A Video Preview of “Climate Models Fail”

Note: The video has been updated to reflect the fact that Climate Models Fail is now available for sale in Kindle and pdf formats. I also replaced the word “employed” with “used” (as suggested by many viewers) and corrected one of the years discussed in the video.

# # #

This YouTube video provides a preview of my new book Climate Models Fail. The book discusses and illustrates how the climate models being used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report show no skill at simulating surface temperatures, precipitation and sea ice area.

Climate Models Fail is now available for sale in Amazon Kindle and .pdf editions.

My writing style definitely leans to the technical side, as visitors here well know. To make it easier to read, Climate Models Fail is being proofread by someone without a technical background. Her suggestions have been great.

And for those wondering, the cover art is by Josh of Cartoons by Josh.

A note about the video: In addition to providing an overview of climate model failings, I also threw in a few jabs at the IPCC that many of you will enjoy.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bloke down the pub

The climate models have been dead for years, yet still, zombie like, they walk the Earth.

John Marshall

BDTP,– you’r right and it is time the climate ”scientists” got to grips with explaining why they have been wrong all this time. It can’t be the money.

Bob Tisdale:
Thankyou for the fine preview in the video. I will get the book.
Richard

Nigel Farage Kicks Ass!

So has Cook classified this as part of the 97% yet?

RC Saumarez

I have followed your posts with interest and I am glad that you have now drawn the threads together into a book.
This is hugely important and the problem now is how to get this into the mainstram and into political consciousness. (In the Farage video, the problem is encapsulated by Barroso’s response, which is symptomatic of the EU attitude to almost everything.)
There is now a groundswell that green policies are have disastrous economic effects and your book will provide important ammunition for politicians who are becoming increasingly sceptical of the IPCC narrative.

izen

@- climate models are like maps, they include all the features we know about at the level of detail that can be represented on the scale at which they work. But like maps they are always ‘wrong’ in the sense that they are incomplete and may miss significant features of the landscape.
As everyone knows that does not make a map useless. The map can still describe the large scale features, and the experience of encountering a feature in reality that is not on the map enables the map to be corrected and improved.
Climate models did not feature the real world experience of a significant slowdown in land surface temperatures while the TOA energy imbalance persists. But that does not automatically invalidate all the features that the models HAVE got right. The continuing accumulation of thermal energy that the models feature is not invalidated by their errors in how rapidly that is represented as a rise in land surface temperatures. The continued rise in SST and sea level and melting ice was projected by models, but they underestimated the ice loss and ocean warming in the opposite direction to their overestimate of land surface temperature rises.
The models have certainly been better maps than the ‘null hypothesis’ that the climate landscape would be flat in all its features with only ‘natural’ variation over the last few decades. Each decade has been significantly warmer than the preceding decade for around a century now. That includes warmer oceans, poles and summers with cooling of the stratosphere. That is not compatible with a null assumption of climate, but does fit the basic and complex model predictions. What the models have failed to do is correctly project the partition of the increased energy from rising CO2 between the various thermal sinks that it can enter. The models are also bad at local detail. Regional variation is not well represented although the extended and increasing drought in the American SW was a projected result from models that has been validated.
In modern science all complex systems are now investigated using computer models of the underlying physical, chemical and biological processes in whatever detail the technology allows. The problems and inadequacies of such ‘maps’ of reality are well recognised, models of heart cells or tectonic processes also suffer from the same map problems that climate models suffer, but they are not then abandoned, as with maps, the very flaws they exhibit enable advances in our understanding of the real world.
To quote an old assessment of models made a Bayesian:-
“”essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful”
G E P Box

Haven’t the models also failed in predicting upper atmospheric temperatures, the spatial distribution of heat, and water vapor content?
The hurricane scare stories are also failures, by the same actors but not specifically in the GCM models.

Chris

Couple of thoughts… First, maybe add some intro/outro music … If the funding is available it might make the information more accessible if it was presented in a format similar to the videos on this site: http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ .

Tom G(ologist)

The old joke is very apt in this case:
Q: How do you eat an elephant?
A: One bite at a time.
Thanks Bob for taking another bite (a big one) out of the IPCC elephant
Tom

Robert Doyle

Anthony,
Mr. Tisdale’s video prologue and Dr. Soon’s wonderful video [yours was great too, but this is a suck up free blog] prompt the following request. Is there room to link the various categories, sea level, air temperatures, etc. into a new linked category containing the videos?
As a lay person, they help me quite a bit.

