I was aware of this story yesterday, but I didn’t like the original plot, (see at the end of this post) since use of straight line linear trends doesn’t accurately reflect the reality of the observation data. While it is often hard to find any reality in climate models, linear trend lines mask the underlying variance. Today, Dr. Spencer has produced a graph that I feel is representative and very well worth sharing, because it does in fact convey an EPIC FAIL speaking directly to the accuracy of an ensemble of climate models. – Anthony
Dr. Roy Spencer writes:
In response to those who complained in my recent post that linear trends are not a good way to compare the models to observations (even though the modelers have claimed that it’s the long-term behavior of the models we should focus on, not individual years), here are running 5-year averages for the tropical tropospheric temperature, models versus observations (click for full size):
In this case, the models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations.
In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.
Read his essay here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
==============================================================
Here is the linear plot from Dr. Spencer’s post yesterday. He writes:
Courtesy of John Christy, a comparison between 73 CMIP5 models (archived at the KNMI Climate Explorer website) and observations for the tropical bulk tropospheric temperature (aka “MT”) since 1979 (click for large version):
Rather than a spaghetti plot of the models’ individual years, we just plotted the linear temperature trend from each model and the observations for the period 1979-2012.
Note that the observations (which coincidentally give virtually identical trends) come from two very different observational systems: 4 radiosonde datasets, and 2 satellite datasets (UAH and RSS).
If we restrict the comparison to the 19 models produced by only U.S. research centers, the models are more tightly clustered:
Now, in what universe do the above results not represent an epic failure for the models?
I suppose these graphs will grace the cover of the next IPCC report? /sarc
Type II error rate < 1/73?
Imagine how the Had CRU & GISS/NOAA Team would massage (massacre?) the surface station data if the satellites weren’t watching them?
Why doesn’t the observed temp line show the recent leveling-off? Just askin.
Heh, I had always given a 0.3 deg C rise as my educated guess.
Yea, they’re doing a poor job with tropical mid troposphere, perhaps they should look into that.
Let’s see. As noted above, climate models can’t simulate mid-troposphere temperatures. And as we’re seen before, they can’t simulate:
Sea surface temperatures:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/cmip5-model-data-comparison-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/
Land+Sea Surface Temperatures (GISS LOTI):
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/model-data-comparison-with-trend-maps-cmip5-ipcc-ar5-models-vs-new-giss-land-ocean-temperature-index/
Or Precipitation:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/model-data-precipitation-comparison-cmip5-ipcc-ar5-model-simulations-versus-satellite-era-observations/
When discussing climate models, is it okay to use the word poo?
”It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
—Richard Feynman
Would that Dr. Feynman were still with us. *sigh*
Reminds me of a lyric from Judy Collin’s “Both Sides Now”:
“I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It’s cloud’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all”
I would say that with temp fiddling by the team even the observed temps are lower. I suggest a FLAT line (unless he is using AMSU and RSS). BTW it now time to really get these XXXXXXX. I think for far too long the skeptic sites have been far too soft on the team. It really is time to get some millionaire to get a legal team together and take these guys to court.
Interesting that the short term oscillations seem to match (but was that hindcasting?), but the models have a rising trend, against shall we say a ‘lower’ trend of observations..
look like one knob adjusted too high
UAH global chart for May 2013 shows temps are +0.1 over the base line.
It looks like the global temp in May 1980 is the same as today, ie zero change in 33 years.
Matters not in reality. Anyone with a knowledge of even basic physics knew AGW was garbage and weather was, well, just weather bad or otherwise! Through lies and propaganda, the damage has been done, the message has been delivered, the policies are in place. There is a glimmer of hope, and that is all sceptics have, that on Sept 14th Australia votes for a Govn’t that will repeal the “price on carbon”. This may send a signal to Obama. If not…we may as well kiss the western lifestyle goodbye!
The blue squares seem to be level since 1998.
The Models where based on the political decided UNFCCC!
The models are not science, but instead policy baced science, like any social ……. Science. It is simply not science at all!
Eustace,
He is as long as we keep in mind his sage advice about theory vs real world.
Unfortunately, too many otherwise intelligent people rely on the theory to dictate to reality what it must be. Contrary to that expectation, the theory must agree with the real world and the real world remains what it is without taking into account any of the various wonderful theories of man.
This post by Spencer should be headlines on all major MSM for gods sake do something somebody! LOL
Ryan says:
June 6, 2013 at 9:50 am
“Yea, they’re doing a poor job with tropical mid troposphere, perhaps they should look into that.”
It will be difficult to rig the models in such a way that they present the mid troposphere as cooler while continuing to show the steep surface warming trend the UN has ordered; and still get away with it as science. Maybe if you manage to keep the source codes secret and stop talking about physics altogether.
We need to get a fund going to get these graphs as widely disseminated as possible. When the truth is as obvious as this work shows it should be able to change minds!
Reminds me of a lyric from Joni Mitchell’s “Both Sides Now”:
Have the problems with the MT product been fixed? I recall that there were issues with contamination by the stratosphere data I know that RSS corrects for that, how have UAH dealt with it?
@coalsoffire 9:37 am
I suppose these graphs will grace the cover of the next IPCC report? /sarc
Yea, but it ought to grace the cover of the NIPCC report. Oops.
This is supposed to be a scientific discourse, but isn’t it amazing that it is impossible to engage in this discourse without the reality of political impacts and results coming into play.
What a deception we enable by trying to continue a scientific discourse over such obvious political rhetoric and intentions.
It appears that the consensus is that we must all buy tulips, regardless of price. Isn’t that what the Dutch concluded several hundred years ago? Or perhaps we should consider the behavior of Lemmings.
Sadly, Patrick, you’re wrong. Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, has a physics degree and yet she still spouts the warmist party line. Even advanced thinking skills and education are no protection from stupidity.
Human beings are nowhere near as reasonable as we think we are. Most of what passes for thought in our crania is just confabulation. We’re really good at it and we really can convince ourselves of anything, no matter how stupid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation
What process is depressing these temps in the tropics? Do you think it is sustained by His faithful providence?
“commieBob says:
June 6, 2013 at 10:48 am”
Maybe I should have said anyone (With knowledge of physics) who was not politically motivated. Clearly, Angela Merkel is. Do we know her “ties” to “green energy” like alarmists in the UK Govn’t?
Patrick, I believe Stephen Hawking is still a Warmist, sadly.
The “error” obtained from all the models would make anything within the 95% CI. Don’t these folks retune their models regularly so they better reflect measurements or do they just ignore or dis the measurements? In the distant past I used models for more defined systems like chemical processes, when the model didn’t reflect reality, I fixed the model before I had any faith in using it for what ifs.
I don’t know why anyone should be surprised by this…. but I guess most of you don’t have the same experience that I have had – 25 years in a past professional existence in the environmental remediation business, much of which in the Superfund arena. The behaviour of these GCMs are pretty stable compared with some of the groundwater flow models I have reviewed. Those models were used (by EPA) to justify the Agency’s pre-conceived conclusions (Yes, I know that for a fact) that some pollutant from Point A WOULD be transported in flowing groundwater to some receptor (invariably the most sensitive receptor to that particular pollutant) at Point B. And it goes without saying that those models resulted in the expenditure of BILLIONS of $$$$, all passed on to consumers.
This is Superfund all over again – except this time it is Super-Duper Fund. Believe me, Superfund was the biggest government waste of money ($600 toilet seats included) until now. But despite the higher stakes in the climate arean, there is NOTHING new in the modeling. I know, because I was a groundwater computer modeler and know what went in and what did not go in, and most importantly, what then came out, of the computers. GIGO
How long will the alarmist establishment and IPCC be able to sit tight in a corner, hoping this inconvenient truth will go away of its own? For every month that passes, their culpability will grow, they dig their own professional graves deeper by every refusal to address this basic fault in their predictions.
Don’t know how it is elsewhere, but here in Norway we were told for years that: “2500 scientists cannot be wrong.” Well, they were not 2500, and they were certainly wrong.
At some point in time, something must break. The world of science cannot go on interminably with this unresolved dilemma.
I posted this on Roy’s site.
I would suggest, Roy, that the culprits who have caused you the frustration, which IMHO is entirely justified, are the learned scientific societies. Just about all of these bodies, lead by the Royal Society, the American Physical Society and the World Meteorologic al Organization, have deserted science in favor of advocacy. These learned bodies have wholeheartedly endorsed CAGW, and have dug themselves so deep a hole, that it is difficult for them to stop digging. Hopefully one of these days, one of these learned bodies will face the music, and then , hopefully, the rest will follow.
The fact that the climate models are far off the observations is firmly established now. Many of the climate scientists have grudgingly accepted this as well now although some still do not (and the majority of the strong believers in the theory haven’t even thought about it yet).
Now is the time to ask the question “Why?”
The Feedback assumptions are wrong or the Radiation Physics is wrong AND something else very important is operating in the climate that is not recognized in the theory (and this is almost certainly true regardless of the first two possibilities).
Policy Guy says:
June 6, 2013 at 10:33 am
Or perhaps we should consider the behavior of Lemmings.
###
Lemmings not only float, but they are very strong swimmers. Its how they get from island to island, which is REALLY what they re doing when they leap into the sea. Human perceptions of events can be quit misleading.
Eustace Cranch says:
June 6, 2013 at 9:55 am
I highly recommend that everyone read Feynman’s essays on scientific method. I especially recommend that climate scientists read them. All of those essays are straightforward, easy to understand, and very entertaining. If all of us read them, and occasionally reread them, our level of discourse about science would improve greatly.
