In Climate Models Fail, using a number of different datasets, I illustrated how the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report could not simulate climate variables such as surface temperatures (land surface air, sea surface and combined land+sea surface), precipitation and sea ice area. There’s another splendid way to present the model failings (that wasn’t presented in the book): by comparing the warming rates of global land surface air temperatures with the warming rates of global sea surface temperatures. It’s astounding that the models perform so poorly. See Table 1.
Note: I’ve made a few changes to the post at the suggestions of the first few persons to comment on the WUWT cross post. Table 1 has been updated and so has the text of the paragraph before Figure 7-29. (Thanks, to bloggers DB and Keith Minto.) And I’ve added a note to the table about rounding errors. (Thanks, Steve Keohane.)
As shown, the models overestimated the warming of global land surface air temperatures since November 1981 by about 23% (which isn’t too bad), but the models doubled the observed rate of warming of the surface temperatures of the global oceans (and that’s horrendous). Now consider that most of the warming of global land surface air temperatures is in response to the warming of global sea surface temperatures. (See Compo and Sardeshmukh (2009) “Ocean Influences on Recent Continental Warming.”) In the real world, the land surface temperatures warmed at a rate that was more than 3 times faster than the warming of global sea surface temperatures, but in the fantasy modeled world, land surface temperatures only warmed 2 times as fast.
And what does that suggest?
Well, we already know that models can’t simulate the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that cause global sea surface temperatures to warm over multidecadal periods. (See the quick overview that follows.) So, the difference between the modeled and observed ratios of land to sea surface temperature warming rates suggests the basic underlying physics within the models are skewed. Skewed is the nicest word I could think to use.
Consider this: the models simulate coupled ocean-atmosphere processes so poorly that, while the models doubled the observed rate of warming of sea surface temperatures, the models could only overestimate the observed rate of warming of land surface air temperatures by 23%.
TABLE 1 DATA AND MODEL OUTPUT INFORMATION
Source of Data and Model Outputs: KNMI Climate Explorer. (See my blog post Step-By-Step Instructions for Creating a Climate-Related Model-Data Comparison Graph.)
Data: The land surface temperature data are the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index with the oceans masked, and the sea surface temperature data are Reynolds OI.v2.
Model Outputs: I’ve used the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble mean (historic through 2005 and RCP6.0 afterwards). The oceans are masked for the land surface air temperature outputs (tas), and the outputs for sea surface temperature (tos) are as presented by the KNMI Climate Explorer.
Other: The start month (November 1981) is dictated by the satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data. The base years for anomalies are 1982 to 2010 to accommodate the time period.
FAILURES TO SIMULATE COUPLED OCEAN-ATMOSPHERE PROCESSES
[Note: The following Figure numbers are as they appear in Climate Models Fail.]
This part of the discussion gets a little technical, but it provides a basic overview of the naturally occurring processes that cause sea surface temperatures to warm. And it shows quite clearly that the models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report do not properly simulate those processes.
# # #
Climate models used by the IPCC for the 5th Assessment Report do not properly simulate the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation). In Climate Models Fail, I presented a number of scientific studies that were very critical of how models simulated many variables, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. (See Ruiz-Barradas, et.al. (2013) is The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation in twentieth century climate simulations: uneven progress from CMIP3 to CMIP5.)
We can illustrate the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation using the method recommended by Trenberth and Shea (2006), and it was to subtract global sea surface temperature anomalies (60S-60N, excludes the polar oceans) from sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Atlantic (0-60N, 80W-0). They used HADISST data and so have I. In the time-series graph in Figure 7-22, I’ve also smoothed the AMO data with a 121-month running average filter. As shown by the blue curve, the North Atlantic has a mode of natural variability that causes its sea surface temperatures to warm and cool at rates that are much greater than the variations in the surface temperatures of the global oceans. And we can see that the variations occur over multidecadal time periods (thus the name Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation). Keep in mind that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is responsible for some (but not all) of the warming of land surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during the more recent warming period, according to the climate scientists at RealClimate. (See also Tung and Zhou (2012) Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records.)
If we subtract the modeled global sea surface temperatures from the modeled sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic (shown as the red curve in Figure 7-22), we can see that the forced component of the CMIP5 models (represented by the multi-model ensemble mean) does not simulate the observed multidecadal variations in the North Atlantic. That is, there is very little difference between the modeled variations in global and North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies. The comparison also strongly suggests that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is NOT a response to manmade greenhouse gases (or aerosols) used by the climate modelers to force the warming (or cooling) of sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic.