Gary Pearse

Imagine $100million supercomputers in the hands of those who, at worst, can’t use an excel spreadsheet stats package
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/17/phil-jones-demonstrates-that-math-is-hard/
and, at best, feed in noise, spurious, selected Yamal single tree data and upside -down lake sediment series.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/21/amac-upside-down-mann-lives-onin-kemp-et-al-2011/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/28/hey-ya-mal-mcintyre-was-right-cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/
http://junkscience.com/2013/06/14/skeptic-steve-goreham-gives-michael-mann-a-twitter-fit/
Also, how in the name of the Methusula tree (wiki) can models replicate the past or future if the data keepers have an algorithm that ;annually changes the temperature record as we go along?
However I nevertheless remain a believer in serious, damaging Climate Change. With $2 Trillion bucks and counting globally in CAGW research and mitigation (windmills, solar, animal flatulence retention programs….), we can all agree this is serious change$$$.

Mike M

Compared to the most interesting man in the world, my two cents are probably worth only about 2 cents but here goes for your introduction which has to grab the non-science minded viewer’s attention – and keep it:
00:24 “We live on the land surfaces of our planet called Earth but we’ve heard …
Some people may take this the wrong way thinking you are insulting their intelligence that they might be too stupid to know the name of our planet – completely missing your inference equating Earth with dry land. My suggestion is to avoid such inferences so my re-write would be:”Although we live on the land surfaces of our planet, 70% of it is covered with water.”
But then I’d also throw in a jibe referencing an eco-terrorist ‘anthem’ movie – Waterworld. So, continuing: “Truly, we are living on a water world.” ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/5715354/Earth-faces-Waterworld-as-global-warming-lasts-centuries.html )
00:50 “And this takes place on annual, decadal …
If my wife doesn’t stop reading/watching at “decadal”, bet you $10 she will at “multi-decadal”! My suggestion is:”It is recognized that our climate changes over a variety of time periods. These time periods range from one year, dozens of years, hundreds of years and even thousands of years.
00:54 “Therefore, the surface temperatures of the ocean are very important in discussions of global warming or ..the lack thereof.
Suggestion, spike your point and leave the hint of a dig against CAGW for later: “Therefore, the surface temperatures of the ocean are absolutely essential in any discussion about global warming.”

Greg Goodman

video: “modellers employed by the IPCC”
are you sure about that?

The divergence between predictions and reality has been a compelling feature of the analysis of the climate models.
Noting the “Ice Free Arctic 2013” feature at the top of the page, it occurred to me that it might be interesting to graph the divergence between prediction and reality for that, too?
Just a thought …

lurker, passing through laughing

Greg Goodman makes a good point: The IPCC gets to have its cake and eat it too: They compile work of those they approve of. They do not actually employ modelers or run models, as I understand it.
I will review the entire work (for my 2 cents worth), but based on your excellent writing over several years, I am expecting this to be a really good addition to your body of work.

Greg Goodman

Each decade has been significantly warmer than the preceding decade for around a century izen:” now.”
But we knew that without the models. We did not need AGW*3 based models and the ‘null’ hypothesis that it was not warming. to tell us that it is warming.
A map that tells us what we already know , that the world is round, but get the continents in the wrong place and the wrong shape is worse that NO MAP since it will incite you to head in the wrong direction.
That is precisely what AGW hypothesis “maps” have been doing for us for the last three decades.
WRONG DIRECTION.

Mike M

Greg Goodman says:
Which brings up the broader point – who is this here IPCC anyway? Perhaps a mention that, ” the IPPC is a program of a large well known political organization … the United Nations.”

Richard M

Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett and Francis W. Zwiers
“Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability. Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5).”
More evidence to back up what Bob is describing.
Thanks, Bob.
PS. Poor Izen, left whimpering about models being inaccurate but useful. Would you please make sure that gets into the AR5 SPM, especially the INACCURATE part.

Greg Goodman

Gary Pearse says:
Imagine $100million supercomputers in the hands of those who, at worst, can’t use an excel spreadsheet stats package
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/17/phil-jones-demonstrates-that-math-is-hard/
That’s a smart gibe that shows you’re not as smart as you seem to think.
Criticise Jones for a number of things if you like. There’s plenty of scope. But don’t kid yourself that using a spreadsheet is an indispensable qualification for a scientist and that not being familiar is in anyway a fault.
I’m less impressed with those who need to use a spreadsheet. It means there’s at least half a chance they know how to use a computer.

Bruce Cobb

izen says:
September 13, 2013 at 5:08 am
climate models are like maps…
Ok. Trouble is, they aren’t based on reality. They are maps of an imaginary world, one which the hopelessly brainwashed and clueless such as yourself may like visiting, but not very useful in the real world.

Greg Goodman

oops; I’m MORE impressed with those who don’t need to use a spreadsheet. It means there’s at least half a chance they know how to use a computer.

cmcmail

If the models had been set up honestly or correctly, the errors would be spread above and below the data. If all the models show predictions that are to high, it is a reflection of bias, model outputs tell us more about the model makers than they do about the future. When they look at this the “climate scientists” will simply try to adjust the data to fit the models. I wonder if a group of runway fashion models might be as accurate in their predictions.