😉
I, for one, look forward to mass unemployment amongst the climate modelling frarenity.
May they rot in penury for all the economic damage they have done and the gullible politicians they have duped.
ConTrari at 11:16 am
Exactly. A movie needs to be made called The Real Inconvenient Truth.
Across the globe, billions, actually trillions of dollars in total have been spent on
global warmingclimate change, especially on insidious govt and academic institution building. All this money, and hordes of people, from every walk of govt and academia are still chasing their dream, that their man-made eco-monster will be tamed.. by them. A huge huge amount of resources are involved. But the people need to know the real inconvenient truth. Now, the warmists are frightened to see that the monster isn’t what they had hoped for. Yes, they change the name to climate change as a first effort to keep the monster alive. And they’ll do more back-peddling and reworking. But the truth must be broadcast. A lot of people are saying “we need a fund.” Good idea.There is always an alternative.
V.
Policy Guy @10:33
There would be no discussion if politics hadn’t intervened. Climate would be a minor backwater in some university science department where they would slowly and carefully try to figure out the immense complexity of the interaction between the sun, the earth’s atmosphere, and the oceans. A few scientists like Hansen turned it into a crusade, the left grabbed on to a weapon to destroy industry, and the politicians got their wet dream, an excuse to tax the air we breathe.
Hi Anthony – I am glad you requested that Roy post the actual variations of the model projections rather than just the trends. This makes his and John Christy’s findings even robust.
Moreover, since the multi-decadal projection of the global average is so poor, as they have shown, this necessarily means that the regional projections for the coming decades that are given to the impacts and policy communities are grossly misleading. For them to persist in providing this projections, without informing them that they have no skill, is disingenuous.
Roger Sr.
Now, in what universe do the above results not represent an epic failure for the models?
The House of Commons, the Aussie Government, the German Government, and the Dimocrat Government. They all seem to live in such an isolated world they may as well be in a different universe.
Oh dear, I seem to have had a moment of pedantry. Instead of willingly I would have preferred wilfully in Roy’s post.
P.S. The global average projection is poor because the tropical mid-tropospheric temperature anomalies are such a large part of it.
Doormann, to what exactly does your link refer by “solar tides”?
peter Miller says:
June 6, 2013 at 11:44 am
“May they rot in penury for all the economic damage they have done and the gullible politicians they have duped.”
Oh, you give politicians wayyyyy too much rope. They’re in it up to their necks.
Eustace Cranch says:
June 6, 2013 at 11:04 am
Patrick, I believe Stephen Hawking is still a Warmist, sadly.
And he was also right about information loss in black holes, and that the Higgs’ boson would never be found. Oh, wait… ;).
Ryan says:
June 6, 2013 at 10:56 am
“What process is depressing these temps in the tropics? Do you think it is sustained by His faithful providence?”
You may be interested in this paper by Willis Eschenbach:
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/h145188416068010/?p=41609e991f3741ceb2c07ca33786fc53&pi=3
in which cloud formation and progression to thunderstorms act like a thermostat that prevents tropical sea surface temperatures from exceeding 30-31C. When the sea surface approaches this maximum as the day develops, this triggers (from increased evaporation) cloud development and thunderstorm cells over “hot spots”, acting like a chimney to move heat from the sea surface up into the upper atmosphere where the heat is radiated out to space. When the SST is cooler in a given morning: the clouds that usually develop in late morning in response to a hot spot, are delayed until later allowing the the SST to increase under the direct sun. This is the “Thermostat Hypothesis” (it was presented here at WUWT a few years ago but was peer-reviewed and ultimately published.
The real data is better. The linear regressions would have been OK if the model results ended at the same time the real data ended (2012). The slope of the linear regressions of the climate model plots are effected by data post 2012 that does not exist for the real data (the future hasn’t occured yet). So it is sort of like comparing apples and oranges when you compare linear regressions of data of different time lengths.
“P.S. The global average projection is poor because the tropical mid-tropospheric temperature anomalies are such a large part of it.”
Nice save, lol.
“Tropical mid-troposphere”.
What the hell is this exactly?
It is known, the lower troposphere is warming, the higher troposphere is cooling.
This is what the models say and what observations show.
Apparently, one can find a position (“mid-troposphere” – whatever it is) where the trend is flat.
Where exactly is Roy unhappy with the models?
At the moment his post sounds like a bad joke
and smells like junk science.
Ryan says:
June 6, 2013 at 10:56 am
“What process is depressing these temps in the tropics? Do you think it is sustained by His faithful providence?”
The non-existence of the positive water vapor feedback postulated and never observed, Ryan.
alex says:
June 6, 2013 at 12:29 pm
“It is known, the lower troposphere is warming, the higher troposphere is cooling.
This is what the models say and what observations show.”
You are too gullible.
The tropospheric hot spot has not been observed.
The models are wrong.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/12/our-sustainable-mirth/#comment-765890
“when even Dr.Syukuro Manabe, the godfather of climate modeling, now agrees with Fred Singer that it’s not there (see Fu, 2011) and that climate models overstate the warming by 2 to 4 times. ”
Missing Hot Spot 2011
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/this-is-90-certainty-really-yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/comment-page-1/#comment-561555
… _ … _ …_ (V)
“… it is now time to really get these [Enviro-n–az–ee-s]. … get a legal team together and take these guys to court.” [Elizabeth at 10AM today]
Yes!
“At some point in time, something must break. The world of science cannot go on interminably with this unresolved dilemma.” [ConTrari at 11:16 today]
D-DAY, June 6, 1944 — what a perfect day for this post showing the Allied Forces for Victory of Truth in Science have WON THE AGW BATTLE!!!
Press on, science giants! YOU WILL WIN THE WAR — “April, 1945” will come.
Truth will win.
GO, WUWT SCIENCE WARRIORS!
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
Change to “willfully”
Not in the tropics.
I believe the reason most meteorologists don’t buy into the CAGW theory is because they use models every day. Their models work at certain things, and within some very strict limitations. These folks see how the model results and projections break down and become less reliable the longer out they project.
But GCM climate models, for some strange and bizarre reason, seem to be exempt from this type of absolutely certain uncertainty. The longer out in time they project, their defenders and apologists (Gavin and his ilk) claim there is less material with which to quarrel over their predictions and results. That assumption is all jacked up. It’s bass-ackwards. We should assume the error and uncertainty of models multiplies over time, till it becomes 100% useless at some finite, but ill-defined point in the not too distant future. It is the job of modelers to try to define that point, if possibl, and to stop claiming they’re on to some fundamental truth about the way our climate is responding to human CO2 emmissions.
alex says:
June 6, 2013 at 12:29 pm
‘“Tropical mid-troposphere”.
What the hell is this exactly?
It is known, the lower troposphere is warming, the higher troposphere is cooling.
This is what the models say and what observations show.
Apparently, one can find a position (“mid-troposphere” – whatever it is) where the trend is flat.’
So, you are saying that Spencer is presenting the wrong data? Spencer is using the same satellite data that he and everyone else has been using for decades.
Then the modelers are using some other data? If so, then why not present it?
Bob Tisdale says @ June 6, 2013 at 9:52 am
When discussing climate models, is it okay to use the word poo?
===================================================
…or hockey poo
Mickey Reno says:
June 6, 2013 at 1:19 pm
I believe the reason most meteorologists don’t buy into the CAGW theory is because they use models every day. Their models work at certain things, and within some very strict limitations. These folks see how the model results and projections break down and become less reliable the longer out they project.
You are absolutely correct! I have been an operational meteorologist for several decades. The models are a mainstay of our business. But we get to know what they can and cannot do. Certainly anything beyond 3 days can be very suspect and can change dramatically from one model run to the next. We try to know the limitations and explain those to our clients.
And please do not confuse professional meteorologists with climatologists. Climate science has always seemed “fuzzy” to me. Unfortunately, some of the climate scientists/modelers I know do not even know some of the very fundamentals of meteorology. Sad, but true.
GlynnMhor says:
June 6, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Doormann, to what exactly does your link refer by “solar tides”?
http://www.volker-doormann.org/frequencies_of_climate.doc
The models actually are pretty linear, as is their aggregate, as is both the tropical tropospehere temp and the surface (back to 79) in which a first-order line fits better than any nonlinear transform within reason.
They all point in the same direction: The sensitivity is, in aggregate, about .4 of what is in the models.
I don’t see how this charade can continue much longer. The upcoming National Assessment and IPCC AR5 are going to be completely howled down as obsolete the day they are printed. Anyone who defends them is going to look increasingly foolish.
It’s champagne time, IMHO.
Thx Roy!
PS maybe we ought to send some to Santer, Wigley and Trenberth with a nice card welcoming them back to coach.
Your linear trend for the radiosonde/satellite is 66% higher than the values measured on the spaghetti graph. The scaled increase from 1979 to 2012 is 0.13 degrees. Your linear trend has an increase of .19 degrees Murray
MaxL says:
June 6, 2013 at 1:43 pm
“Unfortunately, some of the climate scientists/modelers I know do not even know some of the very fundamentals of meteorology. Sad, but true.”
Yes, that is very sad.
