New paper finds climate models are getting worse rather than better
Via the Hockey Schtick: A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the latest climate models are performing even worse than the earlier generations of climate models in predicting
“…both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming.”
The author hypothesizes the reasons for this are that attempts in the latest generation of models to reproduce observed changes in Arctic sea ice are causing “significant and widening discrepancy between the modeled and observed warming rates outside of the Arctic,” i.e. they have improved Arctic simulation at the expense of poorly simulating the rest of the globe. The paper adds to hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the abject failure of climate models.
The paper:
Emerging selection bias in large-scale climate change simulations
Kyle L. Swanson
Abstract:
Climate change simulations are the output of enormously complicated models containing resolved and parameterized physical processes ranging in scale from microns to the size of the Earth itself. Given this complexity, the application of subjective criteria in model development is inevitable. Here we show one danger of the use of such criteria in the construction of these simulations, namely the apparent emergence of a selection bias between generations of these simulations.
Earlier generation ensembles of model simulations are shown to possess sufficient diversity to capture recent observed shifts in both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming. However, current generation ensembles of model simulations are statistically inconsistent with these observed shifts, despite a marked reduction in the spread among ensemble members that by itself suggests convergence towards some common solution.
This convergence indicates the possibility of a selection bias based upon warming rate. It is hypothesized that this bias is driven by the desire to more accurately capture the observed recent acceleration of warming in the Arctic and corresponding decline in Arctic sea ice. However, this convergence is difficult to justify given the significant and widening discrepancy between the modeled and observed warming rates outside of the Arctic.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bob Tisdale says:
We’ve been illustrating and discussing for a couple of years how poorly climate models simulate….
How well do they simulate CO2 concentration ???
I’ll bet that’s just a hard coded input and the model does note even model out gassing and how it varies. If they do I would be interesting to compare to reality:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=232
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
I really get tired of calling these guys “scientists” let alone “climate” ones. They are nothing more than useful edjits,who happen to have found a way of feathering their nests,with taxpayer money. They are about as much about science,as the former USSR was about freedoms for the plebes.
Here, this is one thing I bet they don’t get out of the models:
Rate of change of atmospheric CO2 in the middle of the Pacific matches AO index.!
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=231
Still trying to work out what the hell that’s about myself.
Now does that mean AO is driving global CO2 variation or is this a case of common cause?
Temperature would seem likely but , although similar, it is not where near as correlated as these two are to each other.
No problem, just a few more supercomputers paid by hapless taxpayers will do it. And the full court press of climate political science can erase the actuals from the discussion all together. That way we will just have a consensus of diverse models all moving up and competing to be the most up for notoriety and funding attention.
If climate models warm the Arctic without considering the 2 main drivers – AMO and black carbon – the output can’t be anything else but rubbish.
It would be useful to have the table from Dr Ira Glickstein’s chart above as a ‘standalone’ illustration … it has a powerful message.
(IPCC Assessment Report Year/IPCC Predicted Temperature Increase/Actual Temperature Increase).
The climate models are manufactured for one purpose only, financial extortion.
We compare the global warming movement to that of religion. But in all fairness to most religions they don’t force you to believe, don’t force you to participate and don’t force you to pay up.
Climate change is the fraudulent use of science to extract money from the masses on an involuntary basis. We are now slaves to white collar criminal climate scientists and their cohorts.
This is interesting in light of the cook misrepresentation. As he tries to prove what everyone believed in years past, the climate continues to betray him in the present time period.
I wonder how Cook and his SkepSciBots would characterize this paper?
In reply to the paper’s assertion that:
“Climate change simulations are the output of enormously complicated models containing resolved and parameterized physical processes ranging in scale from microns to the size of the Earth itself. Given this complexity, the application of subjective criteria in model development is inevitable. Here we show one danger of the use of such criteria in the construction of these simulations, namely the apparent emergence of a selection bias between generations of these simulations.”