So the modelers have tried to compensate for that failing. They try to force the warming of the surface of the Atlantic Ocean with manmade greenhouse gases, which results in a poor representation of that warming. We can see this in the modeled and observed warming rates of Atlantic sea surface temperatures during the satellite era. (See Figure 7-12)
Overview of Figure 7-12: Its graph presents observed and modeled warming rates on a zonal-mean (latitude average) basis and it covers the last 31 years. The vertical axis (y-axis) presents the warming rates (based on linear trends) in deg C/decade. The horizontal axis (x-axis) is latitude: where the South Pole is at “-90” deg on the left, the North Pole in at “90” deg on the right, and in the center at “0” deg is the equator. So the North Atlantic is to the right. Basically, the graph shows how quickly the sea surface temperatures of the Atlantic warmed (and cooled) since November 1981 at different latitudes (modeled and observed).
Because climate models cannot properly simulate the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the modelers tried to force that additional warming of Atlantic sea surface temperatures with manmade greenhouse gases and they needed to do that because the North Atlantic has a strong influence on land surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere. But, as shown in Figure 7-12, they failed to capture where the Atlantic warmed and how much it warmed. And that influences where land surface air temperatures warm in the models and by how much.
Also, recall that the high rate of warming in the North Atlantic is tied to a natural cycle, so it’s temporary. The North Atlantic also cools for multiple decades. It may already have started. (See Figure 2-31) But in the models, the warming has not slowed (not illustrated).
In the models, the forced high rates of warming of sea surface temperatures by greenhouse gas then carries over to the other ocean basins — the Pacific for the next example.
As you’ll recall, the Pacific Ocean is the largest ocean basin on the planet. It covers more of the surface of the global oceans than all of the continental land masses combined.
Also, the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that cause the greatest variations in global surface temperature and precipitation take place in the Pacific Ocean. They are known as El Niño and La Niña events. There are no other natural climate-impacting events on Earth that rival El Niños and La Niñas, other than catastrophic volcanic eruptions.
And what do we know about El Niños and La Niñas?
First, we know climate modelers haven’t a clue how to simulate them and that includes the models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. (See Guilyardi, et al. (2009) “Understanding El Niño in Ocean-Atmosphere General Circulation Models: Progress and Challenges” and Bellenger, et al. (2013) “ENSO Representation in Climate Models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5”).
Second, we know that El Niño events release tremendous amounts of (naturally created) heat into the atmosphere, and result in massive volumes of (naturally created) warm water being transported away from the tropical Pacific — and that the warm water is carried into the Indian Ocean and into the mid-latitudes of the Pacific during the trailing La Niñas. (See Figure 7-29, which is a zonal-mean graph showing modeled and observed warming rates in the Pacific.) That’s why, in the real world, the tropical Pacific Ocean has warmed very little over the past 31 years, and why the Pacific has warmed in the mid-latitudes. The strong El Niño events of 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10 released a tremendous amount of warm water from below the surface of the tropical Pacific and it was redistributed from the tropical Pacific to the mid-latitudes during the trailing La Niñas.
Third, we know that El Niño events are fueled by warm water created during La Niña events, and that the warm water is created by temporary increases in sunlight associated with La Niña processes (not manmade greenhouse gases). Refer to Trenberth et al (2002) who write:
The negative feedback between SST [sea surface temperature] and surface fluxes can be interpreted as showing the importance of the discharge of heat during El Niño events and of the recharge of heat during La Niña events. Relatively clear skies in the central and eastern tropical Pacific allow solar radiation to enter the ocean, apparently offsetting the below normal SSTs, but the heat is carried away by Ekman drift, ocean currents, and adjustments through ocean Rossby and Kelvin waves, and the heat is stored in the western Pacific tropics. This is not simply a rearrangement of the ocean heat, but also a restoration of heat in the ocean.
Back to Figure 7-29: Because the climate models used by the IPCC cannot simulate (sunlight-fueled) El Niño and La Niña events, they try to force the warming of the Pacific Ocean with manmade greenhouse gases. And once again, the models fail to capture where the surface of the Pacific warmed and by how much. For example, they have forced the tropical Pacific in the models to warm at a very high rate, when, in the real world, the tropical Pacific has warmed very little in 31 years and in some areas it’s cooled.
But the modelers also have another problem: they appear to have set their forcings to the values they need for the additional warming of the North Atlantic and in the models that additional forcing also impacts the Pacific Ocean. That’s a logical explanation for why the models overestimated the warming of Pacific sea surface temperatures by a factor of 2.8. That is, the models almost tripled the warming rate of the Pacific sea surface temperatures. (See the time-series graph in Figure 7-25)
Yet somehow, in the climate models, land surface air temperatures do not warm as one would anticipate in response to all of the additional warming of sea surface temperatures. (Table 1) There must be some additional major flaws in the models.