My personal view of modeling (I am a Ph.D. who has spent nearly his entire career doing computational fluid dynamics) is that, if properly constrained and validated, models can be very useful, even climate models. Unfortunately, many climate modelers have developed a herd mentality, and have decided that since their models agree with each other and with some contorted version of ” real world data”, they must be accurate and robust. And then I look at some of the source code of these models and am aghast at how bad it is (e.g. NASA/GISS). I have no objections to climate model research, but the government funding agencies need to get clue and start directing the research funds to people who will do the job right. Will that ever happen? Not as long as the millions and millions of research dollars keep flowing to climate “science”…
“The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence…”
I think “willfully ignored,,,” more accurately reflects the reality of the fraud.
While the War for Truth goes on above and, no doubt, below this post, a pause to reflect on the fact that Freedom Is Not Free.
Dr. Gray and all you fine fighters for truth, tired, but undaunted, attacked, but not overcome, denigrated, but not defeated, this is for you:
June 6, 1944
Thank you.
I’ll never forget when I was on a panel with Mike MacCracken in Texas around 1998 and in warmup chit-chat I asked him how he could explain the difference between the modelled lower trop temperature and those derived from the 1000-500mb thickness, and he looked at me and asked:
“What’s thickness?”
That’s when I got the memo that they knew nothing.
Janice
Pause to reflect on the fact that you gotta wonder if these brave men would have splashed themselves on Omaha Beach if they would have been told that, 65 years later, the government would spy on every citizen’s every telephone call.
No, freedom ain’t free, and we don’t have much of it any more.
Sorry o/t but I am really burned about this Verizon story.
Hal Javert says:
I prefer horse puckey … covers most occasions 🙂
And remember how scientists, supported by journal editors tried to obfuscate and shut down discussion of the obvious:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.nz/2009/12/treating-peer-review-like-partisan-blog.html
Where’s 2012?
Must be a Murphy’s law pertaining to climate research funding… money moves in the direction of the loudest sucking sounds?
But it isn’t just a case of wrong temperature modeling. The wrong data went into making the models. So… it’s a case of wrong attribution. Wrong diagnosis. Wrong prognosis. And the wrong prescription.
Witch doctors proclaiming that we have caused the tornadoes, rains, hurricanes and droughts, and even cold snaps, have found permanent acolytes. Give them a crooked demagogue willing to misuse the public trust, and we have the perfect triumvirate, a team guaranteed to wheedle the dollars out of people’s wallets. How many trillions (worldwide) have already gone to mitigate a disease that we don’t have, based on symptoms we never exhibited?
An interesting phenomenom if it continues….
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
compare with previous years.Maybe solar effect is beginning to kick in. Of course in climate terms it means nothing but NH ice may in fact stay within normal limits this year.
This one is even more interesting
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
a COMPLETE stall in melting well see how long that stays, untilthey are forced to remove it.Worth keeping a photo of that page
Janice Moore says:
June 6, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Thanks for that, Janice! Sometimes I get so wound up with the latest shenanigans from the self-absorbed, warmist community that I don’t stop to reflect upon the sacrifices our forefathers made on our behalf…
” Hal Javert says: …or hockey poo”
How about Poo … on a steeek. A Hockey Steeek …
http://cptpatches.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/josejalapeno_1.jpg
Reno: My dad was a meteorologist and atmospheric physicist. I remember that he told me that at most they were able to predict about 36 hours ahead in those days (80’s) I guess you could add a further 12 hours to that today.LOL
Just one last comment on Dr Spencer’s graphs. Of course the team will say why did he not compare it with say Dr Muller BEST chart or GISS or hadcrut data. He is using his own AMSU satellite data or RSS not valid they will say.Just a beware moment LOL
Janice: Your creative parallel between Roy Spencer’s post and D-Day and the end of WWII are brilliant.
As well –I must add to this that I am deeply ashamed of our president for his political and financial support of savings the world from a what is in fact a witch trial on success. He is either dumb, ignorant or evil…
In the aftermath of the day of reckoning, “organized science” will be in the same bag as “organized religion.”
And on this particular day, June 6th, I don’t think Winston Churchill would mind if I added to the discussion his famous line:
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
di di di daaah
Keep the faith.
Felix
I notice an increasing number of commenters here and at other climate blogs saying some variation of “Let’s go after them.” I’ve been saying that for years. To wit:
These people are criminals. No fate or insult is bad enough for them.
Their promoting of ethanol has caused food riots and starved many poor people.
Their fixation on windmills and solar panels has created energy poverty which has killed many elderly and infirm.
Their ban on DDT has killed some millions of mostly children in Africa and Asia (estimates vary from 20 million to 200 million) yet they have the audacity to say “It’s for the children”.
There should be no compromise. They should have their noses rubbed in the urine they have spilled on the carpet of humanity.
It’s a beautiful carpet, a fine oriental rug. They soil it by their very existence.
Bill Illis wrote;
“or the Radiation Physics is wrong” – exactly, well almost, the radiation does what it wants, following rules that some people understand. What is wrong is the understanding of what the “greenhouse effect” causes.
The “greenhouse” effect only acts to delay the flow of energy through the system. The energy alternates between thermal energy (the absorbed sunlight) and IR light (the emitted energy from the surface) then thermal energy (the warmed gas) then IR light again (attenuated by ~50%) as backradiation. All of this bouncing back and forth (surface – gas – surface – gas, etc etc) simply delays the flow of energy by causing it to make multiple trips at nearly the speed of light.
Given the distances involved this delay amounts to a few tens of milliseconds (a very rough estimate). This delay simply causes the gases in the atmosphere to warm up more quickly after sunrise. This signature of the “GHE” cannot be found in the historical temperature data.
And with the tools currently available it is impossible to observe this delay when the input to the system is “steady state”. It can only be observed when a pulse of energy flows through the system.
A multi-layer optical interference filter (that purple looking coating on most camera lenses) behaves in a similar manner with light “bouncing” (not a real optical design term) back and forth between the glass lens and thin films (almost totally transparent) deposited on the lens. But an interference filter uses constructive and destructive optical interference to actually “trap” more light and reduce reflections. This makes for “crisper” (also not a real optical design term) pictures.
For more information research: “optical delay line”, or the “temporal response of an integrating sphere”. The integrating sphere is an interesting example since in climate ”science” terms it produces 100% radiative forcing back towards the energy source (usually an incandescent light bulb) but the lamp does not get “brighter” and the energy is not “trapped”.
The climate science community has been chasing a chimera for all these decades. Sad really, but some of them will “go down with the ship” rather than admit this error.
For Janice, thanks for remembering those boys back in 44. My father flew his first combat mission (P-51, 8th US ARMY Air Force) a few days after those films were taken. And my Mother’s oldest brother was down there on the sand. They both made it back. We all owe those boys (from all the allied countries) a great deal.
Cheers, Kevin.
@coalsoffire says:
June 6, 2013 at 9:37 am
“I suppose these graphs will grace the cover of the next IPCC report? /sarc”
Yeah, right along with the big headline: OOPS! 🙁
As I’ve always said, models tell you what you tell them to tell you…whether or not you understand what you said. None of the models resembles the real world and that, to me, is really an indictment of the current state of climate science.
Well, the RSS data for May is in and it is .139. Yet another drop during ENSO neutral conditions. Pretty soon Roy won’t be able to fit the model predictions and current temps on the same page.
Yep, all this was out there 10 years ago (as the graph shows), that the radiosonde balloon data and the satellite data were both in agreement, and both were at odds with the HADCRUT and other ground and SST record. It was just about 10 years ago that they attacked the satellites of Spencer and Christy. A small error was detected then, and basically we haven’t heard a lot about the divergence since.
This post is not about actual measruements, but with an extra decade for the modelers to correct their code, it is amazing that NONE of them come close to the actual real-world data.
Once more, arguing that modeling on the fromntier of a science is poor science – because of the use of (in this case many) assumptions mixed in with the actual data.
It is VERY gratifying to see two things:
1. That the divergence has continued to widen
2. That the balloons and satellites still agree with each other
It should be noted that the balloons and satellites do not have a problem with what to do with urban heat islands. And look at how flat the curves are. As they say at CO2 Science, “No warming here!”
Thanks, Dr. Spencer, for bringing this back to everyone’s attention.
Steve Garcia
To paraphrase Buffet, model forecasts tell a little about the future and a lot about the forecaster.
An interesting take on the balloon and satellite data:
In 33 years they show a ~0.25C rise. That is almost exactly the same rate of increase as the rise since 1900 (0.7C) has been.
That pretty much says that the rise began 110 years ago and has stayed the same. No hockey stick.
The bend in the hockey stick shows up in the surface record right about 1990, but it doesn’t show up at all in the satellite and balloon records. There is one 7-year rise starting about 1996, but then it flattens out again, so that the overall trend is still very constant. That looks very much like what one would expect in nature – long term trends with small variability within them.
IBut find it interesting that there are short 2-7 year wavinesses in the satellite and balloon records. No idea if that could mean something. But it looks like some kind of feedback loop is in effect.
I hope everyone will pardon me for focusing on the actual numbers vs the models. [Ironic LOL]
Steve Garcia
@Eustace Cranch June 6, 2013 at 9:49 am:
“Why doesn’t the observed temp line show the recent leveling-off? Just askin.”
Actually, it seems to. There is a 7-year rise starting in 1995 or 1996, then it flattens out for the last 8 years.
Like I just pointed out, the short-period sine curve seem interesting all along, from 1979. It seems like the 1998 high cut out one of the down curves, and then with the next down curve it reestablished itself.