William:
A very complex climate model that does not include the specific forcing function (solar magnetic cycle modulation of high level clouds and low level clouds) that is causing the high northern latitude warming cannot be ‘tuned’ to correct the fundamental error. The IPCC’s general circulation models are fundamentally incorrect. There are two fundamental errors:
1) The tropics resists (negative feedback)
forcing changes by increasing or decreasing cloud cover in that region to reflect more or less sunlight off into space. This negative feedback inhibits, limits the effect of greenhouse gases warming.
2) The 20th century warming pattern, where the majority of the warming occurs at high latitude northern latitudes, matches the warming pattern of Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle or the more sever type of D-O cycle the Heinrich event. The D-O cycle is repetitive, correlating again and again with a solar magnetic cycle change. There is no correlation of the past D-O cycles with CO2 changes. The past D-O cycles where not caused by CO2 changes in the atmosphere.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. The D-O cycles are obviously apparent throughout the interglacial period. The late Gerald Bond was able track 23 of the D-O cycles through the interglacial period and into the glacial period. Gerald Bond and others found that is correlation of solar magnetic cycle changes with each and every D-O cycle.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
The majority of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of low level and high level cirrus clouds. If this statement is correct, as solar cycle 24 is an abrupt slow down of the solar magnetic cycle, the planet will anomalously cool. (Anomalously cool, as there will be no explanation as to why the planet is cooling, although likely some scallywags will point out this pattern of warming and cooling has occurred cyclically before and is called a Dansgaard-Oescheger cycle. At this point in time the public might ask whether climate scientists were aware of the D-O cycles (the D-O cycles have been known to have occurred for roughly 20 years) and why did they not consider the possibility that the 20th century warming was a D-O cycle.)
It is difficult to imagine how the warmist climate scientist would response to anomalous cooling which invalidates the extreme AGW theory. Let’s wait and get back to this rhetorical question.
Variations in ion formation and charge bias about the earth caused by changes to solar magnetic cycle changes modulate low level cloud formation and high level cirrus cloud formation. Low level clouds cool the planet by reflecting sunlight off into space. High level cirrus clouds (the wispy type clouds) warm the planet by the greenhouse house effect of the ice crystals in the cirrus clouds. An increase in ions cause an increase in low level clouds, longer low level cloud lifetimes, and due to the increase in water droplet size an increase in low level cloud albedo.
An increase in ions causes larger ice crystal size in the cirrus clouds which cause the ice crystals to drop out of the cirrus clouds.
Therefore due both of the above mechanisms an increase in ions in the atmosphere cause the planet to warm and a decrease in ions cause the planet to cool. The geomagnetic field when it is a current strength limits ion modulation of clouds to high latitude regions.
The albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is less than low level clouds so an increase in low level clouds over the Antarctic ice sheet results in warming not cooling due to warming effect of water or ice crystals in the cloud.
In the winter the Antarctic ice sheet is roughly -60C to -80C on the surface of the ice sheet so there is little water vapor to form cirrus clouds (the Antarctic sheet region removed from the coast has an year average temperature of around -45C due to latitude of the ice sheet and its high elevation. The Antarctic ice sheet is roughly 3 miles thick 15,000 feet and has covered all but the highest mountains on that continent). The arctic sea ice and Greenland Ice sheet are warmer therefore there is sufficient water vapor to enable cirrus clouds to form.
The solar magnetic mechanism that starting in around 1995 to remove ions from the earth’s atmosphere biases the GRACE satellite which is dependent on the altitude variations of the GRACE satellite which are assumed to be due to mass changes on the planet. The charge imbalance on the earth’s surface relative to the ionosphere biases this measurement.
