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.
The Iconoclast says:
March 31, 2013 at 7:02 am
I have created thirty eight models for predicting the outcome of a spin of a roulette wheel…
_____________________________________________
Call it an “ensemble”, and start lapping up grant money.
Iconoclast:
On second thought, your ensemble is fatally flawed because one of your models is always right. Understand the high-level approach; it’s important that NONE of the individual models in an ensemble is right. Only then can you state with confidence that their average is sure to be right.
Paul – that HadCRUT4 temperature chart you have neatly shows that we are dealing with not just one but with two climate standstills, one in the eighties and nineties and one in the twenty-first century. I showed this three years ago in my book What Warming? This leaves hardly any space for greenhouse warming. That graph is not a good way to show it but satellite temps that I used make it crystal clear. I have an updated and annotated satellite curve showing all this but don’t know how to show it in a comment.
Kindlekinser says:
“The null hypothesis will remain the same no matter what theory one is testing.”
Say what?? By that definition, we can simply dispose of the Null Hypothesis, since it doesn’t matter. Tell that to Kevin Trenberth, who desperately wants to reverse the Null Hypothesis, and put the onus onto scientific skeptics — thus requiring them to prove a negative.
The climate Null Hypothesis matters. It shows conclusively that current climate parameters have been routinely exceeded in the past [when CO2 was very low]. Therefore, current temperatures are neither unusual, nor unprecedented. What we are observing now is completely natural.
In fact, there is no verifiable, testable, measurable scientific evidence showing that the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2 has caused any global warming. Thus, the conjecture that CO2 causes global warming lacks any measurable support.
This is not to say that CO2 does not cause any of the current global warming. Even if it did, the effect is so minuscule that it is too small to measure. And without measurements, claims of AGW are merely conjectures.
You can argue this all day, but unless you can produce verifiable measurements showing that CO2=AGW, you are exhibiting a religious belief system — not science. Science is all about observed, verifiable, testable measurements. Without measurements, all you are doing is asserting a conjecture; an opinion. A belief.
If you can produce verifiable, empirical measurements showing that a rise in CO2 is the cause of global warming, I am all ears. But absent any such measurements, the Scientific Method says that your belief system lacks empirical observations or facts. Therefore, your belief that CO2 is causing global warming is merely a baseless conjecture.
The guardian should have printed the article on April first like this article.
http://www.theweatheroutlook.com/
Why does the comment I have made require moderation?It becomes boring after a while
Those believing that they landed on the moon, those are the same intellectual people believing in AGW……
Then we get realistic people…I will rather stick with them
Kindlekinser:
I am copying all your post at March 31, 2013 at 2:32 pm so it is clear that I am not disputing your weasel words out of their context.
My first response to you demolished YOUR MAIN POINT which was
Having been totally demolished on your main point you now pretend that was a trivial issue which was incidental to what you wrote.
IT WAS NOT A MINOR POINT. IT WAS YOUR MAIN POINT.
When warmunists are shown to be wrong they usually pretend what they said was not really the point they were making. You now attempt that with me having attempted it with Wamron whose post at March 31, 2013 at 2:18 pm states he is as offended by your doing it as I am. This typical warmunist behaviour is also being discussed on WUWT in threads discussing the Marcott paper
e.g. at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/marcott-issues-a-faq-on-thei-paper/
Not content with that, your second sentence misrepresents what I said. I did NOT say
Indeed, my post at March 31, 2013 at 12:46 pm (which you claim to be answering) said
Kindlekinser: so far in this post I have only addressed the first two sentences in your post. And I have rebutted them as being gross misrepresentations.
And concerning AGW you continue with this piece of blatant hutzpah
As I am sure you know, that statement is misleading bollocks.
Clearly, the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models is completely and unequivocally falsified by a variety of empirical data; e.g.
Missing ‘hot spot’
Missiing ‘Trenberth heat’
Missing ‘committed warming’
Lack of predicted warming over the most recent 16+ years despite increased atmospheric CO2 concentration
etc.
However, there are several alternative conjectures and hypotheses which attempt to explain recent climate variability and remain to be falsified; e.g. those of Svensmark, of Shaviv, of Tisdale, etc.
The remainder of your post (which I am answering) is meaningless – and content-free – waffle.
