Reader Markx writes:
The title says it all here: “…Retrospective prediction…” indeed. How could a researcher keep a straight face and write such a title? (Maybe a subversive element at work?)
Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade
Virginie Guemas, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, Isabel Andreu-Burillo
& Muhammad Asif
The Abstract:
Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period1. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer2, 3 has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage. Contributions have also been suggested from the deep prolonged solar minimum4, the stratospheric water vapour5, the stratospheric6 and tropospheric aerosols7. However, a robust attribution of this warming slowdown has not been achievable up to now.
Here we show successful retrospective predictions of this warming slowdown up to 5 years ahead, the analysis of which allows us to attribute the onset of this slowdown to an increase in ocean heat uptake. Sensitivity experiments accounting only for the external radiative forcings do not reproduce the slowdown. The top-of-atmosphere net energy input remained in the [0.5–1] W m−2 interval during the past decade, which is successfully captured by our predictions.
Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 m of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65% of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown. The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1863.html
Meanwhile, reality continues to be a bitch:
Betts at the UK Met off tweeted much the same thing this weekend. These idiots are absolutely convince that their models are 100% accurate in spite of masses of data contre.
But then we have this from National Public Radio. “In fact, the planet would be frozen solid if we didn’t have any carbon dioxide in the air.” Richard Harris, NPR, March 10, 2013.
Evidently, all those millions and millions of temperature measurements need more “adjusting”.
So let me get this right. The models didn’t work so they “modified” them so they would explain certain anomolies without knowing whether they would explain futre data without further “modifications” and then they claim that this proves that their models worked in the first place. Is that right?
Am I allowed to retrospectively predict lottery numbers?
Are you certain that headline is not actually from “The Daily Onion”?
“Predictions are hard, especially about the future”- Yogi Berra.
AGW extremists have become a self parody.
We should encourage them in every way possible, except giving them more money or power.
One is required to ask why this ocean uptake only kicked in during the past ten years and not before.
It’s all in the epicycles, man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
So what laws of physics supposedly changed at the turn of the century so that the oceans started to increase their heat uptake?
How can Nature published such drivel? That’s all Folks!
I’m even better than they are. I actually predicted that they would retrospectively predict this. Who’s the fortuneteller now, baby????
seriously, retrospective prediction is absolutely worthless in a chaotic system. Ask anyone who’s lost several grand in the stock market by relying on their wonderful new analytical model that has a perfect retrospective data fit. (yes, people try that all the time) It’s like predicting next year’s Super Bowl winner by looking only at past super bowl winners – doing that would give you strange ideas like thinking that Jerry Jones and his Cowboys might have a pretty good shot.
The entire idea is based on the belief that Correlation IS Causation. I guess this is the final proof, if any was needed, that these people don’t deserve the name of “scientist”. These are religious fundamentalists who think they’re too smart to fall for a fundamentalist religion. They’re no longer even worth any serious respect, on any of our parts. They are frauds, through and through.
Incredible. And the have the bloody cheek to call it a “Science”.
… but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.… helps us keep our government paid jobs for another decadeTo validate this model they should run it from 1900 with no parameter changes and it will show the ocean heat uptake that must have happened in the 1930’s and in the 1960’s.
Slow down? Latest numbers for April show temperatures are 0.2C down since last October. Remember how the Met Office and NOAA were claiming this was at the “tail end of La Nina”
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/april-global-temperatures/
OT but as I predicted some time ago and definitely going out on a limb my bets are that NH ice WILL NOT decline to outside normal Standard deviations this WHOLE year and will continue to increase every year (but may stay within higher bounds of SD), for the next 30 years LOL
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
One can only hope that the IPCC is dumb enough to pick this ball up and run with it.
I’ve just retrospectively predicted last week’s lottery numbers.
Now where’s my money ?
And most of the warming occured at the onset? I.e. before most ARGO floats were deployed? How convenient… I wonder how many years of more or less flat OHC we will need before they have to find another set of epicycles to add to their theory?
Global warming has not slowed it has stalled and in some data sets has fallen.
In the UK March and April were coldest for years and May looks set to be the coldest on record with the SW some 10C below the seasonal average. (For Dr Rachel Warren, UAE SES that is 18F).
It is non too warm in the East Midlands either.
Brain…exploding…
But ocean heat content uptake has slowed down.
And is just one-fifth of their GHG net forcing.
Climate science doesn’t really care if their numbers add up. In fact, it is looked down upon.
It’s models all the way down.
I predict England will win the world cup in 1966
Up to 5 years ahead, of the 2000-2010 pause…
Wow, just imagine how popular these researchers will be if they can adapt their techniques to retrospectively predict the 1996 US elections.
Quick, someone give these people a grant now, and maybe they can figure out in time who’ll win in 2000!
Richard
That’s nothing. I retrospectively predicted the results of the Grand National horse race which took place a month ago. When I went into the bookmakers to claim my winnings they threw me out. They are obviously unsophisticated people who know nothing at all about climate science
tonyb
Who pays for this garbage? Look at the effort that is being expended trying to show that us skeptics are wrong and that our hard earned money needs to flow into the government coffers to pay for idealistic and costly renewable energy. Wow…
Muhammad Asif helped out with this important work. That seems about right!