Dr. Judith Curry writes:
As the IPCC struggles with its inconvenient truth – the pause and the growing discrepancy between models and observations – the obvious question is: why is the IPCC just starting to grapple with this issue now, essentially two minutes before midnite of the release of the AR5?
…
My blog post on the Fyfe et al. paper triggered an email from Pat Michaels, who sent me a paper that he submitted in 2010 to Geophysical Research Letters, that did essentially the same analysis as Fyfe et al., albeit with the CMIP3 models.
…
Assessing the consistency between short-term global temperature trends in observations and climate model projects
Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, John R. Christy, Chad S. Herman, Lucia M. Liljegren, James D. Annan
Abstract. Assessing the consistency between short-term global temperature trends in observations and climate model projections is a challenging problem. While climate models capture many processes governing short-term climate fluctuations, they are not expected to simulate the specific timing of these somewhat random phenomena—the occurrence of which may impact the realized trend. Therefore, to assess model performance, we develop distributions of projected temperature trends from a collection of climate models running the IPCC A1B emissions scenario. We evaluate where observed trends of length 5 to 15 years fall within the distribution of model trends of the same length. We find that current trends lie near the lower limits of the model distributions, with cumulative probability-of-occurrence values typically between 5% and 20%, and probabilities below 5% not uncommon. Our results indicate cause for concern regarding the consistency between climate model projections and observed climate behavior under conditions of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions.
The authors have graciously agreed for me to provide links to their manuscript: [manuscriptMichaels_etal_2010 ] and [supplementary material Michaels_etal_GRL10_SuppMat].
Drum roll . . . the paper was rejected. I read the paper (read it yourself), and I couldn’t see why it was rejected, particularly since it seems to be a pretty straightforward analysis that has been corroborated in subsequent published papers.
The rejection of this paper raised my watchdog hackles, and I asked to see the reviews. I suspected gatekeeping by the editor and bias against the skeptical authors by the editor and reviewers.
Read more: Peer review: the skeptic filter
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
_Jim says:
September 20, 2013 at 1:01 pm
I don’t approve of witch trials (which those of Communist agents weren’t, regardless of Arthur Miller’s opinion), & would agree that DeLay’s experience amounted to a form of torture or at least non-lethal “ducking”.
See, for instance:
42 CFR 3.548 – Appeal of the ALJ’s decision.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/3.548
Appealing an Administrative Decision Lawyers
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/appealing-an-administrative-decision.html
From a slide within:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Flscontent.westlaw.com%2Fresearch%2Fppts%2FAdministrative%2520Law%2520Decisions.ppt&ei=8qs8UtHcOIODqgH5w4DADg&usg=AFQjCNFOLD77isGGSMX-B9fb_tQURmlAQA&bvm=bv.52434380,d.b2I
Judicial Review of Agency Decisions
o Once an Administrative Law Judge has issued a decision, that decision can usually be appealed to a higher entity within the agency.
o Those appealing an agency decision must usually exhaust agency remedies before moving the action to a federal court.
o The final agency decision can usually be appealed
– to a federal court of appeals if Congress has provided an appeals process
– to the federal district court if no provision for appeal has been specified
.
wws says:
September 20, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Joan’s retrial, or the inquiry into her first kangaroo court, revealed the English belief that she must be a sorceress. See for instance the credible testimony of Pierre Miget:
http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_Condemnation_Trial_Motives_Conduct.html
Some French clerics were dubious about the inquiry, since it would reveal their own complicity in the English-Burgundian plot, but the hearing managed to skirt that thorny issue. Others were concerned that it might find that Charles had in fact won his throne with the aid of heresy or sorcery. Luckily at least one powerful archbishop supported her mom’s plea for a retrial.