I conclude by repeating the conclusion of my post addressed to you at March 31, 2013 at 1:06 pm which was not in any way “harsh”.
I point out that WUWT is a science blog and suggest your posts would be more appropriate at pseudoscience blogs such as SkS and RC. They waste space on WUWT.
Richard
Since when has hind-casting become a way of verifying a correct forecast. Absolutely awful and it is getting worse than we thought.
Arno Arrak
I have an updated and annotated satellite curve showing all this but don’t know how to show it in a comment.
If you leave a comment on my site, I can email you back.
Thanks
Paul
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/global-warming-predictions-prove-accurate-guardian/
The most puzzling thing in life to me, at the moment, is why so much time and energy goes into debating AGW. It doesn’t matter; it is irrelevant!
To paraphrase: It’s the energy security, Stupid!
By 2050, when there are 10 billion of us, we, the fortunate ¼ of the population now using ¾ of the energy produced, will be fighting tooth and nail to hang on to our way of life. The other ¾of the population will be battling like mad to reach our standard of living. I hope this is all metaphorical fighting-talk.
By 2050, we will need 3 to 4 times more energy than we use now, in the face of declining (and ever more expensive) fossil fuels and many other resources. If WE cannot provide THEM with clean, affordable energy, then a nation’s energy security becomes paramount and the fight will really be on for energy sources. Energy availability can mean food and water to a nation – not the other way round.
Only breeder reactors can arithmetically supply an energy-rich future to every single individual on the planet, for all of time, from inexhaustible uranium and thorium fuel sources. The need to push for the adoption of this technology is immediate.
Instead, we have useless blogs, articles and masses of irrelevant prognostications about AGW.
You’d all better get spending your time solving the energy security issue now, or you or your kids will have problems, orders of magnitude greater than the AGW ‘threat’, to worry about in a couple of decades or so.
To the various people dealing with the kindlekinser:
I admire your dedication in demonstrating the inadequacies of said kindlebeing. I realize it is necessary to do this whenever such pops up. Whilst it might have some value to you as intellectual exercise, it can’t be much, given the very obvious holes in what passes for a thought process in the kindlekinser, and that most of your efforts are in simply getting a clear response to basic things. Very frustrating.
Do you make the mistake of assuming kindlekinser is actually capable either by capacity or intent, or both, of coming to any sort of agreed understanding – one that reflects any degree of human intelligence I mean?
It seems to me that this is a forlorn prospect. I suppose the best that can be hoped for is that it is obvious to everyone – even possibly the kindlekinser – that he is bereft of comprehension.
It’s an interesting question. Is he simply dumb? Possessed by the spirit of the Dawning New Age and rendered appropriately incapable? A troll?
I just wonder what a kindlekinser can possibly hope to achieve by this. It can’t, surely, be a vindication of his position. Could it? Is this possibly sincere? A Warrior for Virtue in his own mind? A clever diversion from something else? What is the point?
Moderator:
I have posted a reply to jc which seems to have gone in the ‘bin’. Please retrieve it.
Richard
Steven Mosher says:
March 31, 2013 at 12:17 pm
yes some models got it right. others predicted cooling. the majority predicted more warming than occured. this paper is an example of the sharp shooter fallacy.
======================================================
Yes, and any five year old can guess tomorrows temperaturee to be colder, or the same, or warmer, or boiling; so the range of models shows how poorly developed the science is, still in its infancy. But the CAGW theory/ guess is catestrophic anthropogenic global warming. This is not happening, not even in the guardian article, which is cherry picked datelines, and wrong on many fronts.
Rob says:
March 31, 2013 at 2:05 pm
………….I think it is worth saying that there could still be a CO2 warming effect, since the temperatures are at a ‘plateau’ even though as far as I’ve understood solar activity has been low since the last warming trend stopped. If the solar effect is strong it could/should imply a strong CO2 effect which seems to be overlooked……………..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First if the system was a simple CO2 increase => Temp increase there would not be a debate and predictions would be very simple. However the system is not simple and that means you have first order effects, second order effects, third order effects…. Also the system HAS TO HAVE FEEDBACKS if the system does not have feedbacks we would be snowball earth or an inferno.