CyroSat satellite measures ice sheet thickness by determining the time delay for a radar signal bouncing off the ice sheet. The measurement technique is not effected by charge differential between the earth’s surface and the ionosphere. Hence the CyroSat satellite finds that height of the Antarctic ice sheet is increasing not decreasing.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/31/height-of-antarctica-ice-sheet-increasing
Height of Antarctica ice sheet increasing
In a press release ESA announced that the measurements from their 2010-2011 campaigns show the height of Antarctic ice to be an average of nine centimetres higher than the measurements obtained during the 2008-2009 campaigns.
ESA says these findings not only provide good news from the ice sheets, but also show the effectiveness of the CryoSat missions.
The abundance of ice presents a more reflective surface with which to bounce radar signals. The length of time it takes to receive these signals once they are sent determines the height of
the ice.
While conducting these tests ESA found that the measurements from their 2010-2011 campaigns show the height of Antarctic ice to be an average of nine centimetres higher than the measurements from their 2008-2009 campaigns.
To corroborate the ESA findings, scientists from the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research, the german scientific organization located in Bremerhaven, also took separate measurements of the blue ice region.
By analyzing each set of data the scientists were able to determine the changes in height of the ice for three different periods.
According to the ESA press release, there was a five cm drop of the height of Antarctic ice from 1991-2000 that continued until 2008. ESA does not yet have information explaining why the ice height has increased, but are encouraged at the possible upward trend.
Meanwhile… south of the Arctic Circle:
URGENT – WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE…CORRECTED
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ANCHORAGE AK
410 PM AKDT THU MAY 16 2013
…LATE WINTER STORM TO AFFECT AREAS SOUTHEAST OF THE ALASKA RANGE
FRIDAY EVENING THROUGH EARLY SATURDAY AFTERNOON…
COLD AIR FROM THE NORTH AND PLENTY OF MOISTURE FROM THE GULF OF
ALASKA WILL COMBINE OVER SOUTH CENTRAL ALASKA ON FRIDAY. THE
RESULT WILL BE WEATHER MORE TYPICAL OF WINTER…WITH SIGNIFICANT
SNOWFALL NEVER BEFORE SEEN THIS LATE IN THE SEASON.
http://forecast.weather.gov/showsigwx.php?warnzone=AKZ101&warncounty=AKC020&firewxzone=AKZ101&local_place1=Homesite+Park+AK&product1=Winter+Weather+Advisory
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/pubfcst.php?fcst=WWAK81PAFC
I’m sure some crackpot alarmist will claim, that since the models aren’t performing as they should, ‘signficantly higher temperatures than the models predict also cannot be ruled out’.
Oh I’m sorry, but they have already said this somewhere.
But they did also catergorically state, that lower climate sensitivity (i.e. <1.5C for doubling C02) can be ruled out, which is of course, by Murphys Law of Climate Alarmism (whatsoever is ruled out is more likely to occur), is what is actually occurring.
BELOW SEE:
Acme University, School of Climatology — (projected) 50 Year Reunion Nostalgia Video “Modelling’s Golden Age: You Can’t Say We Didn’t Try”
[and try and try and tune and tinker and try SOME MORE — (head shake) give it UP, you fools]
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=wile+e.+coyote+and+road+runner&view=detail&mid=9B1B45499CA41929EB0D9B1B45499CA41929EB0D&first=101&FORM=NVPFVR
To Jay:
You wrote: “Only one gas is taxable, and that is CO2.. No other emission fits the bill.. They have been back filling global warming from day one with LOL shenanigans, and they know it..”
Bzzzt. Wrong. Didn’t you hear? Pachauri wants you to stop eating meat (all that methane
that cows produce!) See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/07/pachauris-at-it-again-shun-meat-he-says-but-what-about-the-buffalo/
And if you MUST eat meat, eat kangaroo (so much less methane-intensive!) See:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080822-kangaroo-meat.html
Pretty soon, methane will be taxed heavily. And since natural gas is methane,
it’s a two-fer. The extreme-green climate folks can tax natural gas SO heavily,
suddenly wind and solar will be competitive! All of us will be forced to “go green”,
one way or another.
