is now happening) your own mainstream media will have absolutely no mercy on you. It will become the story of the decade LOL”
Well of course the MSM will not be too harsh with itself; just like the German MSM wasn’t too harsh with itself after predictions of a dying off of German forests turned out to be baseless hype.
What they will do is scaling back for the moment but making a new alarmist attack at any opportunity.
Over the past few weeks, Der Spiegel had Bojanowski write about CO2AGW; and Bojanowski is an honest soul – for an unknown reason he works for Der Spiegel nevertheless. Strange things happen.
But, they have now fallen back to one of the more ridiculous ways of the warmist, by pushing the first Lewandowsky conspiracy paper that was already refuted at WUWT and Climate Audit in 2012. They don’t mention the refutation of course, and all their commenters don’t even know that Lewandowsky invented his “data”.
So, I was thinking that the Bilderbergers have given up pushing CO2AGW, but now it looks like the MSM will relentlessly and again and again come up with the same old smears and lies and fabrications, no matter whether they lose their last paying customer or not; at which point they will probably collectively be bailed out with printed fiat money.
Rick Bradford says: March 31, 2013 at 5:24 am
Ahh, Rick, not ‘center’ – Bull. (Apposite)
The titles of the “More On This Story” links on the right side of this Guardian story are quite telling:
Spring: where has it gone?
Britain set for coldest March since 1962
Cold weather to continue for a month, say forecasters
Millions of Britons flee abroad in search of Easter sunshine
Is this freezing weather good for anything?
Army helicopters in Northern Ireland to drop food to snow-stricken animals
Cold spring kills thousands of newborn lambs
Cold weather makes triple-dip recession more likely, economists fear
Cold weather could stay until late April, say forecasters
Cold weather leaves thousands without power
Hill walker found dead in Scottish Highland.
More snow on the way as Britain hit by travel chaos
Snow storms continue to disrupt power and transport across UK
Heavy snow sweeps across the UK – video
Snow and flooding hits the UK – in pictures
Snow and winds cut power to 40,000 homes in Northern Ireland
Nature lies dormant ahead of first day of spring
UK farmers face disaster as ‘perfect storm’ strikes
John Vidal: How the government could end this long winter at a stroke
It appears that the Guardian does “need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”. Now the CAGW crew are not just cherrypicking data or time periods, but cherrypicking predictions. Just goes to show, if you throw enough crap against a wall, some is bound to stick but it’s still crap.
Guardian, Monbiot, Thomson Reuters/Globemedia, Sir Crispin Tickell… Carbon market invested shills.
When was the “null” hypothesis of natural variation replaced by your so called “current” theory? When did CO2 induced warming become theory, when it has barely secured conjecture status and only flickers as a hypothesis, as the above model (hypothesis) failure… seems to indicate. Please clarify. GK
Kindlkekinser….not so. We are talking about a contention. A contention requires positive verification. The status of any competing contention has no bearing upon that of any given contention. There are no circumstances under which it can it be said that something is necessarily true simply because no-one has proven it untrue.
Global warming predictions are accurate, so long as accurate is defined as being between 0% to 100% right.
Why are we still laboring under the misapprehension that averaging surface temperatures gives you anything physically meaningful? Some places might have warmed, others cooled, others remained relatively static.
The first thing to notice about Allen’s prediction is just how low it was, compared with most other models.
I would be shocked if some group out there didn’t come close in their predictions.
I have a 100% success rate when picking winning horses. Pretty amazing until you dig a little deeper and find that, at any given meeting, I bet, to win, on every horse in every race.
Pamela Gray says:
March 31, 2013 at 6:46 am
Re the graph in the Guardian: Interesting yellow diamond pattern of individual year data toying with his prediction. I’ll wager a bet he is hoping, maybe even praying to the god of yellow diamonds, that those gems start “playing” a more congruous tune and start moving up a little bit more in the direction of his future prediction. That prediction rises like the Grand Tetons, as do all other AGW predictions. My prediction is that Mother Nature will also sink this boat in due time. It has already developed a leak.
You are not alone in your prediction
“Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the St Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, painted the Doomsday scenario saying the recent inclement weather simply proved we were heading towards a frozen planet.
Dr Abdussamatov believes Earth was on an “unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop””
http://www.thegwpf.org/russian-scientist-warns-earth-heading-ice-age/
and
Or as Piers Corbyn puts it in his own inimitable style:
““The new Mini Ice Age is upon us” (Active pdf via http://bit.ly/YwPTBH ) is getting a lot of interest. There are many examples of its development and many serious agricultural and economoc issues that must be addresse. Some important matters are:
=> Increase in storms enhanced by Jet stream meanders – eg More Sandy’s
=> Increase in extreme damaging hail events
=> World hunger as temperate zones have increasingly poor harvests due to late Springs and wet cold summers.
