Are Climate Models Realistic? (Now Includes at Least February Data)

Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited By Just The Facts

(Note: If you read my report with the January data and just wish to know what is new with the February data, you will find the most important new things from lines 7 to the end of the table.)

In order to answer the question in the title, we need to know what time period is a reasonable period to take into consideration. As well, we need to know what the slope should be for the time period in question. For example, do we mean that the slope of the temperature-time graph must be 0 or do we mean that there has to be a lack of “significant” warming over a given period? With regards to what a suitable time period is, NOAA says the following:

”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

To verify this for yourself, see page 23 here.

Below, we will present you with just the facts and then you can decide whether or not the climate models are still valid. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on several data sets. The second section will show for how long there has been no “significant” warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2013 to date compares with 2012 and the warmest years and months on record so far. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.

Section 1

This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). However WFT is not updated for GISS, Hadcrut3 and WTI past November so I would like to thank Walter Dnes for the GISS and Hadcrut3 numbers. All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.

On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 4 years and 9 months to 16 years and 4 months.

1. For GISS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to February)

2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since April 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to February)

3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)

4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to February)

5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat from March 1, 1997 to March 31, 2013, or 16 years, 1 month. Hadsst2 has not been updated since December. The slope from March 1997 to December 2012 is -0.00015 per year and the flat line is at 0.33. The average for January and February 2013 is 0.299, so at least two months can be added to the period with a slope of less than 0. Furthermore, Dr. Spencer said that “Later I will post the microwave sea surface temperature update, but it is also unchanged from February.“ So since we can rule out a huge upward spike in Hadsst2 for March, I believe I can conclude that if Hadsst2 were updated to March, then there would be no warming for 16 years and 1 month.

6. For UAH, the slope is flat since July 2008 or 4 years, 9 months. (goes to March)

7. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 4 months. (goes to March) RSS is 196/204 or 96% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

The next graph, also used at the head of this article, shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the sloped wiggly line shows how CO2 has increased over this period.

When two items are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly. It goes from 0.1 C to 0.6 C. A change of 0.5 C over 16 years is about 3.0 C over 100 years. And 3.0 C is about the average of what the IPCC says may be the temperature increase by 2100.

So for this to be the case, the slope for all of the data sets would have to be as steep as the CO2 slope. Hopefully the graph illustrates that this is untenable.

The next graph shows the above, but this time, the actual plotted points are shown along with the slope lines and the CO2 is omitted.

Section 2

For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming according to their criteria. The numbers below start from January of the year indicated. Data have now been updated either to the end of December 2012 or January 2013. In every case, note that the magnitude of the second number is larger than the first number so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out. (To the best of my knowledge, SkS uses the same criteria that Phil Jones uses to determine significance.)

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.

For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990

For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.

For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.

For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.

For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.

For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:

RSS since September 1989;

UAH since June 1993;

Hadcrut3 since August 1993;

Hadcrut4 since July 1994;

GISS since August 1995 and

NOAA since June 1994.

Section 3

This section shows data about 2013 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the six data sources along the top and bottom, namely UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and GISS. Down the column, are the following:

1. 12ra: This is the final ranking for 2012 on each data set.

2. 12an: Here I give the average anomaly for 2012.

3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and four have 1998 as the warmest year.

4. anom: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.

5. month: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first two letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.

6. anom: This is the anomaly of the month just above.

7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 15/11 means that for 15 years and 11 months the slope is slightly negative.

8. Ja.an: This is the January, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.

9. Fe.an: This is the February, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.

10. M.an: This is the March, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.

20. avg: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months. Only the satellite data includes March.

21. rank: This is the rank that each particular data set would have if the anomaly above were to remain that way for the rest of the year. Of course it won’t, but think of it as an update 10 or 15 minutes into a game. Expect wild swings from month to month at the start of the year. As well, expect huge variations between data sets at the start.

If you wish to verify all 2012 rankings, go to the following:

For UAH, see here, for RSS see here and for Hadcrut4, see here. Note the number opposite the 2012 at the bottom. Then going up to 1998, you will find that there are 9 numbers above this number. That confirms that 2012 is in 10th place.