CLOSING
Climate models simulate naturally occurring and naturally fueled coupled ocean-atmosphere processes so poorly that it appears the modelers to have to “fudge” how land surface temperatures respond to the warming of ocean surfaces.
ADDITIONAL READING
A multitude of climate model failings are discussed in Climate Models Fail. And for further information about El Niño and La Niña events, I’ve written dozens of posts about their processes and their long-term aftereffects at my blog Climate Observations or you could refer to my earlier book Who Turned on the Heat?
When I say your conclusion is likely correct, I say that with 95% certainty (not 94, not 96, but 95 exactly).
Greg Goodman says:
“Wait a minute, this is the well established “colder weather caused by global warming” phenomenon. You really don’t seem to be up to date on your pseudo-science my friend.”
The opposite of what I suggested, as I followed with: “I would think that atmospheric circulation determines land temperatures more than the ocean temp’ does, and that the atmospheric changes are driving the oceanic variations.”.
Lets see…average temp in the Sahara…+31C. Average temp in Antarctica…-30C. So the global average is 0.5C. Hummmmm. Methinks average global temp is just a piece of BS to fool the policy makers(not hard) and the LIVs. But what about when we were warmer,and the average was +10C? Seems we are still overall cooling from the last inter-glacial.Now when do I get my research monies?
Bob Tisdale says: September 28, 2013 at 7:43 am
Allan MacRae:
Are you referring to the cool phase of the AMO as when the AMO index reaches a negative number? YES
Or are you referring to the cool phase of the AMO meaning the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures anomalies have peaked and are starting to cool? NO
If it’s the latter, then it may have already started. AGREE.
Brilliant, brilliant work, Mr. Tisdale. Maybe someday the modelers will recruit an empirical scientist who is not willing to use top-down calculations for all climate phenomena.
Over recent times the AMO has trailed the PDO in the following manner. When the PDO moves across the zero anomaly line the AMO changes direction. The AMO is at it’s peak/valley at that time. Applying this to the present, the AMO should have been near it’s peak when the PDO went negative and should be dropping now. However, it will take 8-10 years before it becomes a negative anomaly.
Since we have only a little data on this subject the observations may not hold into the future. In fact, the peak AMO may have been 2012 which is well beyond the date of the PDO crossing the zero line.
Greg Goodman says: “Using ICOADS and hadISST vs BEST land temps I got land sea ratio very close to 2.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=219”
First, my presentation was for the satellite era of sea surface temperatures, starting in November 1981. Yours was not.
Second, would not use ICOADS data for this comparison because it is not spatially complete. ICOADS excludes much of the high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere where sea surface temperatures have cooled over the past 31 years. Therefore, the ICOADS data has a warm bias.
Third, the satellite bias adjustments in the HADISST data aren’t as good as the Reynolds OI.v2 data, (which is one of the things I believe the UKMO is correcting with HADISST2). Therefore, using the end month of July 2012 dictated by the BEST data that you used, the HADISST global data has a linear trend of 0.07 deg C/decade as opposed to 0.08 deg C/decade for the Reynolds OI.v2 data that I had used. If I had used HADISST, the ratio of land surface temperature trend to sea surface temperature trend would have been greater. Nowhere near 2 as you suggest.
Greg Goodman says: “Comparing to your table that means half of the discrepancy is in modelled SST the other half of the problem is is due to GISS LOTI. In view of the large scale rigging ( ‘correction’ ) of land temps by GISS I’m not sure why put this forward as ‘real world’.” And you continued, “You seem to put a lot of store in GISS LOTI in your graphs. In view of the unashamed manipulations GISS LOTO would be a better name.”
Fourth, the linear trends of the BEST data and the GISS LOTI data with the oceans masked are the same at 0.29 deg C/decade for the period of November 1981 to July 2012 (the last month of the BEST data).
That leaves the modeled SST.
Regards
Table 1 shows that the actual warming trends for both land & sea are about 0.08C less than the models prescribe. Be cautious when wringing more from those numbers.
Justthinkin says: “Lets see…average temp in the Sahara…+31C. Average temp in Antarctica…-30C. So the global average is 0.5C. Hummmmm……”
Global surface temperatures are presented as anomalies, not as absolutes.
Thank you Bob.
My concern is global cooling and harsh winters, particularly in the UK and continental Europe, where Tony Blair and his Euro-cohorts have severely damaged their energy systems through the foolish adoption of “green energy” schemes, which have caused electricity prices to soar. I refer specifically to the politically-enforced, highly-subsidized implementation of impractical grid-connected wind and solar power schemes.