Prayer Wheels (wind turbines) and burning food (biofuels) are the total wrong way to go. The CO2 warmist religion and the self-serving (or stupid), ‘climate experts’, academics, politicians and media who espouse it must be stopped.
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=525&c=5
A day early for April Fool’s day was not?
“Global warming predictions prove accurate”
This is the last gasp for what by any objective measure can only be seen now as a propaganda programme. This is obviously a response to the Mail article, but has in its desperation gone beyond what can gain purchase in the minds even of its own readers.
All people, particularly those most in thrall to this proposition, which will be Guardian readers, have been trained over many years to anticipate Armageddon. To now put forward such a tepid position is simply not in accord with that. It cannot stand as an interpretation that fits with the basic nature of what has been built. It is qualitatively different.
For some time I have referred on occasion to the Guardian “Comment is free” section and also the publication in entirety, where numbers of mentions of certain words are tabulated, to get an impression as to how this issue is traveling. It can be seen that for the readers of the Guardian themselves, this issue is dead.
The following is far from precise, but is indicative.
As a reference point for an issue that animates both readers and the functionaries who produce this LIfestyle Guide, which should act a mirror for the concerns and gratifications of those it is produced for, a topic where this mandate is in accord with performance is Gay Marriage.
“Gay Marriage”
Comment is free: % change in 2012 from previous peak – 171% (from 2008 peak of 140)
Guardian: ” ” ” ” ” ” ” – 205% (from 2008 peak of 493).
The functionaries are somewhat ahead of the game, leading fearlessly, but these concord.
In contrast:
“Carbon”
CiF – 24% (from 2009 peak of 570)
G. – 61% (from 2009 peak of 3,923)
“Carbon Emissions”
CiF – 15% (from 2009 peak of 416)
G – 43% (from 2009 peak of 2,710)
“Carbon Pollution”
CiF – 19% (from 2008 peak of 94)
G – 53% (from 2009 peak of 468)
“Environment”
CiF – 14% (from 2009 peak of 1,310)
G – 96% (from 2009 peak of 11,266)
“Environmentalism”
CiF – 39% (from 2008 peak of 688)
G – 96% (from 2008 peak of 4044)
It is clear that willingness to engage, by the even atypical Guardian social coterie, with Global Warming/Climate Change/etc and even anything to do with The Environment, has collapsed.
The functionaries, being deeply embedded in this elderly and moribund culture, are failing to perceive the feedback from their constituency, although attrition is occurring at least at a detailed level, even if they utterly fail to absorb the near extinction of interest in the environment as a whole.
There seems to be a lag in the response times of the functionaries. Someone with an interest in statistics can probably come to an accurate prediction, by reference to other terms such as renewable, sustainable, solar, green energy etc, but at a guess, these things will become “unmentionable” in 12 to 18 months.
It is remarkable that all politicians, whose only keenly developed attribute is to sniff the wind, don’t realize that to take a vehemently anti-Green stand, in all its manifestations, is not only risk free but is possibly the only thing that will save their necks. By not doing so, they plainly identify themselves as also being functionaries, even if of a different hue, who are blinded and incapable of survival response, and thus face certain death.
OTY But apparently marcott has replied through realclimate.. guess what there is no longer a hockey stick! On the presented graph anyway. They think there going to get away with it by pretending they never put a stick anyway just watch. This paper needs to be withdrawn immediately from Science
Kindlekinser says:
March 31, 2013 at 7:24 am
………………….. As long as current theory continues to hold the best explanatory power, it will appropriately guide future predictions.
—————————————–
As long as current theory continues to hold the best explanatory power, it will appropriately guide future incorrectpredictions.
see if this makes it correct.
cn
future incorrect predictions.
don’t quite have it down yet I forgot the space
cn
In addition to the above:
“climate change”
CiF – 30% (from peak in 2009 of 1,057)
G – 67% (from peak in 2009 of 5,911)
“global warming”
CiF – 31% (from peak in 2007 of 405)
G – 60% (from peak in 2007 of 2,051)
It seems from this and above that the consumers (and functionaries with a lag) increasingly abhor raising anything of a concrete nature, such as carbon or the environment itself. These things having a tangible physical reality is unpleasant for them.
Instead, what dedication they have, although greatly diminished, is to the abstract notions, which can do them no harm, and are there to provide succour. The religious element is the only thing not actually in its death spasm, although it is plainly debilitated, looking wan, and the adherents will soon be reduced to plaintiff wails.
What on Earth is a “scientific prediction” in this context? Anyone hazard a guess?
