From the University of New South Wales and Dr. Steven Sherwood:
“Climate sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect,” said Sherwood. “But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more.”
Yeah…right:
![CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png?quality=75)
Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4°C by 2100
Cloud impact on climate sensitivity unveiled
Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. Scientists found global climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates.
The research also appears to solve one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity, the role of cloud formation and whether this will have a positive or negative effect on global warming.
“Our research has shown climate models indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation,” said lead author from the University of New South Wales’ Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Prof Steven Sherwood.
“When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.”
The key to this narrower but much higher estimate can be found in the real world observations around the role of water vapour in cloud formation.
Observations show when water vapour is taken up by the atmosphere through evaporation, the updraughts can either rise to 15 km to form clouds that produce heavy rains or rise just a few kilometres before returning to the surface without forming rain clouds.
When updraughts rise only a few kilometres they reduce total cloud cover because they pull more vapour away from the higher cloud forming regions.
However water vapour is not pulled away from cloud forming regions when only deep 15km updraughts are present.
The researchers found climate models that show a low global temperature response to carbon dioxide do not include enough of this lower-level water vapour process. Instead they simulate nearly all updraughts as rising to 15 km and forming clouds.
When only the deeper updraughts are present in climate models, more clouds form and there is an increased reflection of sunlight. Consequently the global climate in these models becomes less sensitive in its response to atmospheric carbon dioxide.
However, real world observations show this behaviour is wrong.
When the processes in climate models are corrected to match the observations in the real world, the models produce cycles that take water vapour to a wider range of heights in the atmosphere, causing fewer clouds to form as the climate warms.
This increases the amount of sunlight and heat entering the atmosphere and, as a result, increases the sensitivity of our climate to carbon dioxide or any other perturbation.
The result is that when water vapour processes are correctly represented, the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide – which will occur in the next 50 years – means we can expect a temperature increase of at least 4°C by 2100.
“Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more,” said Prof. Sherwood.
“Rises in global average temperatures of this magnitude will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don’t urgently start to curb our emissions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/31/climate-craziness-of-the-week-only-the-cooler-models-are-wrong-the-rest-say-4oc-of-warming-by-2100/#comment-1519388
Well, this made it so I must have used one of the “magic” words without realizing. Or maybe it was the content? If you can tell, please let know. For my benefit and other commenters.
PS Not offended, just curious.
This is desperation science if you can call it science (anything goes these days) even white coats, muddled thinking, and in Australia a cult fightback to hold onto the money whatever spin it takes, they got away with the absurd under the Flannery political climateering of the previous government. So its no holds barred to put out the most ridiculous claims while the world media is still sleeping on the job. Its a Nutter and Cook style SucKer (SKs) science, who dares wins the media race, science or sanity doesn’t matter where money is to be made.
Richard Feynman:
Sounds like a simple case of confusing cause and effect.
We need a new definition of “Centre of Excellence” such as “University with the most money”.
I’ll see your 4 degrees and raise you 4 more.
Robert Bissett says:
December 31, 2013 at 1:34 pm
“How is the opposition to climate change alarmism doing at the end of 2013?”
Great, thank you for asking.
“You can find some great TED talks on Netflix. The last few days I’ve watched a lot of them, they are short. I saw many well groomed, well spoken authority figures who have no doubt whatsoever about CAGW.”
ROTFLMAO! Like well groomed NSA buddy Eric Schmidt? Now, let me tell you a secret. I saw many total idiots talking their book in TED Talks. But go ahead Mr. Gullible and see what it gets you.
I thought a warming trend brings more rainfall? Doesn’t more rainfall kinda imply more clouds in general?
Lewis P Buckingham says: ” ….one could conclude that if CO2 is a major driver of global temperature, then its effect is negative.”
I’m right with you on that, it’s the simplest explanation of the ice core data. CO2 increasing because of increasing temperature and then, when it reaches a sufficient concentration, it causes temperature to stop rising and later start declining. When temperature has declined enough, the CO2 to starts going down again. The two are chasing each other.
Two things:
1) I award this guy an atta-boy for acknowledging that the models have problems, and a second atta-boy for trying to figure out what the problem is by looking at clouds.
2) I must unfortunately follow this by issuing an immediate an aww-shoot that wipes the slate clean for drawing a preposterous conclusion that is contradicted by the empirical evidence.
Seriously, maybe he has a point with the clouds. Clearly if he does, then that’s not all that’s wrong with the models, since we get a result that’s even further off of observations than before.
Happy New Years all.
Observation does not support the assertion that the planet amplifies CO2 forcing. The observations support that the planet resists rather than amplifies warming forcing changes by an increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover in the tropical region. (For example Lindzen and Choi`s paper that found by analyzing short term (3 month) period; comparing ocean surface temperature Vs top of the atmosphere radiation emission as measured by satellite, that the cloud cover increases or decreases in the tropics to resist the forcing change (Willis` tropical thermostatic throttle).
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
Willis` tropical thermostatic throttle mechanism explains why there has been almost no warming in the lower latitudes which is a paradox (an observation that directly contradicts the predictions of the IPCC general circulation models GCM and that indicates there are one or more fundamental errors in the GCMs.)
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png
The warmists and media have screamed from the roof tops the fact that the planet has warmed. They have completely hidden the fact that lower latitudes have not warmed which disproves catastrophic AGW. They have hidden the failure of CAGW theory by focusing on the polar warming and calling the polar warming amplification with no comment that the polar warming is not predicted by the general circulation models (GCM).