This means proving in the lab that CO2 can absorb certain wavebands of low level IR energy and “..it is a physical property of the gas that can be empirically demonstrated in the lab…” means diddlesquat in regards to the larger system. Even arch warmist William Connelly who screens all climate information at Wikipedia has allowed the knowledge that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic to stand.
Graph 1 and Graph 2
You say “… I’ve understood solar activity has been low since the last warming trend stopped. If the solar effect is strong it could/should imply a strong CO2 effect which seems to be overlooked…”
You are looking for a quick change in a HUGE system, That just doesn’t happen (Thank goodness) but we ARE seeing a change, not in the temperature but the weather patterns. The NH Jet stream has gone from polar to a meridional flow pattern. This means you get blocking highs, droughts, more rain, and temperature extremes as the meanders of the jets alternately suck air from the poles or the tropics into a region. This is the real reason for ‘Weather Weirding’
In regards to temperature, you are completely overlooking the ‘hot water bottle effect’ of the oceans. Air temperature and weather FOLLOWS the oceans not the other way around.
This is a visual comparison of the energy content of the ocean vs air link
Oceans are over 70% of the earth’s surface. This is the amount of incoming solar energy that penetrates the oceans to 10m vs Top of Atmosphere (TOA) graph Note that the oceans are effected by the high energy wavelengths. This graph Graph: Solar Radiation Intensity and Wavelengths at Ocean Depths gives the areas different wavelength will penetrate to with the energy being absorbed. Note that the wavelengths back radiated by CO2 have an effect approaching nil.
This is a critical point. Ocean energy content is more dependent on certain wavelengths than it is on the Total Solar Insolation (TSI.) NASA has recently found that while TSI may be relatively constant the energy at different wavelengths is not and the higher wavelengths, those that effect the ozone layer and the ocean, change the most. NASA: link 1 and link 2 and link 3 and link 4
With regards to why CO2 is really a minor concern aside from its logarithmic effect is this graph showing the relative energy of incoming and outgoing energy. This graph shows the atmospheric absorption bands of incoming and outgoing energy. Your are comparing nickels and dimes for CO2 to billion (10^8) dollar bills for the ocean when you look at the relative strengths of the energy combined with the width of the waveband. This is especially true when you toss in the variation in the upper wave lengths coming from the sun.
As you can see from this link the actual measurement of TSI is not as ‘clean’ as one could wish so there is no agreement on solar variation. link 1 and NASA link This graph shows the different interpretation of the measurements. ALSO SEE: Judithgate (-translated from Czech by author) for the politics and back-up information like letters and such from scientists.
This is why I pointed to The oceans as a calorimeter
The changes in the height of the atmosphere NASA: Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up.” and the solar UV/ozone link and its effect on clouds and winds is just being explored. Paper
In other words CO2 is no longer a real player because of the logrithmic effect and scientists have no real idea of the effects of the sun because they, thanks to the IPCC mandate, have been too busy trying to pin the blame for CAGW on humans.
The IPCC mandate states:
Robert Wilson, employee of the World Bank was the former chair of the IPCC. The World Banks vested interest.
This is the fraud that is producing nothing but fuel poverty and deaths.
The ultimate hypocrisy of the World Bank.
GRAPH: World Bank Lending for Coal Plants by Year and the story World Bank coal funding hits record high as it seeks climate finance control: World Bank funding for coal power stations has soared 40-fold over the last five years to hit a record high of $4.4 billion in 2010, new figures reveal. Also The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement… hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank…
Colin Megson says: @ur momisugly April 1, 2013 at 4:29 am
…By 2050, when there are 10 billion of us, we, the fortunate ¼ of the population now using ¾ of the energy produced, will be fighting tooth and nail to hang on to our way of life. The other ¾of the population will be battling like mad to reach our standard of living. I hope this is all metaphorical fighting-talk….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Don’t bet on it.
The gauntlet has already been thrown.
The Cyprus depositor ‘Haircut’ was aimed at the Russian Oligrachy link Now the emerging second and third world countries, disgusted by the rape from the World Bank and IMF “structural adjustment programs,” are planning to pack up their toys and going their own way.
World Bank to be hit with a BRIC ~ The BRICS Countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, have agreement in principle to form their own “Development Bank”.