G. Karst: The null hypothesis is not a theory. CO2 warming has been a theory for over 100 years. I doubt many people, even here, would suggest that CO2 does not cause warming–it is a physical property of the gas that can be empirically demonstrated in the lab. The debate now is whether human caused increases in CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases are currently affecting our climate beyond natural variability. So (loosely) the theory is that rising CO2 et al is causing warming. The data are showing global temperatures are holding relatively steady at an elevated rate even as CO2 continues to increase. The theory therefore suggests there must be other mechanisms at play preventing rising temperatures at this time. Plenty of candidates for these mechanisms exist consistent with the theory, from solar cycles to underestimates of deep ocean warming.
It is possible that climate science is in the last gasps of a Ptolemaic system, trying to make its model fit a system that is fundamentally different than current theory supposes. If that is the case, then it will take a metaphorical Copernicus to propose an alternative theory that provides a better explanation of the observed data.
Wamron: I’m not sure what distinction you are making by using the term “contention”. Of course one can’t claim something is true because no one has demonstrated it to be untrue. I must be misunderstanding your comment.
From the Guardian Media Group Plc (“GMG”) 2012 annual report: “GMG is the parent company of Guardian News & Media, publisher of guardian.co.uk one of the world’s leading news websites as well as guardiannews.com and the Guardian and Observer newspapers”. And from the GMG consolidated income statement for the year ended 1 April 2012: “Loss attributable to the equity shareholder: £71.6m (2011 profit: £5.4m)”.
Good news doesn’t increase circulation or advertising sales, the business model of all media corporations. Controversy, bad news and alarmism is what it takes so that’s what they publish. And if you want politicians (aided and abetted by the UK Hacked Off campaign) to have the power to regulate UK newspapers, forcing them to print just anodyne party-line rubbish, their losses will escalate until they go out of business – leaving the BBC with a monopoly on news, funded by the UK poll tax on live-reception kit. Ugh.
In case of uncertainty, I did mean “plaintiff” not “plaintive” above. It is more certain that such people will expect compensation for the demise of this platform than it is that they will allow themselves to be seen to have not prevailed. That would be socially awkward.
Elizabeth says:
March 31, 2013 at 5:29 am
If I was a Climate Scientist or ex warmist mainstream news reporter, I would run now. When the depth and scale of this scam is realized (as is now happening) your own mainstream media will have absolutely no mercy on you. It will become the story of the decade LOL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And the story is getting out. This video by black students has over two million views. It is a REAL SLAM at CAGW Africa For Norway – New charity single out now!
You know it is all over when the these guys start lampoon the establishment
Kindlekinser says:
March 31, 2013 at 10:27 am
G. Karst: The null hypothesis is not a theory. CO2 warming has been a theory for over 100 years. I doubt many people, even here, would suggest that CO2 does not cause warming–it is a physical property of the gas that can be empirically demonstrated in the lab. The debate now is whether human caused increases in CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases are currently affecting our climate beyond natural variability. So (loosely) the theory is that rising CO2 et al is causing warming. The data are showing global temperatures are holding relatively steady at an elevated rate even as CO2 continues to increase. The theory therefore suggests there must be other mechanisms at play preventing rising temperatures at this time. Plenty of candidates for these mechanisms exist consistent with the theory, from solar cycles to underestimates of deep ocean warming.
It is possible that climate science is in the last gasps of a Ptolemaic system, trying to make its model fit a system that is fundamentally different than current theory supposes. If that is the case, then it will take a metaphorical Copernicus to propose an alternative theory that provides a better explanation of the observed data.
Wamron: I’m not sure what distinction you are making by using the term “contention”. Of course one can’t claim something is true because no one has demonstrated it to be untrue. I must be misunderstanding your comment.
This is not quite correct.
In the lab it has been shown that CO2 will scatter 3 narrow bands of infrared in an enclosed short column of non-radiating gases leading to an increase in temperature. It has been hypothesized that CO2 in the atmosphere behaves in the same way and thus raises atmospheric temperatures. However, it has never been shown that in the unenclosed dynamic atmosphere the scattering of infrared by CO2 leads to rising atmospheric temperature as there are many unquantified (unmeasured) feedbacks. Indeed there is quite vigorous debate on the subject of lapse rates, their cause and how they are or are not affected by radiative gases and water vapor. The satellite metrics appear to show that OLR is what would be expected given the surface temperature and not apparently modified by CO2. Balloon sonde data also appear to show the same lack of ‘forcing’.
If there are quantified empirical data from actual measurements of the Earth’s atmosphere giving the degree that CO2 actually affects the real atmosphere that you can cite that would be a good addition to the debate. The entire claim and counter claim of sensitivity is due to lack of this empirical data.
Kindlekinser says:
March 31, 2013 at 7:24 am
Theory validation requires understanding the difference….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nice spin but no cigar.
I suggest you look at a different theory – The oceans as a calorimeter, by Nir Shaviv, The paper was accepted by the Journal of Geophysical Research. The actual paper Nir J. Shaviv (2008); Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989.