I understand the “excess winter mortality” in the UK is about 35,000 people per year. This is reportedly due (in part) to fuel poverty, also called “heat or eat”, where people, particularly seniors, cannot afford to heat their dwellings and many huddle in their beds through the winter to keep warm.
Fuel poverty is also commonplace across Western Europe, again thanks to green energy nonsense.
Falling sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic suggest that Europe is starting to cool, and there is an increased probability of more severe winters.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-2-31.png
I strongly suggest that it is past time for British and European governments to face climate and energy reality. Europe is probably cooling, not warming, and these governments needs to discard their foolish notions of global warming alarmism and address the real problems that are facing their citizens right now – fuel poverty in a cooling winter climate.
Current government global warming alarmist policies are apparently exacerbating the rate of excess winter mortality in the UK and continental Europe.
European leaders need to be told unequivocally: “Your foolish global warming alarmist policies are, in all probability, killing your own people.”
Yours sincerely, Allan MacRae
Excess Winter Mortality in England and Wales, 2010/11 (Provisional) and 2009/10 (Final)
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health2/excess-winter-mortality-in-england-and-wales/2010-11–provisional–and-2009-10–final-/stb-ewm-2010-11.html
Key findings: “There were an estimated 25,700 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2010/11, virtually unchanged from the previous winter.”
“Told You So” Ten Years Ago
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
– Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson, Allan M.R. MacRae, P.Eng. (PEGG, November 2002)
Steve Keohane says: “Only this last number for the Ratios is close to what you show. What am I missing?”
There are rounding errors in my table, because I limited the number of significant figures in the trends. Thanks. I’ll add a note to Table 1.
Bob T…but are they presented as anomalies?The IPCC,UN,alarmists,etc,try to present these as absolutes in their SPM. For example,today in Edmonton,Alberta,@ur momisugly 1400 MDT,we are at +17C.Hasn’t been seen since 1990.And above “normal” forecast for the next 4 days. So are we warming(NOT),or does this affect the global average numbers. I am sure you have seen where they take an area,like Edmonton,or Phoenix,or wherever,which comprise less than 0% of the Earth’s area,and blow it out of proportion. So is it an anomalie,and presented as such,or is it used to scare monger,and keep the trough money coming? Now I’m confused.
TRBixler says:
September 28, 2013 at 8:03 am
Bob
Thank you for your post. Thank you to vukcevic for your graphic correlation. Somehow the idea of solar physics interacting with the earth may someday be noticed by the political process.
I’ll keep this brief, not to divert from Mr. Tisdale’s thread
One hopes so. What is happening in the North Atlantic is somewhat baffling
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-SSN.htm
As one could see, the North Atlantic tectonics and the SST follow the solar output, but both (for some reason) fail to register cycle 19. This would suggest (with the proviso: correlation is not causation) that NA SST is more closely related to the tectonics than the SSN.
Oh.Sorry,Bob. I should add.Which way should it be presented? Anomalie or absolute?
Justthinkin says: “Which way should it be presented? Anomalie or absolute?”
Due to the seasonal cycle in the absolute data, I’d prefer to work with anomalies:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-2-1.png
The above data is a weighted average of HADISST sea surface temperature data @70% and GHCN/CAMS land surface temperature reanalysis @30%.
“Climate models simulate naturally occurring and naturally fueled coupled ocean-atmosphere processes so poorly that it appears the modelers to have to “fudge” how land surface temperatures respond to the warming of ocean surfaces.”
No sensible person can challenge that without sacrificing their integrity.
Ulric Lyons (September 28, 2013 at 5:35 am) wrote:
“[…] atmospheric changes are driving the oceanic variations.”
Correct. I’ve just finished doing the analyses (something I’ve known I need to do for a very, very long time — but time is always so severely overfilled that many important things are always being pushed lower & yet lower in the list of ever-boiling priorities…) The idea that the oceans are doing the driving can be strictly ruled out (in the mathematical sense), but the oceans are excellent – you could even say supreme – indicators of what the sun is doing top-down to terrestrial climate at multidecadal to centennial timescales. It’s even going to be possible to prove mathematically exactly why the standard mainstream solar-climate narrative (which is TOTAL BS in the most egregious sense possible) is wrong – (it’s a simple matter of making strictly false assumptions about aggregate properties). That’s all for today…
Build a model that simulates the inbetween extended times between La Nina and El Nino. Then see what happens to land temps. Is this how we get the temperature step functions up or down? IE enough clear sky conditions to keep it going, or cloudy skies to pump out the heat. If it starts stepping down, do we have enough lead time to prepare for cold/stormy/drought conditions? If it starts going back up, do we plant crops not usually suited for northern zones?
