Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
David Rose has posted this , from the unreleased IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5):
‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C… The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.’ SOURCE
I cracked up when I read that … despite the IPCC’s claim of even greater certainty, it’s a step backwards.
You see, back around 1980, about 33 years ago, we got the first estimate from the computer models of the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS). This is the estimate of how much the world will warm if CO2 doubles. At that time, the range was said to be from 1.5° to 4.5°.
However, that was reduced in the Fourth Assessment Report, to a narrower, presumably more accurate range of from 2°C to 4.5°C. Now, however, they’ve backed away from that, and retreated to their previous estimate.
Now consider: the first estimate was done in 1980, using a simple computer and a simple model. Since then, there has been a huge, almost unimaginable increase in computer power. There has been a correspondingly huge increase in computer speed. The number of gridcells in the models has gone up by a couple orders of magnitude. Separate ocean and atmosphere models have been combined into one to reduce errors. And the size of the models has gone from a few thousand lines of code to millions of lines of code.
And the estimates of climate sensitivity have not gotten even the slightest bit more accurate.
Can anyone name any other scientific field that has made so little progress in the last third of a century? Anyone? Because I can’t.
So … what is the most plausible explanation for this ludicrous, abysmal failure to improve a simple estimate in a third of a century?
I can give you my answer. The models are on the wrong path. And when you’re on the wrong path, it doesn’t matter how big you are or how complex you are or how fast you are—you won’t get the right answer.
And what is the wrong path?
The wrong path is the ludicrous idea that the change in global temperature is a simple function of the change in the “forcings”, which is climatespeak for the amount of downward radiation at the top of the atmosphere. The canonical (incorrect) equation is:
∆T = lambda ∆F
where T is temperature, F is forcing, lambda is the climate sensitivity, and ∆ means “the change in”.
I have shown, in a variety of posts, that the temperature of the earth is not a function of the change in forcings. Instead, the climate is a governed system. As an example of another governed system, consider a car. In general, other things being equal, we can say that the change in speed of a car is a linear function of the change in the amount of gas. Mathematically, this would be:
∆S = lambda ∆G
where S is speed, G is gas, and lambda is the coefficient relating the two.
But suppose we turn on the governor, which in a car is called the cruise control. At that point, the relationship between speed and gas consumption disappears entirely—gas consumption goes up and down, but the speed basically doesn’t change.
Note that this is NOT a feedback, which would just change the coefficient “lambda” giving the linear relationship between the change in speed ∆S and the change in gas ∆G. The addition of a governor completely wipes out that linear relationship, de-coupling the changes in gas consumption from the speed changes entirely.
The exact same thing is going on with the climate. It is governed by a variety of emergent climate phenomena such as thunderstorms, the El Nino/La Nina warm water pump, and the PDO. And as a result, the change in global temperature is totally decoupled from the changes in forcings. This is why it is so hard to find traces of e.g. solar and volcano forcings in the temperature record. We know that both of those change the forcings … but the temperatures do not change correspondingly.
To me, that’s the Occam’s Razor explanation of why, after thirty years, millions of dollars, millions of man-hours, and millions of lines of code, the computer models have not improved the estimation of “climate sensitivity” in the slightest. They do not contain or model any of the emergent phenomena that govern the climate, the phenomena that decouple the temperature from the forcing and render the entire idea of “climate sensitivity” meaningless.
w.
PS—I have also shown that despite their huge complexity, the global temperature output of the models can be emulated to a 98% accuracy by a simple one-line equation. This means that their estimate of the “climate sensitivity” is entirely a function of their choice of forcings … meaning, of course, that even on a good day with a following wind they can tell us nothing about the climate sensitivity.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pamela,
You know, I really like that “vignette” deal of yours. Good stuff!, despite all the criticisms you’ve received on this blog. In fact, I’m so enthused about the whole thing that I’ve even tried my own hand at a “vignette”. Not as good as yours though:
MY FIRST VIGNETTE
“It’s like you’re a self-abosrbed, preening, heroine-of-your-own-story, slightly wearisome scold who specializes in doofus, pompous, school-marmish, baroque put-downs, ostentatiously free of the slightest intemperance of language–a Pecksniff, authoritarian, bully style perfectly suited to crushing any school-kid charge who might exhibit the slightest independence of thought (not that you’d ever do such a thing!). But a “trick” that doesn’t work so well when played on mature adults with abundant life-experience who can “sass” back with impunity. That, and I don’t really believe your speech, except when you’re putting on a little act, is really as “salt-free” as you make out.”