Steve Garcia
But I’m not sure that the satellite data is correct either. How cold does it have to get (coldest May in 40 years most everywhere except Siberia) for us to be normal or below baseline? I wonder why we can’t get a “good” answer on this. Either the baseline period is fabricated or the satellite data is wrong–it simply cannot be “above” the baseline for the NH with the freezing cold we have been having for months now—yet Spencer reports it as “above” baseline. What the heck am I missing —no smart-alec retorts please.
@ Bob Tisdale. I say “poo poo” to the whole thing.
@ Elizabeth I would say that with temp fiddling by the team even the observed temps are lower. I suggest a FLAT line (unless he is using AMSU and RSS). BTW it now time to really get these XXXXXXX. I think for far too long the skeptic sites have been far too soft on the team. It really is time to get some millionaire to get a legal team together and take these guys to court.
I agree, especially that the temps are still being fiddled with. But it would take a multi millionaire,–a million is not enough.
Sorry to keep commenting, but every time I go back and look at this graph something else jumps out at me…
This time it is the heel of the hockey stick, which in the models occurs at about 1992-3. Prior to that time the trend in the models is not so far from the satellites/balloons.
I will speculate that whatever caused the divergence in the models happened at that time, and I think it is some widely used assumption(s) that have remained in the models ever since. Notice the near-linearity of the composite curve after that point. That, to me, infers a term with a constant within the formulas used since that time – some term that apparently has not been challenged.
(If I had to make a guess that term would relate to either water vapor and its feedbacks or the sensitivity to increases in CO2. It may more likely be the latter, and the differences in the various model outputs would represent the differences in the assumed sensitivity or water vapor)
It would be interesting to see what the second graph would look like if centered on 1993 instead of 1979. With that clear kink in all the models at that time,
I think now I am done seeing things in the chart…LOL
Steve Garcia
The warmists ignore, hide, or try to change data that disproves their theory. (Extreme AGW as opposed to lukewarm AGW.)
Mann attempted to change the recent paleo climate record to eliminate evidence of past cyclic climate change, a period that was warm as current times.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
… At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing…
The warmists would if they could hide the disagreement between general circulation models and actual temperatures. As they cannot hide or block the UHA and RSS data which is confirmed by weather balloon measurements they have chosen to ignore it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png
They ignored the fact that the warmist’s predicted tropical tropospheric warming did not occur.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions.
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.
They ignored the fact that global warming was not global. The majority of the warming occurred in the Northern Hemisphere and in high latitudes which matches past cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The AGW theory predicted that majority of the warming would be in tropics where the most amount of long wave radiation is emitted to space and where there amply water to amplify the CO2 warming.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years (William: 16 years and counting). The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)
They ignored the fact that the planet resists rather than amplifies greenhouse gas forcing changes by increasing or decreasing planetary cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less sunlight off into space.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
The warmist have ignored the fact that there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The warming that has occurred in the past is in the same regions that warmed in the 20th century.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
It appears based on what has happened in the past when there was a solar magnetic cycle slowdown that the planet is about to cool. Perhaps cooling, as opposed to a lack of warming, will end the catastrophic AGW saga.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
“Now, in what universe do the above results not represent an epic failure for the models?”
The universe of self-serving bureaucracies. This universe, which is mostly why democracy itself was invented.
For the most part, the people who continue to believe in AGW really and honestly want there to be a problem. They’d rather be right than realize how they’ve been fooled. They’ve taken an emotional stand. They’ve helped commit fraud, whether theirs or others, the result is the same. They voted us into this mess we’re in. They’d rather us all be in a living hell, than admit they were wrong.
I FORGIVE YOU! OK – now admit you were wrong and let’s stop this nonsense.
Perhaps not mainstream, but Felix’s Churchill quote is incorrect – ‘this is not the end, beginning etc’ it was made after the battle of El Alamein which the Brits with their Commonwealth allies (no US, you guys weren’t that interested) won. Montgomery v. Rommel. First Allied victory in WW2. Cheers from Sydney.
I feel very sorry for Climate Alchemy because the modelling has been incorrect, possibly fraudulent for 32 years now. Manabe and Strickland used as boundary condition SW DOWN = LW UP at the surface, a gross exaggeration, but not dishonest.
In 1972, the first NIMBUS paper disinterred Aarhenius’ claim of black body surface IR which every process engineer and most professional physicists know is wrong – just go to Maxwell’s Equations for proof.
Then we had the adoption of Sagan’s aerosol optical physics by Lacis and Hansen – Sagan got it wrong. Houghton made three serious mistakes, the grey body atmosphere throws it completely – it’s semi-transparent. Then in 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf on the NASA site, they made two serious mistakes.
The first was to claim that CO2 blocks atmospheric window emission between 7 and 14 microns. It doesn’t except for two small bands at ~10 microns. The second was, following Houghton, to claim that lapse rate = GHE. It isn’t – they are completely separate.
Climate Alchemy has to start again without ‘back radiation’. That mistake is from Meteorology – pyrgeometers measure temperature. As for the real answer: the atmosphere is self controlling with CO2 the working fluid. The ice age bistability is cloud physics.
Frank K. and Kevin K. — you are so very welcome. Thanks for letting me know. So glad your dad and uncle made it back. They (even despite the current sad state of the union v. a v. our liberty) would, no-questions-asked, do it again. In a heartbeat. They loved their country too much to not defend her.
*******************************
Mario Lento, thank you for your generously kind words.
Re: the Puppet in Chief, he is:
[the following quotes from memory only]
“dumb (“I, uuuh, I’ve been to … 57 states… have 2 or 3 to go, not counting Alaska and Hawaii.” 2008) [AND]
ignorant (watch 2012 (or 2011) video of him at a Buckingham Palace dinner talking right through “God Save the Queen” — later, on video, you can hear him hyuck, hyuck, “… I thought it was like a movie soundtrack or something.”)
[AND]
e-vil (argued vehemently against the Infant Born Alive Act as Illinois state senator (it had already passed previously at the federal level — unanimously).
But, like CO2, for the Democrats, he is “magic” [L. A. Times quote from 2007 or 2008].
**************************************
Felix, thank you for the dit-dit-dit daaah of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony — look at that face (Beethoven’s). That is one German (yes, I realize there were many who did not, who lost their lives trying to stop him) who would NOT have joined up with H-t–r. (if I spoke German, I’d write this next in Deutsche, alas…)
Ludwig von Beethoven: “If you tell me one —- more — time that humans cause global climate change, I will take this pencil and smash it through what is left of your BRAIN!”
*****************************
Stan Stendera! So glad to “hear” your voice. You’ve been missing… . Hope you and your lovely lady have been and are well. Take care. [and I agree COMPLETELY with your fine list above — You go, greathearted Stan!]
Hi, Evan Thomas in Sydney,
Good point. I do want to say though, on Felix’s behalf, that while Churchill didn’t say those words with regard to the June 6, 1944 invasion, Felix was applying the quote in a parallel fashion (and, in my opinion quite appositely) to the state of the War for Truth in Science (v. a v. AGW).
[@Felix –I forgot to note above, Felix, that (as you likely already knew) the BBC, on the side of right in those days, used the opening notes from Beethoven’s Fifth on its broadcasts during WWII to boost morale, since dit-dit-dit daaah was “V” for victory.
Isn’t music powerful! I enjoyed every second of that audio above. Thanks!]
And, cheers to you, Evan Thomas — from the Pacific Northwest (of the U.S. — and a lot of us DID want to help you Brits, but politicians stopped us…. then, the Japs (that is what I will always call the Imperial Japanese power of WWII — not meaning Japanese people today) gave the world a blessing in disguise and the “sleeping giant” woke up with a loud roar.
Nevertheless, indeed, Mr. Thomas, the world owes its freedom largely to the Brits for not giving in when no one else would help.
Gratefully,
Janice
Eustace Cranch says:
June 6, 2013 at 9:49 am
“Why doesn’t the observed temp line show the recent leveling-off? Just askin.”
Wobble says:
“The blue squares seem to be level since 1998.” And Feet2thefire says:
“Actually, it seems to. There is a 7-year rise starting in 1995 or 1996, then it flattens out for the last 8 years.”
I fear this is because Eustace and the other two are commenting on two different figures. Eustace is referring to the figure with the straight regression lines, which shows no levelling off. ‘Tother two are referring to the figure with the detailed “actual” curves. The latter figure shows, though not very well, the levelling off, but as the former figure lumps together both the latter period with the near level temperatures, and the earlier period with increasing temperatures, the whole regression line shows a continual increase.
It would have been interesting to show the straight line regressions for the observations for the periods 1975 to 1995, and 1996 to 2012. There seems to be a discontinuity at 1995/6
All(ALL) Climate models have failed miserably. If anyway at the IPCC/Obamaville care anything about truth, now would be the time.
Just think of all those grandkids spending their lives yelling “my grandfather’s work was do-do!”
Wonder what a plot of the slope of a model’s prediction versus funding looks like.
I agree with Bob Tisdale, but the word ”poo” is far too polite.
Say it as it is Bob.
You would think there’d be joy in the climate science camp that they were wrong about runaway warming from human-produced CO2, and relieved that we can continue bringing cheap, plentiful electricity to the areas of the world that desperately need it.
That this is not the case, and the fact that they write things like “sadly, no warming,” tells me that they are way too invested in their ideas and too much in love with the prospect of being an honored Cassandra. Are they not self-aware enough to see this?
Indeed for some time now Warmists had insisted that Co2 is the main driver of climate, overwhelming natural climate variation.