For Hadcrut3, see here. Here you have to do something similar to Hadcrut4, but look at the numbers at the far right. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.

For Hadsst2, see here. View as for Hadcrut3. It came in 8th place with an average anomaly of 0.342, narrowly beating 2006 by 2/1000 of a degree as that came in at 0.340. In my ranking, I did not consider error bars, however 2006 and 2012 would statistically be a tie for all intents and purposes.

For GISS, see here. Check the J-D (January to December) average and then check to see how often that number is exceeded back to 1998.

To see all points since January 2012 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below:

Appendix

In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.

RSS

The slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 4 months. (goes to March) RSS is 196/204 or 96% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.

For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990.

The RSS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.280. This would rank 6th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.192 and it came in 11th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Both show all plotted points for RSS since 1990. Then two lines are shown on the first graph. The first upward sloping line is the line from where warming is not significant according to the SkS site criteria. The second straight line shows the point from where the slope is flat.

The second graph shows the above, but in addition, there are two extra lines. These show the upper and lower lines using the SkS site criteria. Note that the lower line is almost horizontal but slopes slightly downward. This indicates that there is a slight chance that cooling has occurred since 1990 according to RSS per graph 1 and graph 2.

UAH

The slope is flat since July 2008 or 4 years, 9 months. (goes to March)

For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.

For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

The UAH average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.288. This would rank 3rd if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.161 and it came in 9th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to UAH.

Graph 1 and graph 2.

Hadcrut4

The slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to February.)

For Hadcrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.

For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.457. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.540. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.433 and it came in 10th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut4.Graph 1 and graph 2.

Hadcrut3

The slope is flat since April 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to February)

For Hadcrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.

For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

The Hadcrut3 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.411. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to go back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.406 and it came in 10th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut3. Graph 1 and graph 2.

Hadsst2

For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 1 month. (goes to March 31, 2013). Hadsst2 however has not been updated since December on WFT. The slope from March 1997 to December 2012 is -0.00015 per year and the flat line is at 0.33. The average for January and February 2013 is 0.299, so at least two months can be added to the period with a slope of 0. Furthermore, Dr. Spencer said that “Later I will post the microwave sea surface temperature update, but it is also unchanged from February.“ So since we can rule out a huge upward spike in Hadsst2 for March, I believe I can conclude that if Hadsst2 were updated to March, then there would be no warming for 16 years and 1 month.

As mentioned above, the Hadsst2 average anomaly for the first two months for 2013 is 0.299. This would rank 12th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.342 and it came in 8th.

Sorry! The only graph available for Hadsst2 is the following this.

GISS

The slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to February)

For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.

For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

The GISS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.55. This would rank 10th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.66. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.56 and it came in 9th.

The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.56 and it came in 9th.

Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to GISS. Graph 1 and graph 2

Conclusion

Above, various facts have been presented along with sources from where all facts were obtained. Keep in mind that no one is entitled to their facts. It is only in the interpretation of the facts for which legitimate discussions can take place. After looking at the above facts, do you feel that we should spend billions to prevent catastrophic warming? Or do you feel we should take a “wait and see” attitude for a few years to be sure that future warming will be as catastrophic as some claim it will be? Keep in mind that even the MET office felt the need to revise its forecasts. Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?

By the way, here is an earlier prediction by the MET office:

“(H)alf of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998.”

When this prediction was made, they had Hadcrut3 and so far, the 1998 mark has not been broken on Hadcrut3. 2013 is not starting well if they want a new record in 2013.

Here are some relevant facts today: The sun is extremely quiet; ENSO has been between 0 and -0.5 since the start of the year; it takes at least 3 months for ENSO effects to kick in and the Hadcrut3 average anomaly after February was 0.411 which would rank it in 9th place. Granted, it is only 2 months, but you are not going to set any records starting the race in 9th place after two months. So even if a 1998 type El Nino started to set in tomorrow, it would be at least 4 or 5 months for the maximum ENSO reading to be reached. Then it would take at least 3 more months for the high ENSO to be reflected in Earth’s temperature. How hot would November and December then have to be to set a new record? In my opinion, the odds of setting a new record in 2013 are extremely remote.