If we give agriculture a couple three years lead time, we can stay ahead of crop failures due to weather pattern change. Screw long-term-boiling-Earth-100-years-from-now! That won’t put food on the table. It won’t prevent farmers from losing their herd due to a lack of winter feed stores. It won’t prevent, godforebid, frozen grapes.
In fact I would venture to say than any politician who fell for this load of crap now or in the past decided to ride the bandwagon to keep their nose in the trough in exchange for food on our plates. Well screw them too.
Thanks, Bob. Well explained: GCMs fail.
If the models forecasted an observed SST change of .02 C and it was observed to be .01 C, would you call that “horrendous”? Using percentages (especially of deltas) can be misleading. Probably why you did it.
Bob,
I’m astounded by the way people still seem to refuse to take in the clear-cut message you’ve been trying to convey to the world for the last four and a half years (?), that global temperatures sit within the firm grip of ENSO, driven most of the time by its East Pacific part, but also by its West Pacific part, specifically during the step changes of 1988 and 1998. I hope you’re not letting the apparent indifference get to you. You know you nailed it already from the start. Your original discovery and the resulting explanation of the evolution of global temperatures during the last 30-35 years are simply unassailable.
Why this rabid fear of simply looking at the data from the real Earth system, investigating it and letting it lead the way to enlightenment? I tried to bring it up at Lucia’s The Blackboard a while ago. But she’s simply not interested. It’s like talking to the proverbial wall. It’s all about regression analysis and linear trend lines. Nothing else matters it seems.
Keep up the good work, though.
it seems Australia newspapers have fallen for the IPCC fraud http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bondi-under-siege-as-swelling-ocean-seeps-into-suburbs-20130928-2ul6l.html
I usually prefer to lurk, I have followed this blog for more than a few years courtesy of Instapundit, and have been debating ‘global warming’ with true believers at the amateur level since 2006 when things stopped adding up for me.
I also once dated a woman who turned out to have psychopathic levels of jealousy and selected other paranoia triggers, a temper that fed on itself until exploding, and a tendency to resort to violence (both inwardly and outwardly directed, sometimes simultaneously).
Along the path to successfully escaping from this relationship, I was woken up one morning by her beating on me. As a small woman, she could get away with games like that, but I had to wonder why she was doing it. When she finally got her anger burned out, she was able to tell me that she had a dream that I was cheating on her during the night (that night, not another night) and she couldn’t stand the thought of sleeping all night next to a cheater. It didn’t matter that in reality, and intellectually, she knew I had never left her side, the dream controlled her emotional side to the point where she was unable to conceive that reality was real.
These failures of fscking modelers, and the warmists who believe only in them… they are that ex.
For anyone interested, coursera.org has multiple courses on or related to Global Warming, one is taught by a group out of Australia’s University of Melbourne (current session just about over) and another is taught by an instructor from the University of Chicago, David Archer, called ‘Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change’ which starts Oct. 21 and runs for 8 weeks. The forums offer a significant opportunity for spirited debate for interested parties. I am curious if the instructor would refuse to give a certificate of achievement to someone who he considers a “denialist” based on forum discussions.
Richard M says: September 28, 2013 at 11:34 am
Over recent times the AMO has trailed the PDO in the following manner. When the PDO moves across the zero anomaly line the AMO changes direction. The AMO is at it’s peak/valley at that time. Applying this to the present, the AMO should have been near it’s peak when the PDO went negative and should be dropping now. However, it will take 8-10 years before it becomes a negative anomaly.
++++++++++++
Thank you Richard.
IF you are correct, I suggest PDO went negative circa 2005 which seems to coincide approx. with AMO index peak, and AMO index should go negative circa 2015.
This is just my WAG based on your hypo. I suggest others may spend more time and do a better job.
Regards, Allan
Kristian says: “I tried to bring it up at Lucia’s The Blackboard a while ago. But she’s simply not interested. It’s like talking to the proverbial wall. It’s all about regression analysis and linear trend lines. Nothing else matters it seems.”
As you’re aware global warming depends on events, which must be accounted for separately. The climate science community and statisticians have relegated the events to noise. There are likely statistical tools they could use to account for those events, but I don’t expect them to use those tools because the findings would undermine preconceived notions about the cause of global warming. The only thing I can hope for are another couple of decades without a strong El Niño event to drive up surface temperatures–and without a catastrophic volcanic eruption to add real noise.
Time will tell the story.