Ray

Izen said “…….The models have certainly been better maps than the ‘null hypothesis’ that the climate landscape would be flat in all its features with only ‘natural’ variation over the last few decades……”
Izen,
I do not have a technical back ground but I will state with certainty that you personally do not know what our planets ” ‘natural’ variation” is or should be. This lack of reference reduces the Brilliance of everything that you wrote to Bull Shit.
Question; Has anyone run any of the questionable models with the CO2 forcing parameters turned off and compared the output to the measured conditions? It might be a usefull exercise.

Marco

The Parent Signature on the scorecard on the cover of the book says: “Mrs P.”.
Rajendra Pachauri’s Mom I presume?

wayne Job

Indeed the models have failed, the elusive hot spot has been more elusive than than the fabled “G” spot. The canary of AGW the warming arctic has cooled and the canary lives.
The satellite system measuring temp to prove global warming, has proved no warming. The giant fudges applied to the temperature data have failed to cover the declining temperatures.
Failed models are only the tip of the iceberg, a politically inspired faith based system of manipulation is the problem. Declaring CO2 a pollutant is a crime against humanity, disproving AGW is only 10% of the battle, it is getting honesty elected into the political heart of our countries that will end this non-sense.

more soylent green!

@izen

… In modern science all complex systems are now investigated using computer models of the underlying physical, chemical and biological processes in whatever detail the technology allows. The problems and inadequacies of such ‘maps’ of reality are well recognised, models of heart cells or tectonic processes also suffer from the same map problems that climate models suffer, but they are not then abandoned, as with maps, the very flaws they exhibit enable advances in our understanding of the real world.

The fact that science and engineering use computer models has nothing to do with the validity of the climate models. Real scientists and engineers know the limitations of their models. Meteorologists, for example, will tell you the weather models are only accurate for a few days, for instance, while climate modelers insist they can accurately predict the global climate decades in the future.
The fact that models are useful in understanding a problem or how a complex system MAY work does not mean a model outputs facts or data. All computer programs are constrained by the universal law of GIGO — Garbage In equals Garbage Out.
The fact that the models don’t accurately reflect what is happening in the real world means the modelers don’t accurately understand the problem or are unable to properly express the functioning of the climate system using a computer program.
BTW: The climate model code I’ve seen looks like it was written by second-year junior college students.

george h.

Good stuff, Bob Tisdale. The data on lack of Pacific SST warming since ’91 got my attention immediately. What is your take on the latest theory that Russian Subs have been capturing Trenberth’s missing heat thence releasing it in the unplumbed, darkest oceanic depths?

Bob Tisdale,
Your achievement speaks well for your future.
Thanks for your many contributions.
I think model funding is already significantly and negatively impacted by US Congressional sequestration. Your book may extend the impact.
I get frequent emails from the AGU complaining about sequestration.
John

Jeff Alberts

“Meteorologists, for example, will tell you the weather models are only sorta accurate for a few days hours…”
There, fixed it for ya.

Gail Combs

Mike M says: @ September 13, 2013 at 6:21 am
Which brings up the broader point – who is this here IPCC anyway? Perhaps a mention that, ” the IPPC is a program of a large well known political organization … the United Nations.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bob, You might also want to read what the IPCC mandate is all about.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

Most people think current climate science is funded to find out what causes the weather to vary but that is not what the IPCC is actually looking at. The whole basis of the current climate science funding is “understanding of human induced climate change” and not about understanding climate and that is why the models are wrong.

Mike M

izen says: “As everyone knows that does not make a map useless.”
Dr. Freeman Dyson says: “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
Basically, Izen is floating the idea that the degree of GCM’s being ‘wrong’ is so small you will not even notice it if it was a map. In truth, if GCM’s were like a road map, it will have roads that may or may not actually exist, roads with swapped names/ route numbers, roads that run perpendicular to their true direction and street addresses adjusted to make you believe you are traveling in one direction when you are actually going in another:
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

Crispin in Waterloo

@izen
“Each decade has been significantly warmer than the preceding decade for around a century now.”
This is so demonstrably incorrect that I guess no one is taking the time to say it. Why bother?
Izen, the temperature has been going up and down in a 60 year cycle. Yes, there is a general trend, but there is nothing like a continuous rise. It is up and down decades at a time. The models do have some things right, but not temperature, and the heat accumulation seems to be pretty iffy too. The proof is that teams are out looking for missing heat in the oceans.
When the clouds are dealt with correctly, we can get back to relying on models.