Here is what the the antithetically named ‘Skeptical Science’ said back in 2010.
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
It has been a further 4 years of the ‘no upward trend’ so what I want to know is this: are you worried Dr. Phil?
Here is a worthy comment from Dr. Spencers post.
I do hope Dr. Death Trains Hansen, Dr. Phil Depressed Jones and John Cook The Books are all paying attention. If sceptics are right your names will for ever be sullied for having participated in the biggest scientific swindle the world has ever know. Billions of Dollars have been diverted away from needy causes to perpetuate this joke.
So that’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster…
It seems that the data presented here need better specification.
Please specify
1) the mean altitude of the observations (in meters, or pressure value)
2) the mean altitude of the models outputs (same as before)
And maybe, if at hand, plot the same for different altitudes, and different regions, please.
Regards
Modelers are not able to retune due to the fact that they would have to dial CO2 down to below what the data says is being added to the atmosphere. Since grants may be predicated on researching CO2 as a greenhouse gas, they would hardly be able to re-up that grant if CO2 is no longer a significant part of the calculation. They are stuck in the land of stupid because of money. And only because of money.
The underlying assumption in all climate models is that you can take a chaotic process (weather) and average this over time and the Law of Large Numbers will operate to deliver a non-chaotic results.
This assumption has never been mathematically shown to be true. The Law of Large Numbers requires some very specific statistical properties, which are not present in chaotic systems.
Where is the basic, fundamental math showing that the average of a chaos system is anything but chaos? In all those hundreds of millions spent on models, who has taken the time to show that the underlying math is valid?
Theo Goodwin says:
June 6, 2013 at 1:28 pm
So, you are saying that Spencer is presenting the wrong data? Spencer is using the same satellite data that he and everyone else has been using for decades.
Then the modelers are using some other data? If so, then why not present it?
—————
What I am saying, nobody knows which data ROY is talking about. He puts no reference. Just some funny figures without any origin.
HE must show the sources.
Otherwise looks like Roy is a nasty guy desperately wishing spit on others without any reason.
And this smells really bad.
And yet, these very same models are now being used by US Dept. of Energy to raise the “social cost of carbon” from $22 to $$36 per ton, as seen in recently released regulations of microwave ovens. Apparently part of the increase is due to projected sea level rise. ???
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/05/what-an-obscure-microwave-rule-says-about-obamas-climate-plans/
Alex, instead of complaining, why don’t you go to Spencer’s blog and ask him. The link is in the article. I’m sure he’ll be happy to provide you with the specifics. Then you can report them back here.
ferd berple says:
June 7, 2013 at 6:42 am
The underlying assumption in all climate models is that you can take a chaotic process (weather) and average this over time and the Law of Large Numbers will operate to deliver a non-chaotic results.
——
Not at all. Chaotic or not, every delimited system is bound to the Energy Conservation rule, and this rule is not chaotic.
Chaos acts on the energy distribution into the system, non on the overall energy balance of the system.
Richard M says:
June 7, 2013 at 7:48 am
Alex, instead of complaining, why don’t you go to Spencer’s blog and ask him. The link is in the article. I’m sure he’ll be happy to provide you with the specifics. Then you can report them back here.
——
The practice to put data without referencing them is always to be criticized, especially if they are used as a blunt weapon.
Jimbo says:
June 7, 2013 at 4:20 am
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
It has been a further 4 years of the ‘no upward trend’ so what I want to know is this: are you worried Dr. Phil?
Is it a coincidence that around the time when HadCRUT3 reached 15 years of no warming, HadCRUT4 came along? HadCRUT4 shows a different picture than HadCRUT3. Presently, HadCRUT3 has 16 years and 1 month of no warming but HadCRUT4 has 12 years and 6 months of no warming.
Werner Brozek wait for HadCRUT 5 in 4 years and 6 months or less. 😉
Phitio (June 7, 2013 at 7:49 am) responded to ferd berple’s (June 7, 2013 at 6:42 am) comments on LLN:
“Not at all. Chaotic or not, every delimited system is bound to the Energy Conservation rule, and this rule is not chaotic.
Chaos acts on the energy distribution into the system, non on the overall energy balance of the system.”
Someone who might actually understand Tomas Milanovic’s cautions. Remarkable.
However…
Caution: Haphazardly choosing first moment aggregation criteria without due attention to systematic spatiotemporal volatility (second moment) clustering can be fatally misleading.
Topologically the spatiotemporal circulatory loop lattice is balanced by a global multi-axial fluid differential. It needn’t worry readers if that sounds complicated, because it’s just a multi-axial fluid generalization of something profoundly simple — e.g. as occurs in the solid mono-axial case, such as with automobile axles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_%28mechanical_device%29
It’s true that LLN alone isn’t enough. An additional constraint is needed. Use the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, Earth Orientation Parameter data, and visual hints from the following landmark article that illustrates far more than it addresses in the text:
Dickey, J.O.; & Keppenne, C.L. (1997). Interannual length-of-day variations and the ENSO phenomenon: insights via singular spectral analysis.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22759/1/97-1286.pdf
Tip: See particularly the attractor illustrated in Figure 3a & 3b. Then look for 2300 year modulation of semi-annual and 1500 year modulation of annual — (more details including connections with Steinhilber+ TSI if/when time/resources ever permit…)
To Day by Day:
Don’t forget, the temperature anomaly is global. What about the Southern
Hemisphere? Yes, May was cool in big chunks of the Northern Hemisphere,
but what about South America, Africa, etc.? Australia was supposed to have
had a warmish April–did this trend continue in May?
The thing to note is that even continental-scale conditions can vary significantly
from global averages. I expect the recent modest cooling trend will eventually
produce visible, lasting negative satellite anomalies. Give it time.
This assumption has never been mathematically shown to be true. The Law of Large Numbers requires some very specific statistical properties, which are not present in chaotic systems.
Um, I don’t usually disagree with you but this time I must. A distribution with compact support is a sufficient condition for the central limit theorem, whether or not the underlying dynamics is chaotic. Indeed, chaos would typically give a system a better chance in the long run to ergodically sample the bounds of the space. So I would have to say that this statement is specifically incorrect and/or irrelevant for climate.
What you mean to say(and that I fully agree with and indeed will expound upon below) is that the climate varies with significant dynamics occuring with time scales ranging from as short as days (emergent from the chaos that is “weather”) out to very long indeed, and many of those scales (and the particular dynamics that is important on them) are not well known. A few timescales we can identify that are likely relevant:
a) Days/weeks/months — persistence time of global climate features such as high and low pressure centers, tropical storms, transient variations in the upper atmosphere circulation, humidity and cloud cover.
b) Years. There is obviously a powerful annual signal, one that is driven by interference between orbital eccentricity and axial tilt. Some features of this make little sense — orbital eccentricity alone produces several orders of magnitude greater variation of insolation than CO_2 or the actual variation of the sun, and yet the Earth’s mean temperature variation has the opposite phase. This suggests that the specific distribution of land surface versus sea surface and feedbacks from water vapor and clouds may be far more important than anything else.
c) Decades. There are a number of named decadal oscillations. Some quite obviously have a profound effect on the global climate, notably ENSO. Although they are chaotic, coupled, and not sharply periodic, they do appear to have a very weak characteristic timescale. The Sun strongly varies on a decadal scale.
d) Centuries. The timescales of various oceanic processes are decades to centuries. The timescale of significant alteration of glaciation or major ice pack is usually centuries. The Sun’s solar cycle itself waxes and wanes in strength on a timescale that appears to be centuries (although again, it is not sharply periodic, it is chaotic and irregular).
e) Millenia. Although it is not well-understood, there again appear to be climate variations with timescales of order 1000 years (e.g. RWP to MWP to modern WP). But this is by no means uniformly extensible (as one expects for a chaotic system), and may have no particular cause beyond coincidence in underlying shorter period phenomena in a nonlinear chaotic feedback system.
f) Ten(s) of thousands of years. Orbital and axial tilt variations occur on these timescales, and at least some climate periodicity is weakly and not terribly consistently slaved to this, at least in some parts of the climate record (e.g. the general Pliestocene has an apparent glaciation/interglacial variation that itself varies from ~20ky to ~26 ky to 40 ky to 100 ky). But why the climate doesn’t slave faithfully to this fairly predictable signal is not well understood at all.
g) A hundred thousand years, as noted above, for at least the last 5 glacial/interglacial eras, appears to be important — 90 ky of glaciation, 10 ky of interglacial (roughly) but very erratic. Note well that the Holocene is over 10 ky old already, and this interglacial might well be nearing its nominal/normal end. The factors that drive glaciation are obviously powerful (and not well understood) and personally I don’t think anybody has a clue as to whether or not increased GHG’s will be enough to oppose them if glaciation got a positive feedback foothold. Naturally, there are plenty of people who will tell you that they are certain one way or the other. All I ask of them is that they hindcast the Pliestocene using the arguments that are the basis of their certainty, and then I’ll be certain too.
h) Millions to tens of millions of years. Glacial epochs tend to last anywhere from a few million years through tens of millions of years. Interglacial warm periods tend to last tens of millions of years to as long as (order of a) hundred million of years. However, this is very crude. But I still think that glimpses of 65 million years of climate change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
or 500 million years of climate change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
are in order. These figures put the climate nicely in perspective. First of all, the climate has been as cold as it is right now only four times over 500 million years, where we are tied with the coldest temperature visible in the entire 500 million year O_18 record. That’s something you don’t hear much about, but we are in an interglacial epoch of the Pliestocene glaciation. If we plot the last five million years (just to get the rest of the perspective):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
we see that we are pretty much dead set normal as far as interglacial temperatures are concerned, and still below the peaks of three of the last four interglacials (let alone the stable warm temperatures from before the Pliestocene). As warm as it is now, it is still colder than it has been for 62.5 million years of the last 65 million years.
