From the world of Claimatology™, comes this smackdown from Nature.
“The dramatic warming predicted after 2008 has yet to arrive.”
An article published today in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models to predict climate a mere 5 years into the future, much less a century from now.
- “It’s fair to say that the real world warmed even less than our forecast suggested,” [modeller] Smith says. “We don’t really understand at the moment why that is.” “
- “Although I have nothing against this endeavour as a research opportunity, the papers so far have mostly served as a ‘disproof of concept’,” says Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt says that these efforts are “a little misguided”. He argues that it is difficult to attribute success or failure to any particular parameter because the inherent unpredictability of weather and climate is built into both the Earth system and the models. “It doesn’t suggest any solutions,” he says.
- “Because the climate does not usually change drastically from one year to the next, the model is bound to start off predicting conditions that are close to reality. But that effect quickly wears off as the real climate evolves. If this is the source of the models’ accuracy, that advantage fades quickly after a few years.”
- “Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says that it could be a decade or more before this research really begins to pay off in terms of predictive power, and even then climate scientists will be limited in what they can say about the future.”
Limited in what they can say about the future?
Since when? Somebody please tell Jim Hansen he can’t say “the oceans will boil“.
The Nature article is here: http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2018-is-cloudy-with-record-heat-1.13344
h/t to the Hockey Schtick.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’d like to see some law suits for cost recovery and recovery for damages, deaths, poverty, and lost opportunity these modelers and climate hucksters have caused. This has been a true travesty.
And an apology. There needs to be an apology.
But according to the President, those who doubt the climate crisis are flat earthers and should be ignored, if not ridiculed.
Piers Corbyn predicts climate patterns fairly well with an 80 % approx accuracy. Let’s face it, Solar cycles modulated by lunar and axial tilt/proximity cycles are the overriding input, the system is determined by the exterior influences on it’s current state. Oceanic cycles are merely a consequence of these factors.
I can understand that as a meteorologist Watts may be a bit miffed at Corbyn’s dismissal of meteorological predictions and focus on external influencesm, but Corbyn’s track record speaks for itself.
Demetris Koutsoyiannis and his co-workers showed in 2010 that climate models can’t predict climate. In 2008, I showed that climate models can’t make predictions period. The error bars are so large that no model yields a unique solution.
It’s impossible to test models against any conceivable observable. It wouldn’t matter whether the climate was still warming, or not. Climate models would not and could not provide an explanation. They could do only what they have been used for up til now: provide a pseudo-scientific convenience for a political agenda.
Now that the terrestrial climate is doing its thing and is continuously diverging from the promiscuous projections of climate models, the cabal is finally forced to step back. The excuses that worked for the first decade of divergence are looking thin, even to believers. They’re now trying to extricate themselves in good order, making the divergence out to be the fault of a ‘too complex climate.’
Most of the press has been in cahoots with the AGW cabal of climate pseudo-scientists right from the start. That makes them pseudo-press. They have betrayed their integrity, just as the cabalist scientists did, and now have their own CYA to do. So, in their own interest, look for them to collaborate with the pseudo-science cabal to ease their own way out. Look for sympathetic portrayals by the press (the pseudo-press): ‘it wasn’t the scientists’ fault, and we all reported honestly.’
@Ferd berple
“The spaghetti graph of the climate models are telling us quite the opposite. The models show that for any single combination of forcings there are a many possible future temperatures. This range of possible futures shows us that there is inherent variability in climate that is independent of the forcings. ”
No, no, no. The models only “tell” us this if the models correctly represent the earth’s climate. All we can say at this point is the models are wrong and do not work.
By plugging in actual values for the ocean and atmosphere, researchers pull the model away from its natural state.
In other words, using actual data makes the model perform worse
I believe the problem with the models is that they don’t consider that the CO2 is already absorbing all the infrared radiation in the specific wave lengths. Adding more CO2 will not increase the temperature because there isn’t anymore radiation in the wave lengths it can absorb.
No wonder Schmidt doesn’t like near-term “climate” forecasting. Being shown laughably wrong in five to ten years is worse than disastrously wrong in 87 years, when long gone.
To the extent that the models embody the assumptions and theorizings of the AGW paradigm, it has to be accepted that the disparity between their predictions and the observations invalidate those assumptions and theorizings.
In science, actual science of the Scientific Method approach, hypotheses are tested against the predictions they make. And if those predictions fail, then it is the hypotheses that must be reworked, reexamined, or rejected instead of trying to fudge the observations to make them match.
