Note: This is a repost from Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog entry last Friday. I’ve done so because it needs the wide distribution that WUWT can offer. The one graph he has produced (see below) says it all. I suggest readers use their social media tools to share this far and wide. – Anthony
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.
These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.
I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):
Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.
And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.
Yet, that is the direction we are heading.
And even if the extra energy is being stored in the deep ocean (if you have faith in long-term measured warming trends of thousandths or hundredths of a degree), I say “great!”. Because that extra heat is in the form of a tiny temperature change spread throughout an unimaginably large heat sink, which can never have an appreciable effect on future surface climate.
If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ah, but Dr. Roy All of those climate models predict; excuse me; project, that the warming will continue on apace till 2030. Maybe longer, if they can continue to get grant funding to keep on modeling way out there; despite Mother Gaia’s refusal to keep up with them.
Steven Mosher says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Blog commenters do not get tell policy makers what information assists them.
————————————————————————————————
Commenters can certainly speak their mind, though, and hope that their message is heard.
Your example of the Japanese town saved by the building of a flood barrier is a poor example in one respect. There was historical evidence for the lurking danger. That mayor did not make his decisions to build a flood barrier from data derived from models. Not that I presume to know what he actually based his decision on, but there are historical markers set back into the hills that show the height of a past tsunami event. Those inscribed markers were placed there as future warning for the inhabitants of the area, hundreds of years before the Great Tohuko Quake and Tsunami. The fault then lies with the policy makers for not knowing their own history. The policy makers probably relied on models, and of course on the money interests involved with the building of the reactors.
Paul Pierett says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm
“How many people know England lost 30,000 elderly to last winter’s cold? There is Socialism for you.”
———————————————
Britain does not have a Socialist government. It has a Conservative-led coalition government. How much the previous New Labour governments were socialist is debatable but in any case ALL parties who have formed, or are likely in the near future to form, a government bought into CAGW wholesale, voted for insane “environmental” policies, and all bear the responsibility.
Throwing around inaccuracies doesn’t help the fight against CAGW.
Guilty parties shouldn’t be let off the hook because they aren’t Socialist either.
Thanks for the elaboration!
After reading your comments in the other thread, the light bulb goes on and you know what to look for in that pile of spaghetti. As I commented above, even a naive casual observer can easily see that the model plots in no way correspond to the real world once they understand what they should be looking for.
I wish I had the skills to assist you with that project you outlined, but do, not so have to settle for urging people to make graphs and visual aids that would communicate your line of reasoning effectively and more easily show how awful the models are to the casual non-statistically educated observer. Most people know they smell a dead rat but have no clue where to look for it.
You have certainly helped open a new avenue of discussion with my pro-AGW friends. I recently tried to point out to one of them that the real data is literally falling out the bottom of even the best case lower limit of the envelope defined by that assembly of plots. Unfortunately he is one of those folks that thinks that since the guys who made the plots have phd’s Their judgement is far superior my common sense observation that even a blind rat would find the cheese occasionally. When all the blind rats are heading away from the cheese you know something is wrong.
I submit that your line of attack would also be a good basis for the legal presumption of malicious intent and intentional fraud. It is a bit much to presume that a large number of well educated scholars all are clearly producing nonsense data that violates good statistical practice and common testing methods used in other branches of science to validate models without begining to ponder if it is intentional or they all without exception are profoundly incompetent.
You literally have to be very very lucky to be that bad at projecting future climate, since even a simple persistence model with a bit of noise, out scores their projections by a few orders of magnitude.
Would someone mind please explaining what the black data line represents?
I’m not certain, but it is very probably the so called MultiModel Ensemble mean, the MME mean. This mean is constructed by a simple arithmetic average of the 36 equally weighted CMIP5 models, without regard to whether or not the model in question has failed a hypothesis test when compared to the real world data, without regard to whether or not the model result being averaged represents 100 or more individual model runs or 10 or less model runs (the models are generally run many times for perturbations of their initial conditions and/or parameters, but are not all run the same number of times to generate their “mean behavior” that is averaged with equal weight into the MME mean, and without regard to the fact that whole families of CMIP5 models share actual code and/or are descended from common code “ancestors” and hence could easily share biases or even occult undiscovered numerical errors.
That is, the actual data isn’t independent, it isn’t selected from a common distribution of “valid climate models”, it isn’t equally precise, and it is corrupted by the inclusion of models that produce a “predicted” warming of around 0.5 to 0.6 C over the last 17 years where no warming at all occurred (where any reasonable person might have said “uh-uh, should just leave that one out as it is almost certainly broken as all hell” out of sheer common sense, if not a proper hypothesis test in statistics) but it is then turned into a straight arithmetic average anyway and used as if it is some sort of Gaussian mean.
The MME appears to be the basis for AR5’s general claims for climate sensitivity, and for the “confidence” placed in its various intonings of disaster. Dr. Spencer’s post above is yet another cry in the statistics-ignorant wilderness for some sort of sanity to prevail and for the entire statistical analysis chapter of AR5 to be overturned for the reasons that very chapter explains and then ignores in such a way that they propagate back to a rewritten Summary for Policy Makers that makes it perfectly clear that at this particular moment we have no good idea of what the climate sensitivity really is, what the temperature in 2100 will be assuming doubled CO_2, but that it is likely to be somewhere between 0C higher and 3 C higher, most likely well under 2 C higher. To do any better requires fixing the broken, failed GCMs so that they can (for starters) correctly represent the temperature variations of HADCRUT4 in the interval from 1900 to the present, including both the stretch of strong natural warming in the first half of the 20th century and the last 17 years with little to no warming at all.