So what did you think of my first try at a vignette, Pamela? And, of course, the “you” in my vignette is not a “you”-you. I mean, like, I’m not talking about you, Pamela Gray, specifically, or anything. Rather, it’s a generalized “you”–you know, like in your own up-thread vignette and all.
“I am happy to write a post on why I think that Eschenbachs’ thesis can be critisised on several grounds. I have suggested this several times but have bit received a response. If I am invited to do so, I will.’
____________________
Talk is cheap. Catch up.
I’ve asked, Willis has asked, fairly sure others have leaned in that direction. WTH. Are you shooting for an invite or an incite…
No harm done to me I assure all. I am very much a learner and not an expert so have no thesis to defend. And as such I am very capable of looking past emotional responses to get to the science, even if I have to wear boots. The science intrigues me and I will leave no stone unturned to examine claims made here as well as in journals.
As to the bullying, it speaks for itself and I offer no comment on it. Meanwhile I continue my studies of climate modeling and am encouraged by the tinkerers out there who are engaged in this practice and writing articles about it in peer reviewed journals.
Here is a hint about searching behind paywalls for articles. If you cut and past the name of the article immediately followed by lowercase pdf in your search engine’s window, you can often find the researcher’s personal copy posted publicly.
Nick Stokes;
Models do not make assumptions about the sign of feedback.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yet they all seem to produce sensitivity estimates greater than the theoretical direct effects of CO2 increases. That being the case, there can be no other logical conclusion than the models are predicated on assumptions of positive feedback.
TimTheToolMan says: September 15, 2013 at 5:22 pm
” When the models can be shown to be ignoring all that complexity then there are a couple of options.
A. The earth also ignores all the complexity.
B. The models are wrong.”
Nobody has shown that GCM’s are ignoring complexity. Here is just one example of the complexity they are not ignoring.
What has been shown is that if you globally average, and then average over long time periods, a simpler pattern emerges. So it does with Earth data. That doesn’t mean that the Earth (or GCM’s) are ignoring complexity. It means you are. For good measure, Willis averages over models too.
R C Saumarez wrote
I am happy to write a post on why I think that Eschenbachs’ thesis can be critisised (sic) on several grounds.
Do it. Then click on the “Submit Story” tab at the top of the page.
Richard Courtney,
If you’re still reading, please consider winding your ALL CAPS into a ball and stuffing…
You’ve responded to my two sentence plain text comment with twenty sentences, all caps, bold text, exclamation points, and the incorrect assumption that I believe CAGW expressed with a perjorative term implying my political leaning is opposite what it is.
You sir are a jacka…
RC Saumarez;
I am happy to write a post on why I think that Eschenbachs’ thesis can be critisised on several grounds. I have suggested this several times but have bit received a response. If I am invited to do so, I will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I for one would like to see your reasoning, so I have to ask, what’s stopping you? Write it up, paste it into the box at the bottom of the screen, click “post comment”. You’ve been invited, in fact challenged, to do so. Many stellar articles by Robert G Brown for example started out as comments in a thread and were elevated to posts.
Seriously, I’d like to see what you have to say on this issue. I’m waiting for you to say it, and there is nothing stopping you from doing so.
“bit chilly says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:56 pm”
Yup, I’m not sure why it has suddenly become all the rage to try to sound like a “mainstream” Climate Scientist, i.e., to anoint yourself with omniscience, then try to sound as crazy as possible, meanwhile trying to get the rest of us obey your every command. You’d think that their omniscience would help them to at least try to tell us the answer!
willis;
The Essex video is a response by a [theoretician], a mathematician who was in on the early days of climate modelling and was gobsmacked by the outrageous assumptions, claims, and procedures employed, and has had no reason to change his verdict: “You can’t do that!” He analogizes the modellers with the Red Queen, who, with practice, was occasionally able to “believe six impossible things before breakfast.”
He gives slide graphic examples of the real mathematical behaviour of numerical models which are claimed to empirically emulate solutions to closure problems, the Navier-Stokes equations, etc., which mis-attribute stable outputs (due to their inherent limitations) to real world processes.