These figures also reveal something of the chaotic, quasiperiodic, and in many cases utterly unpredicable nature of climate changes over truly geological timescales. Note also that changes on timescales of decades — which is all that we have accurate data on, and entirely where all of the “emergency” is supposedly occurring — are completely invisible on the timescales of any of the graphs above. The temperatures in any given chunk of that record are almost certainly both warmer than the warm peaks and colder than the cold troughs because they are averaged out over decades to centuries to even longer in the inference process. Also, it would be lovely to know the expected error estimates on these temperatures — impossible to tell of course as nobody will ever produce a plot like this with an error estimate in climate science because if they did what kind of story could anybody tell? I like to imagine it as varying from several tenths of a degree in the satellite data in the modern era through 0.5 to 1.5 degrees (K, of course) in the thermometric era and staying somewhere between 1.5 to 5 K (maybe?) over the rest of it. But I’m a cynic…
So can one produce a meaningful “mean temperature” for the globe? Sure. Lots of them. Just bear in mind that the mean temperature for the globe is not constant in time on any meaningful timescale, with or without anthropogenic contributions to that variation. It is not constant on a timescale of days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenia, ten thousand years, a hundred thousand years, a million years, ten million years, a hundred million years or a billion years. It has never been constant.
Furthermore, it has no meaningful linear trend. This is the really crazy thing — Roy and I completely agree on that one. Indeed, fitting any simple polynomial form to the global temperature data on timescales longer than decades makes no sense at all — the fit doesn’t become more meaningful if one includes “acceleration” (quadratic) or higher order terms. (Note: timescales less than decades one can often average over enough of the longer term stuff that one guesstimate a few years out on either side from a knowledge of the present — there is an autocorrelation time for the climate order of a decade so at least that much is safe enough.) It is apparently equally silly to try fourier analysis of the temperature series — as one expects in a chaotic system, one can find stretches where there is a very lovely signal (see the 5 million year record above) but the minute you try to take that lovely, sharp peak and use it to predict the variation before or after the stretch you get diddly, and nobody knows why the periodicity turns on, works for a while, then turns off, certainly not well enough to predict it in the future (and probably not well enough to honestly hindcast it in the past).
All the climate models are saying is: All things being equal, and subject to the correctness of our assumptions concerning feedback and sensitivity, the climate will do thus and such over the next century. This ignores the stark fact that as far as the climate is concerned, all things are never equal! The climate was steadily, systematically changing from the MWP to the LIA, from the LIA to the Dalton minimum, from the Dalton minimum to 1945, from 1945 to 1975, from 1975 to 1997. If anything, the last 16 years of remarkably stable temperatures are themselves a bit of an anomaly — there are damn few 16 year stretches of nearly uniform temperatures visible in the last 140 years of thermometric data!
This is why the entire field of climate science focuses on the temperature anomaly. The very term is, of course, an lying oxymoron. In order to have an anomaly, one has to have a normal, as an anomaly is quite literally:
From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:
anomaly
n 1: deviation from the normal or common order or form or rule
[syn: {anomaly}, {anomalousness}]
Note the subtle con, straight out of the book How to Lie with Statistics. By presenting results as an anomaly instead of on the actual relevant scale (degrees absolute) they force you to accept three incorrect beliefs that you don’t even realize are beliefs so that you cannot even argue with them. The argument is over the minute you accept their presentation. The first is that there exists a normal temperature.
There is no such thing as a normal global temperature for the Earth, there never has been
Second, that we know what the normal temperature should be, or would have been if we weren’t monkeying with it.
We have no friggin’ idea of what the temperature outside would have been if it weren’t for anthropogenic CO_2. We cannot hindcast past temperatures or predict future temperatures even if we assume CO_2 is held constant!/i>
Not for as little as three or four years. Certainly not ten years into the future (as Roy’s figures above graphically illustrate).
Third, that the variations presented as anomalies are significant. That is, that these variations are “unusual” and could not have arisen by chance. This, of course, directly implies that in the past, temperatures were normal, predictable, and had little natural variation.
The global temperature (as a measure of “global climate” is always varying. Separating out what fraction of this variation is due to anthropogenic causes is impossible unless there exists a “normal” temperature (there doesn’t) that we can predict (we can’t), that has no possible natural variations of the same order as the anthropogenic contributions.
In thirty to fifty years we might — and I do say might — have enough, good enough, data to start making progress on the causal web of major factors in the climate on timescales up to sixty to eighty years (the length of the reliable instrumental record, see Roy’s graphs above, that are remarkably consistent because they are not subject to the systematic errors and the kind of shenanigans that are routinely pulled with the thermometric surface temperature record). By then we might have a better handle on the Sun. We might have a clue about the upper atmosphere (above the troposphere) and how it affects global climate. Perhaps we will have a handle on the decadal oscillations. And by then the issue of CAGW/CACC will have empirically resolved itself, with the people who claimed to “know” beforehand how it would come out crowing about their “success”.
I’m not one of them. I have only a vague idea of how it will come out, quite independent of the simple physics of the GHE, because the climate isn’t simple and it could (start to) heat all the way up to levels it hasn’t seen in fifty million year or plunge down to temperatures not seen since the LIA and I wouldn’t be surprised either way. After all it could do either one of these things, could it not, in the complete absence of human influence! It has in the past, and we don’t know why it did and cannot predict or explain what it did. So how in the world can we argue that it will or will not do something in the future?
rgb
The beak of a monstrous bird tries to peck a beady worm.
The power elite as always tries to devour reality.
Feed the public the digested remains.
But the worm will prove elusive.
milodonharlani says:
June 6, 2013 at 9:43 am
Damn those pesky satellites.
So how in the world can we argue that it will or will not do something in the future?
All your expositions can be summarize in “climate is independent from human influence, or the dependence annot be distingushed” and so used to choose between two paths:
a) we can do nothing, go BAU and endure what will come
b) we could be hit by fire or by ice, who knows, but maybe better be prepared
What I know is that CO2, and methane, and the methane trapped in the clathrate bed that lies frozen on the seafloor, are strongs climalterants, ad what we know about theyr phisical properties tells that their effect should be the trappping of infrareds. We have some science that tries to explain the world. You can dismiss it, but consequently you are dismissing also your science, too, because, as science, they have a common matrix.
I all boils down on the opinion you have of climate researchers and modelist: are all climate researchers and modelist bad an dishonest people?
Do you really think that it’s really true? Coud it be that they also try to honestly understand this difficoult topic? Do you think that your ingenious is better than their average, your honesty better than their average?
(This reminds me that 80% of people thinks to be better than the average… ;D )
I suppose that, more or less we are all near the average, bot in skills and in morality.
You say that human influence on climate cannot be stated.
I say that kicking the ass of a lion could not be a good idea , even if we canot state its real attitude.
I have no idea why he uses mid-troposphere data. Forget these pretty pictures. They do not correspond with lower troposphere where we live and which can be related to station data of thermometer measurements. This graph is actually worthless because neither ENSO oscillations nor the super El Nino nor the temperature trends we are interested in are even visible. Those are the features against which the models should be tested, and this graph does not do it.
“use of straight line linear trends doesn’t accurately reflect the reality of the observation data”
Huh? The actual observation data (reality) is plotted and it sure looks like a straight line linear trend to me.
Just playing around with the UAH TMT Tropics dataset and found something very interesting.
The TMT tropics (UAH and RSS) is totally dominated by the ENSO. There is no global warming tropical hotspot from increased water vapor here. The ENSO runs this region with as much as a +/- 0.7C impact very directly one-for-one. (other influences like volcanoes and the AMO are also clear). And there is no long-term trend in the ENSO so one would expect there to be no long-term in the TMT temps either.
http://s8.postimg.org/4oi49v1sl/UAH_TMT_Drivers.png
So there is NO global warming signal here at all. In fact, the regression coefficient for Ln(CO2) is Zero. UAH TMT can be modelled very closely without a global warming trend at all.
http://s11.postimg.org/3q98mgpab/UAH_TMT_Modeled.png
The climate models have to necessarily be very inaccurate about this important level.
Richard M says:
June 7, 2013 at 7:48 am
Alex, instead of complaining, why don’t you go to Spencer’s blog and ask him. The link is in the article. I’m sure he’ll be happy to provide you with the specifics. Then you can report them back here.
——
What is there to ask?
If Roy cares about his reputation, he should do it himself and not post something that makes no sense,
After his funny post about
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/24/spencer-slays-with-sarcasm/
and the even funnier present one, I have a strong suspicion he went mad (Alzheimer?).
As I said, the models say: the top of troposphere cools down, the bottom warma up.
This is absolutely in-line with observations.
Any reasonable person may guess there is “a middle of troposphere” with a flat temperature trend.
So, why he claims any “failure of models”, only a doctor may clarify.
alex says:
“If Roy cares about his reputation, he should do it himself and not post something that makes no sense” <— [makes no sense to Alex.]
There, Alex. Fixed it for you.