Latitudinal Warming Paradox
As CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for CO2 warming is the same for all latitudes. The actual warming due to CO2 is linearly dependent on the amount of long wave radiation at the latitude in question before the increase in CO2. As most amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space is in the tropics the most amount of warming due to the CO2 increase should have occurred in the tropics. That is not what is observed as shown in Bob Tisdale graph. The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the above assertions.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
“These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”
“These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
It would be a lot more convincing if the authors had included any real cloud data.
But it appears that showing no data (or only showing climate model output) is much more convincing to the followers and to the editors of Nature.
The water vapor data which is available completely contradicts this paper, as in, it is completely opposite. Low levels of the atmosphere have increasing water vapor content (hydration they called it to keep people off-track I presume) while upper levels are drying somewhat. Opposite to what the paper claims the data in the Merra reanalysis dataset shows (I don’t even believe the Merra reanalysis data shows this either).
Does everyone understand why this is happening?
These models all hindcast against GISS, which is being revised to give higher and higher trends to the past. So they keep predicting more warmth in the future, but only because they see illusory warming in the past that correlates to CO2.
Classic GIGO.
What a cheap fiddle. Program the model to estimate updrafts to a range of altitudes as the planet warms and produce less clouds and hey presto ! – call it research and announce it to the world that you must be the smartest modellers in the world – so smart that you are stuck in ice in mid summer in the Antarctic! Talk about chutzpah! Who is this nutter? I obtained a B Eng at UNSW some time back. Writing as an alumni of the institution, I find this self promoting creep Sherwood just a complete embarrassment.
This Outburst comes from Dr. Steven Sherwood who must be the Master in Lunacy at the University of New South Wales. Just when we thought that “the Science” was ‘settled’, suddenly Dr, Steven Sherwood emits this study claiming all the models were wrong all the time, and things are ‘worse than we thought’ !
It’s Models all the way down to the Antarctic Ice, these days. However to judge by recent reactions, there is a wind of change, in Australia and the World and De. Steven Sherwood should make sure his CV is up to date, to be ready for re-deployment..
No Happy New Year to him!
Skeptics, there is still some time to repent and join the true faith. 2013 ends soon for the whole world and prices will jump up. Just few hours left to get your carbon credits at 2013 prices!
Happy New Year!
Will it be better for those that support good scientific common sense.
All dogs have 4 legs
My cat has 4 legs
Therefore my cat is a dog..
The Navier Stokes equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density (but not phase). They are nonlinear, chaotic and have sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Edward Lorenz showed that no finite amount of data on past states is sufficient for a non-trivial prediction of future states. “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”. To the extent that AGW depends on past state data to model/predict distant future states, it is a hoax. If they can match past state history without using past state data, then they might have something.
I need a new computer. I wonder what make/model is used by these models because I sure don’t want one as inaccurate as that. 🙂
Is there a climate model that can predict from past data the weather and trends that occurred immediately (or whatever length of time seems appropriate) after?
If there is one, is it being used to predict the weather? If not, why not?
If there isn’t one then why are these other models (which I assume can’t do the prediction) given so much weight if they can’t predict what we know happened(s)?
All the arguments about the validity of data from the past and how to interpolate it is unimportant until a model can be developed that is proven to accurately model the climate from known data. Until that happens all the rest can’t be proven. That’s where the money should be spent.
(I suspect that it’s much harder to do than the climate folks make out and it may even be impossible with the computing technology available.)
If I’m wrong, someone enlighten me please.
So, if I read this correctly, someone we pay from the public purse as an academic and a scientist says that some models are wrong, because a new model says so? Never mind that none of the models (old or new) have any predictive power at all, and the new model is farther from real-world observations than the old ones. Just trust him, it’s correct. Another Monty Python Black Knight?
More model-based trash.
jakee308 says:
December 31, 2013 at 4:02 pm
“Is there a climate model that can predict from past data the weather and trends that occurred immediately (or whatever length of time seems appropriate) after?”
_________________________________
disclaimer: I’m far from current on the latest model tech and my answer might get quickly overruled by someone who’s more in tune with sate- of- the- art.
A couple of the models get close, but as far as I know, No. currently, none can successfully and consistently back- test with any significant level of confidence, without first being manipulated. The code gets tweaked until the models get approximately the right answer. After getting the right back- tested answer, could they repeat the performance? At that point, who can say… the input data has been so heavily manipulated to fit the code and vice versa that it’s anyone’s guess.
—————————————————–
“If there isn’t one then why are these other models (which I assume can’t do the prediction) given so much weight if they can’t predict what we know happened(s)?</i?"
_________________________________
Yes, why?
—————————————————
“(I suspect that it’s much harder to do than the climate folks make out and it may even be impossible with the computing technology available.)”
______________________________
You might be surprised by the capabilities of modern computing technology.. It’s been possible for several years for individuals to build a multi- TFLOPS machine for not a whole lot of money; computers which would rival the world’s supercomputers only a couple of decades ago.
The real problem lies in what you put into the computer, in order to get meaningful answers as output.
At this stage of the game, humanity doesn’t know enough about the various influences to our climate to be able to build a reliable climate model, but that isn’t for lack of people trying to understand the process. The major problem holding us back is a failure we all share: we have a hard time accepting the truth of things when it doesn’t fit within our belief system. That’s my take, anyway.
Ps About 6 yrs ago (I think) I built a 1.6+ TFLOPS machine. That clunky old junk pile is now such a slow power- sucking dinosaur that I probably couldn’t even sell the parts out of it on eBay for enough to be worth the postage and it lies forlorn and mostly disassembled, scattered around here someplace.
I don’t understand how throwing a bunch of parameters and formulas into a computer where the formulas do not fully represent nature is considered science.
“Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100″
There’s that doubly ridiculous phrase again. We apparently now have multiple (meaningless) global temperatures.