Bill Yarber

izen
You state: “…Each decade has been significantly warmer than the preceding decade for around a century now. …”
I call BS on that statement! The decade of the 30’s, preHansenizing, is still the warmest decade in past 150 years. Just compare Hansen’s temperature trend published in 1999 with his most recent trend and see how much he has magically cooled that decade.
The ’70 were nearly 0.5C cooler than the 30’s. It is a sine wave Of approximately 60 year period. The decade at the peak of the cycle will be the warmest, and the decade at the bottom of the cycle will be the coldest.
The GCM’s, including the most recent version, are an EPIC fail. Someone using a simple 60 year sine wave and a 0.58C/century linear trend would have been far more accurate over the past 12 decades than any of these models. They are essentially worthless in their current form because they minimize natural variability and elevate the impact of CO2 contration changes by two orders of magnitude.
If the models don’t match observations, CHANGE THE MODELS!
Bill

Rud Istvan

Izen, if you had bothered to do a fundamental analysis of GCMs, and looked at how their most important features actually work mathematically, and what results the CMIP3 archive produced for AR4, then you would realize how false your comment above is. AR4 cherry picked studies and ingnored a wealth of observational data to conclude UTrH was roughly constant. It admitted the models did poorly on clouds, ignored that every piece of evidence shows a positive cloud feedback is at best overstated and at worst flat wrong. Now, this was not an accident, because CMIP5 models are equally failing at things like the pause and cloud feedback, and leaked AR5 WG1 SOD repeats the errors. All extensively documented in my book chapter and in subsequent posts at Climate Etc.
When you know a map is wrong, you fix it rather than rely on it.

Ray:
At September 13, 2013 at 6:41 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/a-video-preview-of-climate-models-fail/#comment-1415972
you ask

Question; Has anyone run any of the questionable models with the CO2 forcing parameters turned off and compared the output to the measured conditions? It might be a usefull exercise.

I answer: THEY CAN’T.
It seems I need to post the following yet again and I apologise to all who are bored with seeing it again.
None of the models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect (such as the determination by Penner et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes )
would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.
This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
1.
the assumed degree of forcings resulting from human activity that produce warming
and
2.
the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.
More than a decade ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which was greater than was observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.
He says in his paper:

One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.
The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Kerr [2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate change–too rosy a picture?, available at http://www.nature.com/reports/climatechange, 2007) recently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the current paper provides the ‘‘widely circulated analysis’’ referred to by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model sensitivity.

And, importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:

These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity.

And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.
Thanks to Bill Illis, Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:

Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.

It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
Richard

G. Karst

I love the way Izen attempts to explain, how a broken clock accurately indicates, the correct time, twice per day, and therefore is a valid instrument, and extremely useful to the climate community. Such biased warmism is constantly winning thinking minds over to the skeptical viewpoint. We need to do nothing more than let such speak, as often, as they can.
Bob T, you’ve come a long ways baby and the journey was certainly interesting. Thank-you and good luck. GK

@ izen says: September 13, 2013 at 5:08 am

Each decade has been significantly warmer than the preceding decade for around a century now.

That is either a bald faced lie, or the worst example of plain stupidity ever. Even after the “adjustments” to the data sets, the 1930s were still warmer than the 1940s. And that is just one example.
Science is not about lying izen.

Lance Wallace

Bob T:
So from Webster, (“something”– not someone) the models are employed by IPCC, not the modellers. Goodman is right and you should change your sentence.

Catcracking

izen says:
To quote an old assessment of models made a Bayesian:-
“”essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful”
Yes, but some are worthless or even dangerous in that they mislead (intentionally?) as do the IPCC computer models. Any good an engineer must sorts out the junk from the useful models. This skill is lacking in the global warming/climate change community. I can’t help but think it is intentional since the facts are clear and are being ignored.

Bob, your work on ENSO is fanastic. thanks.

fantastic that is.

Catcracking

Bob,
I watched the entire video and it is excellent , congratulations and best wishes with the excellent book.
I plan to selectively distribute your video link since it is clear, easily understood, yet thorough.
Keep up the pressure on the CAGW believers.

rogerknights

Lance Wallace says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:45 am
Bob T:
So from Webster, (“something”– not someone) the models are employed by IPCC, not the modellers. Goodman is right and you should change your sentence.

I agree. Many readers will not see it Bob’s way, and he will “lose” them to some degree.

Berényi Péter

Do all computational climate models fail indeed? Is there not at least a single one of them (with a specific parametrization scheme or whatever), which is not falsified by measurements collected during the last one and a half decade?
If there is one (or more), the way science is supposed to proceed is to abandon all falsified models immediately and keep working on the surviving subset.
I am getting curious now. In case the latter subset is not empty, what is their long term forecast and how it differs from the full ensemble average used by the IPCC?