Now if you still don't understand, go ask Dr Spencer. He has a lot of experience compasred with you. You could really learn something from him. And it is your reputation that is at stake, not Dr Spencer’s.
Or you could carry on, and continue to snipe from the sidelines.
alex says:
June 8, 2013 at 9:42 am
“If Roy cares about his reputation, he should do it himself and not post something that makes no sense,
After his funny post about
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/24/spencer-slays-with-sarcasm/
and the even funnier present one, I have a strong suspicion he went mad (Alzheimer?).”
Well, you’re a warmist troll, so you surely think we are mad, the enemy, insane, paid by Big Oil or whatever canard you need to block out inconvenient information. That is no surprise.
given that we have a dozen of your ilk on this thread, it looks like Spencer has really hit you right where it hurts. Usually only two members of the warmist cult are delegated for each WUWT thread.
alex says:
June 8, 2013 at 9:42 am
As I said, the models say: the top of troposphere cools down, the bottom warma up.
This is absolutely in-line with observations.
Any reasonable person may guess there is “a middle of troposphere” with a flat temperature trend.
So, why he claims any “failure of models”, only a doctor may clarify.
————————————
TMT is measured right in the middle of where the big tropical hotspot is supposed to be.
Hotspot climate model prediction (for 2XCO2) courtesy of RealClimate – see 600 hpa to 200 hpa
http://www.realclimate.org/images/2xCO2_tropical_enhance.gif
So “failure of climate models” is proven. Its white, not deep red.
Beautiful, RGB.
Does an “attractor” nullify chaos?
The comments from “Phitio” are downright creepy.
Only a natural force as powerful as organized religion stands a chance of arresting and correcting the spreading corruption of university & government sponsored modeling “science”.
May God bless the human race.
Even more creepy, the authorities are repeatedly messing with access to a crucial landmark paper that illustrated far more than it addressed in text. After being inaccessible for an extended period of time, public access had recently been briefly restored, but the article is now once again inaccessible. During the extended period of inaccessibility the link was giving the following strangely worded error message:
“The NASA technical reports server will be unavailable for public access
while the agency conducts a review of the site’s content to ensure that it
does not contain technical information that is subject to U.S. export control laws
and regulations and that the appropriate reviews were performed.
The site will return to service when the review is complete.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.”
Fortunately, there’s an alternative way to access the article:
Dickey, J.O.; & Keppenne, C.L. (1997). Interannual length-of-day variations and the ENSO phenomenon: insights via singular spectral analysis.
I advise everyone to not assume that the article will remain accessible via this alternative. Should the alternative access vanish, I’m sure the authorities realize that this will just come across as looking yet more creepy. Creepy seems to be the image authorities are going for these days, so let’s keep a curious eye on this alternative copy of the paper to see if the authorities seize this easy opportunity to look yet more creepy by ordering that the alternative copy be removed from the web. Monitoring accessibility provides an opportunity to gain information.
gymnosperm (June 8, 2013 at 11:31 am) asked:
“Does an “attractor” nullify chaos?”
Attractors are a feature of chaos — a feature that’s easily completely overlooked by standard time series analysis methods when they’re based on patently false assumptions, which are the cultural norm. (details another day…)
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
GREAT READ!
As Glenn Tamblyn and I have pointed out, there are a number of issues with the data, including the fact that averaging the UAH and RSS data sets hides the fact that there is considerable disagreement between them and the fact that the TMT data channel, as shown here, introduces a cooling bias because the weighting function vs altitude has a tail going into the stratosphere where it has been cooling.
So, here are the trends that can be gleaned directly from the data:
UAH TMT for tropics: 0.029 K/decade
RSS TMT for tropics: 0.090 K/decade
Average for tropics: 0.060 K/decade (This is what is presumably plotted as blue squares.)
RSS TTT for tropics: 0.127 K/decade (The TTT is a product using multiple channels to effectively reduce the weighting function to zero in the stratosphere.)
So, if the RSS TTT is correct, the data has more than twice as steep a trend as is shown here. And, as Glenn points out (although I haven’t investigated, the STAR/Nesdis group ( (http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/index.php) gets about a trend of 0.124 K/decade for TMT, i.e., even without trying to correct the TMT channel for stratospheric contamination.
The summary of all this is that there are simply too large uncertainties in the data to say with confidence that the discrepancy is a failure of the models.
And, furthermore, as has been pointed out in the literature, the models and data agree quite well for amplification seen in response to fluctuations in temperature on monthly- to yearly-timescales. It is only when looking for amplification of the multidecadal trends does one run into problems. But the multidecadal trends are exactly where the data are least reliable because of artifacts that can affect the long-term trends. Finally, it is hard to understand how the physics that leads to this amplification on monthly- to yearly-timescales could fail to lead to the same amplification for the long-term trends.
This is why the U.S. Climate Change Science Program report several years ago on this subject concluded that issues with the data are the most likely source of the discrepancy. [And, they have already been proven at least partly right in the interim since an error was found in the UAH data set that significantly changed the trend in the tropics, making it agree somewhat better with both RSS and the models.]
As I and another have pointed out at Roy Spencer’s blog, there are a number of issues with the data, including the fact that averaging the UAH and RSS data sets hides the fact that there is considerable disagreement between them and the fact that the TMT data channel, as shown here, introduces a cooling bias because the weighting function vs altitude has a tail going into the stratosphere where it has been cooling.
So, here are the trends that can be gleaned directly from the data:
UAH TMT for tropics: 0.029 K/decade
RSS TMT for tropics: 0.090 K/decade
Average for tropics: 0.060 K/decade (This is what is presumably plotted as blue squares.)
RSS TTT for tropics: 0.127 K/decade (The TTT is a product using multiple channels to effectively reduce the weighting function to zero in the stratosphere.)
[For UAH data, see http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2/ , specifically, http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2/uahncdc.mt . For RSS data, see http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html , specifically http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TMT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt for TMT and http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TTT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt for TTT.]
So, if the RSS TTT is correct, the data has more than twice as steep a trend as is shown here. And, the STAR/Nesdis group ( (http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/index.php) gets about a trend of 0.124 K/decade for TMT, i.e., even without trying to correct the TMT channel for stratospheric contamination.
The summary of all this is that there are simply too large uncertainties in the data to say with confidence that the discrepancy is a failure of the models.
And, furthermore, as has been pointed out in the literature, the models and data agree quite well for amplification seen in response to fluctuations in temperature on monthly- to yearly-timescales. It is only when looking for amplification of the multidecadal trends does one run into problems. But the multidecadal trends are exactly where the data are least reliable because of artifacts that can affect the long-term trends. Finally, it is hard to understand how the physics that leads to this amplification on monthly- to yearly-timescales could fail to lead to the same amplification for the long-term trends.
This is why the U.S. Climate CHange Science Program report several years ago on this subject concluded that issues with the data are the most likely source of the discrepancy. [And, they have already been proven at least partly right in the interim since an error was found in the UAH data set that significantly changed the trend in the tropics, making it agree somewhat better with both RSS and the models.]
Paul Vaughan,
I eagerly await the day. I don’t know what attractors are except what may be gleaned from the name. Very interested in the relationship between chaos and entropy. Suspect many will say they are entirely separate. The third law does not preclude organization in closed systems, yet in a real sense both chaos and entropy are enemies of organization.
joeldshore:”So, if the RSS TTT is correct, the data has more than twice as steep a trend as is shown here. And, the STAR/Nesdis group ( (http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/index.php) gets about a trend of 0.124 K/decade for TMT, i.e., even without trying to correct the TMT channel for stratospheric contamination.
The summary of all this is that there are simply too large uncertainties in the data to say with confidence that the discrepancy is a failure of the models”
I would say that your summary is a bit incomplete. Even assuming you are right about TTT being the most accurate (which I’m pretty sure is debatable), temp observations are (by my eyes) are still substantially below all the predicted trends in the models for 70 out of 73 models. IOW, we can say with confidence that the *vast majority* of the models out there are failures at reproducing the temperature behavior of the last 30+ years. However, some of the (presumably lower sensitivity) models still do a reasonable job with reproducing the real world temperatures as reflected in the TTT dataset.
Cheers, 🙂
Bill Illis says:
June 8, 2013 at 11:13 am
alex says:
June 8, 2013 at 9:42 am
As I said, the models say: the top of troposphere cools down, the bottom warma up.
This is absolutely in-line with observations.
Any reasonable person may guess there is “a middle of troposphere” with a flat temperature trend.
So, why he claims any “failure of models”, only a doctor may clarify.
————————————
TMT is measured right in the middle of where the big tropical hotspot is supposed to be.
Hotspot climate model prediction (for 2XCO2) courtesy of RealClimate – see 600 hpa to 200 hpa
No it isn’t, it’s a weighted average from the surface to 25km (1,000 hPa – 25 hPa), peak weighting at ~4km.
“However, some of the (presumably lower sensitivity) models still do a reasonable job with reproducing the real world temperatures as reflected in the TTT dataset.”
+++++++++++++++
Or let’s put it another way. The models that the IPCC do not use for the Summary for Policy Makers are not so bad. Or you could say the models that are least promoted and least useful to the IPCC are pretty good. Or you could say that the models that show similar results as what is happening, actually were supposed to represent what would happen if we made drastic reductions to fossil fuel such that the CO2 level went down to where it was a decade ago.
I’m Just sayin’
joeldshore says:
June 8, 2013 at 5:46 pm
———————————
Here is UAH and RSS Tropics TMT.