Mark Bofill says: July 11, 2013 at 9:37 am
If you let a member of the “team” construct a model of “how to unzip your pants”, and you use that model, you’re going to have wet pants.
“The trick now for these guys is to put their warming predictions off until they are safely in retirement and no longer accountable.”
They have political and economic support to promote and support the UNFCCC with policy based science.
The key is to find those that are behind this policy based science and make shure they loosetheir controlover this scheme?
We really know why but it doesn’t matter because we must stop using carbon fuels immediately.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Reed Coray says:
July 11, 2013 at 11:02 am
Mark Bofill says: July 11, 2013 at 9:37 am
If you let a member of the “team” construct a model of “how to unzip your pants”, and you use that model, you’re going to have wet pants.
——————————
:> No, I use a model developed some years back by qualified field researchers (my children while potty training). It works fairly well for me.
Schmidt says that these efforts are “a little misguided”. He argues that it is difficult to attribute success or failure to any particular parameter because the inherent unpredictability of weather and climate is built into both the Earth system and the models. “It doesn’t suggest any solutions,” he says.
That right there is the money quote. According to Schmidt, nothing about the current process should change since there is nothing specific to focus on. The models should not be discounted or ignored, despite their lack of near term accuracy. We are simply stuck with them as is. Wonderful.
‘For a farmer in Illinois,’ Trenberth says, ‘any indications about what to expect could turn out rather valuable.’
I’d love to see Josh’s take on ‘American Gothic’. Add Trenberth, and see where the farmer is sticking his pitchfork…. 😉
kcrucible says:
July 11, 2013 at 8:37 am
These near-term forecasts stand in sharp contrast to the generic projections that climate modellers typically produce, which look many decades ahead and don’t represent the actual climate at any given time.
This is a euphemism for ‘climate models are utterly useless for any purpose’.
May I suggest that they re-run their models with the code that implements the assumed effects of CO2 and its related postive feedback inactive. I’ll bet they would then come a lot closer to matching the real masured data.
Nature, the journal, is warmist; and owned by a German publisher, which you can safely assume to be ultra warmist; that’s the null hypothesis for Germans. So the question is, why do they throw the models under the bus.
Maybe warmism has served its purpose and the powers that be are preparing to use a different tool in the future.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 11, 2013 at 7:51 am
“…which is now busy suggesting various epicycle like theories…”
That really is THE analogy. Epicycles. Plus ca change…
People must understand, the models are divine, therefore perfect. It is the data that is the work of the devil, therefore flawed.
Pat Frank says:
July 11, 2013 at 10:27 am
“It’s impossible to test models against any conceivable observable. It wouldn’t matter whether the climate was still warming, or not. Climate models would not and could not provide an explanation. They could do only what they have been used for up til now: provide a pseudo-scientific convenience for a political agenda.”
A thorough search of all articles, posts, or comments by Alarmist climate scientists or their supporters will not yield one hit on a substantive use of the word ‘explanation’. The reason is that scientific explanation absolutely requires well-confirmed physical hypotheses, aka physical laws, and Alarmists have none beyond Arrhenius’ original work. Alarmists depend entirely on computer models or time series analysis of questionable data.
It is not possible to engage an Alarmist in discussion of scientific explanation or the larger context that is scientific method. Why? In some cases the answer is ignorance of scientific method. In other cases the answer is an unwillingness to face the challenge of scientific method.
There is no scientific prediction without use of relevant physical laws. A scientific prediction is a demonstration from the relevant set of physical laws that a particular event will occur at a particular time in the future.
….that the climate hasn’t warmed is one of the biggest mysteries in climate science… Wow how blind can you get? Com’on you can think of a reason! We’ve been trying to tell you for years.
lt seems that they are slowly waking up to the fact.
That they is going to be little risk of runaway warming while the Polar jet stream remains in its current waving pattern.
I have access. But I don’t know if access is open to everyone. If it is, I urge anyone and everyone to read this two-page, very readable human-interest commentary. Please read it.
When you do, follow what Scott Basinger says: “I’m having a hard time reconciling the following statement in the article with ‘the science is settled.’ ”
I say read the entire thing while repeating this to yourself. Then, think of Obama’s insults about flat-earthers, and Mann’s insulting demeanor toward skeptics.
This article, to me, looks like total vindication to skeptics. This is the step back from the ledge. This is the apology. This is the reality check. This is the tipping point.
The notion of “settled science” is so comforting to political types: You don’t have to ask questions, examine evidence or think. Just get right on to the fun part – pushing everyone around.