He is confident (Q&A response) that the current round of determined delusion has about run its course, but certain that human determination to believe some form of nonsense will swiftly replace it. He makes passing reference to the many whose careers and livelihood depend on perpetuating the present “rabbit hole” digging, and will not be deflected to the surface this side of the grave. I suppose a period of competing hare-holes will occur, with a few of the current diggers switching work crews.
cd; forgive my efforts at a précis. This is about my third time through the talk, over many months, and the above is what stuck.
Nick writes “Nobody has shown that GCM’s are ignoring complexity. Here is just one example of the complexity they are not ignoring.”
You think a video of low resolution fluid flow makes your point? They are ignoring complexity in a number of key areas Nick. For example cloud formation is determined by the parameterisation for water vapour saturation and is tweaked to best represent history and keep the model within stable realistic boundaries. Its a fudge.
So if cloud formation in the real world changes over time, how is this represented in the model? Its not.
And if cloud creation isn’t enough, I’d bet that many emergent properties of the climate are similarly parameterised.
For the record I think Willis is off on an irrelevent tangent when he emphasises the governor aspect of his theory. I think its much more important to understand that the climate is composed of emergent properties that effect energy flows and that climate models dont represent those emergent properties properly and so cant represent changes to them either.
Oh Dear.
[Apologies to Woody Guthrie and Johnny Cash.]
How many times,
Must a climate computer code fail,
Before, it can tell us .. yesterday?
The answer .. my friend … is blow’n in the wind
The answer .. is blow’n .. in the wind.
😉
edit:
theoreticisttheoreticianI wrote “I think Willis is off on an irrelevent tangent when he emphasises the governor aspect of his theory.”
Actually thats harsh. I think the governor aspect is important because IMO the climatic processes will respond to any surface forcing to minimise that surface warming. But having said that, its a step by step process and the first step is to describe where the models are going wrong and why.
Ridicule is so satisfying. Thanks for showing the truth.
Willis, your writing reminds me of why I always loved reading SciAm magazines. The best of those articles always reminded me of poetry. I really enjoy your clear thinking and I thank you for sharing it for all to experience.
For those of you wanting to educate yourself about General Circulation Models. The specific forecasting models in use today are listed at the National Hurricane Center’s (NHC) website. They give a rundown of the characteristics of the major forecasting models, which includes the “numerical” or dynamical General Circulation models such as the GFS, UKMET, NOGAPS, CMC, and ECMWF.
The interesting thing is that Willis’s model would be considered a statistical one, NHC uses statistical models to determine if a dynamical or numerical model is skillful. So it follows that the folks who know most about models use a similar system to determine accuracy of prediction. The current set of models are still many orders of magnitude away from being accurate for more than a few days which is actually pretty impressive considering what the models produce.
The models use the current state of the earth for the entry parameters and then are run for a set period of time, every so often a snapshot of the earth is pulled out (3, 6, or 12 hours depending on purpose) This allows us to see what is going on globally. Unfortunately after about 48 they start getting a bit haywire and after 120 they are probably nearly useless. But for the time they work, they have saved quite a few lives in terms of accurate weather forecasting. So I say don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, we need good models, they just don’t do well in forecasting climate.
The link is below along with a short description pulled out of that link. Also if your wondering if these are really the models IPCC is talking about, the second link will answer that question.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/model_summary_20090724.pdf
http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html
“Forecast models vary tremendously in structure and complexity. They can be simple enough to run in a few seconds on an ordinary computer, or complex enough to require a number of hours on a supercomputer. Dynamical models, also known as numerical models, are the most complex and use high-speed computers to solve the physical equations of motion governing the atmosphere. Statistical models, in contrast, do not explicitly consider the physics of the atmosphere but instead are based on historical relationships between storm behavior and storm-specific details such as location and date. Statistical-dynamical models blend both dynamical and statistical techniques by making a forecast based on established historical relationships between storm behavior and atmospheric variables provided by dynamical models.”
Oh and for the person who was saying that we don’t have 1000hp for a VTOL car, check out this link:
http://mashable.com/2013/08/28/terrafugia/
They have a pretty nice setup that isn’t vtol which is a power hungry way of going at the problem. we have the power plants for a vtol car but there isn’t a will to make one. You can get a lightweight 1400hp turbine and if you don’t need that much power you can get them smaller. The 1400 turbine was used in a F1 race car. Jaguar did a hybrid with turbines at 700+ that got great gas mileage to boot. I still don’t think you’ll see a flying car any time soon as its just too difficult politically.
v/r,
David Riser
ick Stokes re weight of CO2 in atmosphere
“The CO2 arithmetic is simple – 500,000 * 400 ppmv, and then a molecular weight calc. Emissions were here; 32.578645 GTons in 2011, if you like a lot of decimals. Burning C costs money, so these numbers come from accountants, not scientists.”