There are almost identical over the whole timeframe (although there is slight difference in the trends which seems to start at about the time of the 1997-98 El Nino).
That changes nothing. There is NO global warming trend in the Tropics TMT level which is supposed to catch the hotspot. It is controlled by the ENSO (like water vapor is, cloudiness, OLR, and just about every important climate feature).
http://s8.postimg.org/71v03r9w5/UAH_vs_RSS_TMT_Tropics.png
RCP8.5 is the most extreme set of assumptions used in these models. There are others. All Dr Spencer has shown is that the model runs with the most extreme assumptions aren’t the closest to reality. That isn’t “EPIC FAIL”, that is just chartspam. I’d also recommend the breakout of each of the observational datasets, as joeldshore mentioned above.
Here is a blog with criticisms of Dr. Spencer and his blog post.They think his satellite data is suspect and that he is not providing full coverage of the topic.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/how-much-out-of-whack-is-uah.html
REPLY: This is one of my blog children, banned from WUWT due to multiple policy violations. It is run by a clueless female eco-nut type in Australia who calls herself “Sou”. As usual, she denigrates anonymously, since she has no honor like most of her ilk. – Anthony
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/how-much-out-of-whack-is-uah.html
The usual complaints about Dr. Spencer’s chart and UAH temperature dataset as their justification on why they dislike his blog post.
As David vun Kannon said, all of these models use the RCP value of 8.5 (worst-case-scenario). Not only does the source of Dr. Spencer’s information offer the actual historical values of RCP (http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_cmip5.cgi?id=someone@somewhere), the CMIP states that the predictive RCP values should not be used before a date of 2006 and that historical values should be used for modeling of the recent past (see page 126: http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/standard_output.pdf). So, Dr. Spencer took the worst-case-scenario predictions for the future value of a variable for which he could have obtained the actual value, plugged that into models starting several decades back, extrapolated the models, then compared their predictions to historical observation. Since the RCPs are predicted future values, it is literally impossible that the models could match observation.
I did not realize it was banned from your site.
I agree that it is a terrible response to Dr. Christy and Dr. Spensers presentation.
I got this website link at facebook posted by one of the clueless warmists who make it clear he expects members of the discussion group chose hotwhopper over your blog on this topic.I didn’t and what is more I plan to show why he is only making a fool of himself doing it since hotwhopper objections are crazy.
Phil. says:
June 8, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Bill Illis says:
June 8, 2013 at 11:13 am
TMT is measured right in the middle of where the big tropical hotspot is supposed to be.
Hotspot climate model prediction (for 2XCO2) courtesy of RealClimate – see 600 hpa to 200 hpa
No it isn’t, it’s a weighted average from the surface to 25km (1,000 hPa – 25 hPa), peak weighting at ~4km.
—————————
Thanks, Phil, but still I don´t understand.
Much worse it is – we have to guess (!) what Roy actually meant.
And this is no good.
David vun Kannon says:
June 9, 2013 at 7:43 am
RCP8.5 is the most extreme set of assumptions used in these models. There are others. All Dr Spencer has shown is that the model runs with the most extreme assumptions aren’t the closest to reality. That isn’t “EPIC FAIL”, that is just chartspam. I’d also recommend the breakout of each of the observational datasets, as joeldshore mentioned above.
+++++++++++++++
No David: It’s an Epic Fail. Do you know which charts are used for the IPPC’s “Summary for Policy Makers?” THE MOST EXTREME models. Stop being in denial of reality. I’m tired of the games your ilk play, hoping the naive will fall in line.
Eustace Cranch just axed, “Why doesn’t the observed temp line show the recent leveling-off? Just askin”
Cause the linear trend line encompassed the period 1979 through 2012. If it just covered the last 13 years, there probably wouldn’t be any positive trend. Do you understand linear regression and the idea of statistical significance?
Mario Lento, irrespective of what the IPCC uses for the Summary for Policy Makers, the RCP is for predictions of future changes, not comparison to historical ones. It is not just wrong to use the RCP8.5 out of context, it completely invalidates the argument. We know RPC wasn’t 8.5 in the recent past, that’s why the database allows you to pick the historical RPC numbers for analysis of models compared to historical observations. What Dr. Spencer did is like setting the absolute population growth predicted for the next 20 years, apply it to 1950, and compare it to actual population growth from 1950. It’s completely flawed; this is a climate change skeptic epic fail.
Adam,
If there is a model that actually matches the observed values let’s see it. Like maybe a model that treats water vapor as a forcing and not a feedback? Like maybe a model that recognizes the natural negative feedbacks to water vapor forcing? Like maybe a model that doesn’t plunge us into a full on glacial stage in about 45 minutes and freeze the oceans solid in a few years when 400ppmv of a trace greenhouse gas is removed?
Joel,
C’mon. Really? Questioning the satellite data? It’s not just UAH. All the satellite groups agree.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of models. You just have to get them right.
Evan Thomas says:
The quote “…this is not the end, beginning etc’… was made after the battle of El Alamein which the Brits with their Commonwealth allies (no US, you guys weren’t that interested) won.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
True. After WWI ended just two decades prior, Americans did not want to become involved in another European war, and after Pearl Harbor we had our hands full with the Japanese threat to the entire Pacific. [One Australian newspaper wag made a clever quip about both Yellow races: the Japanese and the Americans.]
But then Hitler made the one major blunder that cost him everything: four days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hitler unilaterally decalred war on America. Wars are usually won by the side that makes the fewest blunders, not the side with the most brilliant strategy.
The U.S. entry into the war had the same result as it did in WWI, decisively tipping the balance against Germany. Instead of a negotiated peace to end the war, it brought about unconditional surrender — which let out and confirmed the evil gremlins unleashed by the Russian revolution. And that is the world we have inhabited ever since.
Mario Lento says:
June 9, 2013 at 2:59 pm
David vun Kannon says:
June 9, 2013 at 7:43 am
RCP8.5 is the most extreme set of assumptions used in these models. There are others. All Dr Spencer has shown is that the model runs with the most extreme assumptions aren’t the closest to reality. That isn’t “EPIC FAIL”, that is just chartspam. I’d also recommend the breakout of each of the observational datasets, as joeldshore mentioned above.
+++++++++++++++
No David: It’s an Epic Fail. Do you know which charts are used for the IPPC’s “Summary for Policy Makers?” THE MOST EXTREME models. Stop being in denial of reality. I’m tired of the games your ilk play, hoping the naive will fall in line.
I suggest that you stick with the truth, contrary to your assertion the IPPC’s last “Summary for Policy Makers” included scenaria from B1 to A1F1(most extreme) as well as constant 2000 concentrations. It doesn’t improve your case when you can so clearly be shown to be exaggerating!
E.g. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Table SPM.3. Projected global average surface warming and sea level rise at the end of the 21st century.
Figure SPM.5.
Figure SPM.6. Projected surface temperature changes for the early and late 21st century relative to the period 1980–1999.
Phil: You missed the point: “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”
This is extreme, and what I refer to. They think anything less is unlikely… if not impossible.
They show models, as I said, but they don’t believe them… only the extreme ones.
The link posted by Paul Vaughan above to an alternative source for Dickey, J.O.; & Keppenne, C.L. (1997): “Interannual length-of-day variations and the ENSO phenomenon: insights via singular spectral analysis” is now also inoperative; I got an error message of a creepy type I’ve never seen before
Mario Lento says:
June 10, 2013 at 7:36 pm
Phil: You missed the point: “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”
This is extreme, and what I refer to. They think anything less is unlikely… if not impossible.
They show models, as I said, but they don’t believe them… only the extreme ones.
That’s not what you said, you said: ” Do you know which charts are used for the IPPC’s “Summary for Policy Makers?” THE MOST EXTREME models.” As I was able to easily show what you said is untrue!
Phil: You’re being a bit argumentative for no reason. THE MOST EXTREME models are the ones they say are most likely to happen. So yes – they “USE” the most extreme ones to make their case. The other 1 model which is not alarming is the model that predicts what happens if we dial back to 2000 levels, which would be a drastic impossible scenario. ALL THE REST ARE MOST EXTREME.
There, I fixed it for you.
Mario Lento says:
June 10, 2013 at 10:25 pm
Phil: You’re being a bit argumentative for no reason. THE MOST EXTREME models are the ones they say are most likely to happen.
I’m not being argumentative for no reason, I objected to your telling untruths, capitalizing them doesn’t help!
Frank K. says:
June 6, 2013 at 2:13 pm
….And then I look at some of the source code of these models and am aghast at how bad it is (e.g. NASA/GISS).
Its written in Fortran… Ekkk.. Why do they insist upon using Fortran for scientific coding? What is wrong with C++ for mathematical computation? IS there really that big an advantage?
And when it comes down to serious number crunching, assembly is going to be needed anyway to best utilize functions, unless the compilers in Fortran are magical.
Phil. says:
June 11, 2013 at 4:41 am
Mario Lento says:
June 10, 2013 at 10:25 pm
Phil: “You’re being a bit argumentative for no reason. THE MOST EXTREME models are the ones they say are most likely to happen.”
I’m not being argumentative for no reason, I objected to your telling untruths, capitalizing them doesn’t help!
++++++++++++++++++
Like they say, you can lead a horse to water… I stand by what I wrote and tried to bring attention to the truth. You choose to drink Koolaid instead of water. Stay confused for the rest of your life. I’m done tutoring.
“In what universe …”?
In the free-money AGW universe, of course.