The Michaels et al paper was a paper about weather. Trends of five to fifteen years, which after the La Nina of 2008/9 had reached a low point. So they could draw a graph like this, based on data to end 2009. And say things like
“For most observational datasets of global average temperature, the trends from length 5 to 15 years lie along the lower tails of the probability distributions from the collection of climate model projections under the SRES A1B emissions scenario. “
But the problem with writing about the weather is that the weather changes. On cue came El Nino and some very warm months and all the trends went up, and those statements were no longer true. This was obvious by the time of Chip’s talk at the Heartland conference, and I commented on it at the time.
Timing was a fatal problem. If you’re trying to publish a paper where the data is essentially observational on how cold it’s getting, and everyone is talking about how warm it’s getting, then you don’t need to hypothesise a sceptic gatekeeper to explain the difficulty.
Eric Gisin says:
September 20, 2013 at 12:30 pm
What’s in the pay-walled editorial by Curry @ur momisugly Australian?
Paste the article headline into Google News. It’s a barn burner.
Eric Gisen, type the title of the article followed by the australian into google and it will come up. You have to wait and close a subscription ad first.
It’s a very fine article indeed – calm, rational and a contrast to the hysteria of The Team in the face of AR5.
wws says:
September 20, 2013 at 10:34 am
<>
ABSOFECKINGLUTELY CORRECT. I just wish more layfolk realised this ! Greenpeace and the Government entrenched Tree-hugger Gangs have helped to make oil and gas the most sought after commodity and put billions ‘in the bank’ for these companies.
At one time a good few years ago, I even pondered whether Greenpeace were actively funded by by Big Oil – they certainly do Big Oil no actual harm by their activities!
An excellent example of part of the scientific self-correction process is the Curry review of the GRL review and rejection of the Michaels et al 2010 paper.
Well done.
John
Nick, you say,
In which case it’s quite strange that Lucia says this about the problem the reviewers had:
Now, she does indeed appear to confirm what you are saying about the circumstances changing when she talks about the decision to wait to resubmit in some other comment (I think on the Blackboard actually), but clearly she doesn’t believe a change in the weather had anything to do with the objections raised by the reviewers.
No actually she talks about the decision to resubmit later at the beginning of that comment, my mistake. 🙂 Doesn’t affect my point though.
Mark Bofill says: September 20, 2013 at 4:18 pm
It seems there were two submissions – the first got a mixed response and the second, after revisions with James Annan joining, had all four referees against. The latter must have been some months after end 2009, which was the end of data.
The objections seem to have been on the validity of the significance tests. Now statistical significance is supposed to be what enables you to say something that won’t be invalidated by future chance happenings. So it’s a lot harder to defend if four months later, the picture does look a lot different.
Nick,
Okay, but in the same comment Lucia claims,
, which makes the argument somewhat odd. Why would Zwiers get published under such circumstance? Is she mistaken in your view about what she’s saying about the rejection here?
Nick: So you’re contending that Lucia, along with Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, John R. Christy, Chad S. Herman, James D. Annan failed to fully flesh out and update their statistics?
Really!?
Though they interest Dr. Curry discrepencies, if any, between projected and observed global temperatures are not actually pertinent to the needs of a maker of policy on CO2 emissions. A policy maker needs to know whether there are discrepencies between the predicted and observed relative frequencies of the outcomes of events. Global warming climatology cannot, however, present such a comparison for the set of events underlying the general circulation models is empty..
They’re all at sea in an ocean of emotion. I don’t think it’s funny no more – crackin’ up.
Mark Bofill says: September 20, 2013 at 5:03 pm
“Is she mistaken in your view about what she’s saying about the rejection here?”
It’s not clear to me what paper she’s referring to. The only paper in 2013 of which Zwiers is lead author is this paywalled one. But it is far more comprehensive and ambitious. A better candidate might be the one by Fyfe et al, recently discussed at WUWT. Again paywalled, but seems to have done much more in analyzing th reasons for the discrepancy, rather than simply noting them.
But note the complaint: ” Zwiers published almost essentially the same thing but at a point in the cycle where the rejection is less obvious that at the time we were submitting”
They were keeping their paper for a rainy day, and it’s unfair that Z got published before the rain started. If there’s a statistically significant discrepancy, you don’t have to wait for a rainy day.