The UN and WTO had their eyes focused on the glories of ‘Global Governance’ with them at the steering wheel. Unfortunately to bring about the necessary interdependence and destruction of US sovereignty they stripped the EU and the USA of their wealth, factories and technology and handed it over to other countries. Clinton Approves Technology Transfer to China This included top secret MILITARY technology The USA is now to the point our military is considering buying from foreign suppliers. link
Sorry I just do not trust that Russia and China have anything but their own national interests in mind and if we do get hit with a mini-Ice age these two countries are going to get hit the hardest. Unfortunately our home politicians have already weaken the EU and USA from the inside. See my comment on lack border security @ur momisugly CHEIFIO.
I really hate being treated as a pawn on a giant chest board where the deaths and destruction is very very real and the elite always win. (I was married to the son of a minor elite family, his Vietnam draft papers mysteriously were lost for months and months until the end of the war. His start of basic training/OCS was timed so he missed ‘Nam by just one week.)
The reflection by jc [April 1, 2013 at 4:46 am] is actually helpful to me here. Why am I trying to engage now? What could I possibly hope to get out of this, given that the community here is much more invested in this topic than I am, and is clearly more skilled in the debate? A point that I thought was a simple commentary on the difference between theory prediction and explanation [as opposed to the truth or fiction of global warming], turned out to be embedded in a complicated set of assumptions and language conventions that I had not fully appreciated. I used terms loosely and was called on it, rightly. And in the process I’m afraid I just made richardscourtney and a few others angry.
I’ll be silent now.
@ur momisugly Gail Combs says: April 1, 2013 at 8:46 am
I have to say, from what I have seen on this site generally, that you have a hell of a lot of energy you are prepared to put into this issue. And you seem to be able to contribute across the range of perspectives, from science to society. With details backed up by references or links when needed.
This is not a post intended to just applaud. I think the ability to see AGW in the wider context is going to be vital from here in. When anything gets into the world of Politics, let alone the murky activity of “politics”, people find it hard to see through to the basics, and are habitually polarized, so this can hardly be straightforward.
This is, as you say, all contingent now on Big Issues deriving from existential questions facing various societies, and in that, they are brutally simple. To be able to marry AGW, and the “cultural” imperative behind it, with all its associated structural manifestations, to understanding these issues is going to be literally a matter of life or death, at least for some.
Many who come to this site would say this has always been the case with AGW, which I wouldn’t disagree with. But we are at the pointy end now.
Another ‘warmista’ explanation for a ‘coldista’ phenomenon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487
“Climate change is expanding Antarctica’s sea ice, according to a scientific study in the journal Nature Geoscience.
The paradoxical phenomenon is thought to be caused by relatively cold plumes of fresh water derived from melting beneath the Antarctic ice shelves.
This melt water has a relatively low density, so it accumulates in the top layer of the ocean.
The cool surface waters then re-freeze more easily during Autumn and Winter.”
So, there we are.
Andor says:
March 31, 2013 at 11:20 pm
“Those believing that they landed on the moon, those are the same intellectual people believing in AGW……
Then we get realistic people…I will rather stick with them”
Lewandowsky, is that you, trying to produce the evidence for your papers?
@ur momisugly Kindlekinser says: April 1, 2013 at 9:38 am
It takes something to admit you haven’t been on top of an issue: maybe things created their own momentum and got out of hand. Stick with it. You – as I guess you know – can get a lot out of this site. If you want something covered every which way, allowing you to come to your own well-founded conclusions, you’re as likely to get it here as anywhere.
@ur momisugly DirkH says: April 1, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Yes I read that too. I quickly gave up trying to understand it.
So maybe it is Lewandowsky.
Kindlekinser:
In your post at April 1, 2013 at 9:38 am you say
No, not “angry”. Annoyed and offended at trolling which was clearly intended to mislead uninformed onlookers.
You came here spouting nonsense as fact and made no attempt to pose questions.
Now you claim your behaviour was based on ignorance. I don’t buy it.
Richard
@ur momisugly richardscourtney says: April 1, 2013 at 12:48 pm
He has to wear that. The cost of making categorical statements when not thought through or informed, whatever the motivation. A loss of credibility.
Kindlekinser
If you are prepared to learn, I don’t think we can ask any more.