Does not this calculation assume that the number of molecules of CO2 are fixed in proportion to the number of molecules of air at a point?
If so, what causes the heavy gas CO2 to be dragged to the rarefied atmosphere around the tropopause?
I’m thinking that the total weight of CO2 in the atmosphere is not simple to calculate, nor is the amount of man-made in a dynamic system.
David Riser says “So I say don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, we need good models, they just don’t do well in forecasting climate.”
Forecasting weather is a fundamentally different problem to forecasting climate. We’re quite good at forecasting weather.
Reality: Bring out yer dead.
Skeptic: Here’s one.
Reality: That’ll be ninepence.
IPCC: I’m not dead.
Reality: What?
Skeptic: Nothing. There’s your ninepence.
IPCC: I’m not dead.
Reality: ‘Ere, he says he’s not dead.
Skeptic: Yes he is.
IPCC: I’m not.
Reality: He isn’t.
Skeptic: Well, he will be soon, he’s very ill.
IPCC: I’m getting better.
Skeptic: No you’re not, you’ll be stone dead in a moment.
Reality: Well, I can’t take him like that. It’s against regulations.
IPCC: I don’t want to go on the cart.
Skeptic: Oh, don’t be such a baby.
Reality: I can’t take him.
IPCC: I feel fine.
Skeptic: Oh, do me a favor.
Reality: I can’t.
Skeptic: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won’t be long.
Reality: I promised I’d be at the University. They’ve lost nine today.
Skeptic: Well, when’s your next round?
Reality: Thursday.
IPCC: I think I’ll go for a walk.
Skeptic: You’re not fooling anyone, you know. Isn’t there anything you could do?
IPCC: I feel happy. I feel happy.
[Reality glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the IPCC with his a whack of his club]
Skeptic: Ah, thank you very much.
Reality: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Skeptic: Right.
richardscourtney says:
September 15, 2013 at 7:17 am
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
==============
There is really only one explanation. Temperature is not a function of climate sensitivity.
Which is what Willis is also saying. That temperature is not determined by climate sensitivity, because climate is a governed system.
Which is what the pause is also showing us. That increasing CO2 can increase temperatures for awhile, but eventually the governor kicks in, preventing further rise. So, while the climate will appear sensitive to CO2 over the short term, over the long term it will be insensitive.
Which is why the estimate of climate sensitivity has not improved in 30 years. Climate sensitivity is not a constant. When temperatures are low, CO2 sensitivity is high. When temperatures are high, CO2 sensitivity is low.
The only consensus model that has gotten global temps even close to right was Hansen 1988, and that was for the wrong reason. For the sake of argument, he ran a scenario that assumed a substantial decrease in CO2 emissions. The result was a leveling off of temperature very similar to what we have seen.
So it would be fair to say that Hansen’s 1988 model was modestly successful in predicting future temperatures, to the extent it assumed no net increase in global temps would be caused by CO2. A substantial reduction in emissions being the functional equivalent of a climate sensitivity of zero, maybe all the GCMs should be run with a CS of zero to see if their predictions improve.
Tim,
Were good at predicting the weather because that is what the models were designed for, which is why we need them in the first place. The climate thing is one of those silly attempts to use a wooden spoon where a sledge hammer is needed.
v/r,
David Riser
I think that the concept of a limiter is better than a governor. When I drive with the speed limiter on the car doesn’t go any faster than the maximum speed that I have set the limiter to. Because the car’s computer overrides my big feet once it gets to the speed limit I have set my average fuel consumption actually goes down (and I don’t get costly speeding tickets).
Once the carbon dioxide limit is reached in the atmosphere it won’t make any difference how much more our big human footprint makes because the world’s temperatures won’t rise. However nature makes it this limiting process more complicated because the limit to temperature increases from more atmospheric carbon dioxide varies inversely with the thickness of the atmosphere. So as our big feet push more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because the limiter is already operating at the equator and probably at the mid latitudes the temperature can’t be increased. Above the poles where there is the least amount of air it might take a bit more carbon dioxide in the air before the limiter finally takes control.