ATheoK says: September 20, 2013 at 5:39 pm
“Nick: So you’re contending that Lucia, along with Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, John R. Christy, Chad S. Herman, James D. Annan failed to fully flesh out and update their statistics?”
I’m applying what you folks say you favor – the test of results. They have used statistical significance tests which are supposed to show results are robust, but four months later they are different.
But yes, I did note shortfalls at the time.
Nick,
No, this misses my point.
Look Nick, to cut to the chase, you appear to have commented to try to represent the reason for rejection as a change in the weather rather than gate keeping. Admittedly taking Lucia at her word (something I’m quite comfortable doing, frankly), Z got essentially the same thing published under less favourable weather / statistical conditions, so dismissing the charge of gate keeping on this basis doesn’t seem particularly compelling to me.
I do congratulate you however on finding a spin to apply to the discussion that avoids the real significance of the issue associated with these discussion, which is of course the failure of the model results to match the temperature observations of the past decade and a half. It’s nothing less than I’ve come to expect from your posts.
Nick,
I know you know enough math to make this statement a deliberate misrepresentation. You understand Lucia’s argument about the statistical power of a test. Results flickering back and forth between accept and reject are nothing unusual or disturbing as time goes on and the power of the test increases.
Shame on you. You really are Racehorse Nick, aren’t you.
Mark Bofill:
The events underlying the climate models do not exist. Probabilities are defined on events. Thus, there are no probabilities. With the absence of events and probabilities there is no mathematical statistics. Thus, we can’t actually make sense of the data on global warming and CO2 emissions. Don’t you agree?
Terry,
It’s been a long day, and I’m going to freely admit that I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. I see that your name links to an interesting looking blog that looks like it might be pertinent, and I’ll certainly take a look tomorrow and get back to you on your question then. Thanks.
Mark Bofill:
Thanks for listening!
crackin’ up!
Mark Bofill says: September 20, 2013 at 6:42 pm
“Look Nick, to cut to the chase, you appear to have commented to try to represent the reason for rejection as a change in the weather rather than gate keeping.
….
I do congratulate you however on finding a spin to apply”
I’ve simply pointed to posts that I wrote in May 2010, long before we knew of any rejection.
“Results flickering back and forth between accept and reject are nothing unusual or disturbing as time goes on…”
Well, I can understand GRL being unenthusiastic about publishing a paper which says “Today, our tests say reject…”; even more so if it should say “well, today it says accept, but when we submitted…”
And
– – – – – – – –
Terry Oldberg,
Your comment is interesting enough.
The term climate ‘events’, which you imply if existent would support mathematical statistics, is categorically unspecified.
Please given some categorical context of ‘events’.
John
Here is an interesting exchange between posters at the Guardian. AGW nuts have a persistent cry of “deniers” being funded by “big oil” or “big business” or some other corporate interests without ever explaining why or how such enormous firms would bother paying any sceptic for anything when they have their own vast PR. machines staffed with highly-trained professionals able to do a much better job for themselves…
CharlesPrestwich dontshootme
20 September 2013 10:02pm
Recommended
15
@dontshootme 20 September 2013 9:48pm. Get cifFix for Firefox.
Scientists put together a document based on years of rigorous research and analysis for no remuneration while deniers are funded directly by big oil. Even the someone with the most tenuous grasp on sanity must see where the truth is.
Which scientists are carrying out years of research without payment? Please name them. And while you’re at it please name the sceptics funded by “big oil” and the amount they receive. Real figures please, not just your imagination.
By the way, do you really think that your scientists do not chase after money from oil companies to fund their research? Please see below:
Fri Feb 10 11:55:39 2006
To: pinar.o.yilmaz@exxonmobil.com
From: Jonathan Overpeck
Subject: nice to hear from you!
Cc:
Bcc: X-Attachments:
Hi Pinar – it was great to hear that you were coming to UA, and that you were interested in meeting with this Overpeck guy. I was just in Alaska and ran into Stan Foo in the airport (first time I’ve seen him since Hamilton days), and ditto for Greg Maynard at GSA. Both are doing very well in the minerals side of things. And now you… wonderful.