“…the latest climate models are performing even worse than the earlier generations of climate models…”
—
That just proves the science was settled back when Al Gore said it was settled. They had no business making adjustments to settled science. /sarc
Gary Pearse says:
May 16, 2013 at 5:33 pm
They cannot significantly correct the models until they get rid of their primary assumption, ie that CO2 is the main climate driver.
Rhoda has this right. I would expect that, by now, the hockey team, safe from prying eyes and on their home laptop, would have tried a model with CO2 having a vanishingly small effect. Has anyone tried this? Perhaps it would be a poor representation of reality but it would have sure showed some prediction skill over the past couple of decades simply by having a lower slope.
——–
That would be Hansen’s Scenario C. It assumed NO CO2 emissions after the year 2000, which could also be looked at as increased CO2 having a very small marginal effect. Surprise, that’s the model that current temperatures are running closest to.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/even-with-his-most-recent-cheat-hansen-cant-get-above-scenario-c/
There is a small error in the labeling on the graph. The two dots following the very warm 2010 are actually 2011 and not 2012 as apparently indicated.
“… they did also catergorically state,… ”
Thingo Donta (at 7:59PM), even imbibing, you make excellent sense!
How long will it be before alarmists claim that model predictions becoming less accurate is actually proof of global warming. (what isn’t?) That’s because one of the attributes of Climate change is to make climate “less predictable.” Here is a sampling of past headlines that seem to make that point:
boomantribune.com: “Weather Less Predictable. Thx Climate Change”
priceofoil.org: “The effects of climate change are already being felt all over the planet as weather systems are becoming less predictable”
Daily Kos: “Consequences of Global Warming Make Weather Disasters Less Predictable”
mnn.com: “Climate Change… could make India’s monsoon season less predictable in the future”
I guess it’s time to add “global warming makes scientific predictions about the climate less accurate” to the list of things it causes. I think the list of things caused by global warming is approaching infinity.
“The summer Arctic ice melt isn’t caused by atmospheric warming. As the Arctic is an ocean, there are no surface air temperature measurements. The claimed Arctic warming is extrapolation from nearby and not so nearby land stations.”
Hmm,
Wrong. people always forget satillites and bouys and think that GISS is the only record.
there is tons of air temps
here is a sample
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/pdfs/tm_2_04.pdf
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/publications_datareports.html
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/data_satemp.html
Here is some more
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/AirT/VarFig.pdf
Note how the air temp over melting ice is relatively constant at 0C. every wonder why that is?
On ever-changing models: Oh the humanity!
All that modelling is trying to fit the exponential curve to 1975-200X warming trend. It does not fit before, neither after.
Eliza says:
May 16, 2013 at 4:15 pm
The real worry in my mind is that no one or very few skeptical sites including this one, are not emphasizing enough, is that there is NO global warming currently so that all the scary stories, extreme events, ice melting, predictions, models and AGW stories in the media etc are all BS cheers
For me the emphasis should be that they knew this all along and were lying that it was warming and the warming was getting worse.
This shows the cynical manipulation by erstwhile science bodies turned to fake fisics propaganda.
17 years of deliberate fraud during which time countless draconican legislation put into place damaging to non-cartel businesses and detrimental to the general population’s economic and social well being.
These are charlatans not scientists, ignorant of the science or knowingly manipulating the science their reputations caused by climate change at best already a joke will continue to get worse than we thought possible.
Greg Goodman says:
May 16, 2013 at 5:07 pm
I’ve looked at 2nd diff of CO2 , where a constant represents an quadratic increase. This is probably quite realistic since a quadratic is similar to an exponential and a paper a couple of years ago found quadratic may be a better representation.
Now since it is temperature that drives rate of change of CO2 by oceanic out-gassing I plotted this up with d/dt(SST)
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
———————–
Greg, there’s an interesting correlation in your graph up to about 2000, but what’s going on after that? Suddenly the lines seem to become independent of each other. Any thoughts on that?