Bad news is that I’m on sabbatical (actually, this is nice for me and my family that includes two young boys). Moreover, wife (and UA prof) Julie Cole is enroute to Germany for up to a month (! – yes, my fraternity experience should come in helpful as I single-parent two boys). This means, unfortunately, that I can’t fly down to be on campus for your visit. I’m really sorry about this.
However, maybe there is a way to move things forward anyhow?
In addition to seeing and catching up w/ you, I’m also quite intrigued by what Exxon- Mobil and the University of Arizona could do together on the climate change front. As you’ve probably figured out, we have one of the top universities in this area, and lots of capability, both in understanding climate change at the global scale down to the regional scale, but also in terms of understanding how climate variability and change impacts society, and also how interdisciplinary climate knowledge can be used to support improved decision-making in society. On these two latter fronts, UA is arguably the best in the nation.
Perhaps we should talk on the phone and figure out what would be best for your UA visit. I could then help line up a mtg for you w/ the relevant people (including Joaquin Ruiz, who is very interested in climate-related activities), and I could also try to be on a phone link w/ this meeting. After Julie gets back from Germany in mid-March, I would be happy to fly down to Texas to meet with you and your colleagues face-to-face. I’d certainly like that instead of just hearing your voice on a phone. So, would you like to chat on the phone next week? Monday is looking tough w/ visitors and a big deadline, Tues a bit better, and Wed-Friday pretty much wide open.
Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks for looking me up too!
Best, peck
–
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/20/big-business-funding-climate-change-sceptics
—
In the meantime… global cooling is predicted…
Professor Anastasios Tsonis of of the University of Wisconsin, who contends we are entering a period of global cooling.
“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least,There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
http://calcoastnews.com/2013/09/global-cooling/
Friends:
I hope post gives amusement although it has serious intent.
In response to Terry Oldberg having yet again posted his illogical and obscurantist gobbledygook, at September 20, 2013 at 7:18 pm Mark Bofill replied to him saying
That could have ended Oldberg disrupting this thread. Unfortunately, on two other threads John Whitman has acted – in one case completely successfully – solely to disrupt the thread, and at September 21, 2013 at 1:03 am he here wrote
. So, I write to translate Oldberg’s posts in hope of avoiding this thread being destroyed by Oldberg twaddle encouraged by Whitman disruption.
At September 20, 2013 at 5:40 pm Terry Oldberg says:
Translation
‘Though they are obfuscated by Terry Oldberg discrepencies, if any, between projected and observed global temperatures are extremely important to the needs of a maker of policy on CO2 emissions. A policy maker needs to know whether there are discrepencies between the predicted and observed outcomes of events. Global warming climatology uses general circulation models to provide the projections and predictions, Terry Oldberg cannot, however, understand .such a comparison for the set of brain cells in his skull is deficient.’
At September 20, 2013 at 7:13 pm Terry Oldberg says:
Translation
Mark Bofill:
The events underlying the climate models are not understood by Terry Oldberg. Probabilities are defined on events. Thus, Terry Oldberg doesn’t have a clue what he is waffling about. With the absence of adequate understanding there is only nonsense from Terry Oldberg. Thus, we can’t actually make sense of anything he says/i>. Don’t you agree that Terry Oldberg has managed to make his ignorance, lack of intelligence and stupidity seem meaningful by use of obfuscations?’
Richard
richardscourney:
In the course of your extended bloviation you failed yet again to identify the events underlying the IPCC climate models. Are you dancing around this issue because you don’t know what they are? If so, you may be on the verge of enlightenment. Hint: temperatures are not events but rather are outcomes. By the way, are you aware of the fact that character assassination is illegal under the defamation laws of the UK and the US?
They have done nothing because they hope that things will revert to their norm. Unfortunately reality dictates that their model assumptions are wrong and for the IPCC things can only get worse.