Is there anyone that can “doubt” that a model that correctly represents these two critical intervals will a) ascribe, as Roy notes, a lot more warming to natural variation and consequently a lot less to CO_2 — absolutely necessary to fit the 1900 to 1950 interval, for example; and b) drop any sort of collective estimation of climate sensitivity by a factor of 2 or more?
Dearest Mod,
Please close after the word warming. That hopefully will do it, although pesky tags are easy to miss.
As for GASTA vs GMST, I’m trying to adhere to the terminology used in AR5 for comparison purposes, although I’m not doing it very well. In AR5 they call it the Global Mean Air Surface Temperature (Anomaly), which would be GMASTA or something equally horrid.
Sigh.
rgb
Hang on isn’t the deep ocean at 4.0c because if it were warmer or cooler it would rise as it got lighter? so the heat aint in the deep ocean is it?
@ur momisugly richardscourtney says:
– I just think WUTW should refrain from publishing stuff that confuses people who have difficulty understanding a simple graph and which is made by people who clearly have difficulty understanding a simple graph….
LoL!
If WUTW has a purpose, then surely is it to point out the weaknesses of the AGW argument, which isn’t helped by an ‘any old rubbish’ goes mindset, IMO
http://nollyprott.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/green-holocaust-tidied-up-after-first-publication-june-2012/
WUWT that is…
Silly me, but haven’t we heard repeatedly that 1998 was the hottest year on record? So then why doesn’t this chart show just that? just wondering…
To summarize this:
1) All models are wrong, but some are useful (George Box)
2) Mistakes were made, but not by me (Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson’s )
3) The numbers tell the tale
NotTheAussiePhilM:
Your post at February 10, 2014 at 2:33 pm misleads by seeming to quote me but is stating your words.
I find it difficult to accept that such a misleading layout was an accident when conducted by a self-proclaimed superior mind.
Rochard
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
– you’re right
– I apologise profusely for my mistake!
– if I could, I would go back & correct it!
NotTheAussiePhilM says at February 10, 2014 at 1:07 pm…
That post made a valuable point that added to the world’s knowledge.
It showed a new way to lie with graphs.
Many graphs lie but the two right-wingers did spot a new way to lie with graphs. That needed to be highlighted.
Specifically, the X-axis was tilted up from the horizontal so as upward trends appeared emphasised. That isn’t just bad presentation as they put the graph next to a globe (a circle) so as the Y-axis “appeared” to be vertical by an optical illusion.
The post showed a new way that people can deceive.
It was worthwhile.
David in Texas says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:51 pm
Ok, I have to ask. Why does the graph being in 1983, but the label says “(’79-2013)”? Anyone?
Larry Ledwick says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Go to Roy’s site and look at the current “Latest Global Temps” chart. Note where the data are for 1979 through 1983. These are a bit below the 1981-2010 line (black, horizontal). The chart at the top of this post sets the horizontal line at the 1979-’83 average and then shows models and temperature from there. Neither the charts nor the intended use thereof are the same. The purpose of the one here is to accompany a critique of climate models. If you just want to look at 34 years of temperature data go to Roy’s site.
I have the chart from Dr. Spencer’s site open. I can take another window and use the top as a straight-edge and put it along the top of the red line (13 month average). The right end of the red line ends about mid-2013. Going back in time, say to mid-2002, there is almost no slope to the temperatures. If you go back more — at mid-1999 then the slope is up, but at mid-1998 to now, the slope is down. Respectively then, we get flat, up, and down for 11, 14, and 15 years (approximately). So, is the temperature going up, down, or sideways?
Steven Mosher says (February 10, 2014 at 1:01 pm): “Blog commenters do not get tell policy makers what information assists them.”
Actually they do, but the “policy makers” (PMs) need not listen. The PMs may, in fact, cite ouija board, tarot card, and chicken entrail results to justify the decisions they already prefer.
In fact, that’s basically what they’ve been doing…
@Aussie Phil2.33
So WUWT should not publish any of the consensus climate science?
Or just anything that confuses you?
John F. Hultquist says (February 10, 2014 at 2:55 pm): “Respectively then, we get flat, up, and down for 11, 14, and 15 years (approximately). So, is the temperature going up, down, or sideways?”
Yes.
You’re welcome. 🙂
re: Michael Wonders. Using HadCrut4 data; the rate of warming from 1976 to 2007 was +0.019°C/yr. There has been no warming since 2007, likely since 2001 and even since 1997… The rate of the previous ~34yr warming cycle (1911-1945) was 0.014°C/yr. Prior to that GSTA decreased by 0.008°C/yr from 1879 to 1911. Between 1945 and 1976, GSTAs decreased by 0.002°C/yr (not rounded figures to show similarities). Please note the ~30+yr periods of well-documented 60 yr natural cycles, as well as the fact that the warming in the previous warming cycle was only 0.005C/yr more (well within measurement error) than the one prior.
Assuming linear data, applying linear regression through the entire HadCrut4 data set (1850 till now) produces a slope of 0.005C/yr. The IPCC predicts that by 2100 GSTAs are on average 1.2 to 3.5C higher than what they are now, based on different CO2 emission scenarios. That would require unabated/continuous (!!) warming of 0.01-0.04C/yr starting today. The lower warming rate is about the same as what was experienced in the previous two warming periods. Nothing unusual in other terms. But it does also require unabated warming starting today, whereas the data record clearly shows 30+ yr long periods of alternating warming and cooling; of which the Earth is likely now in a cooling period. So the subsequent warming periods need to become even warmer… However, and in addition, these “needed*” warming rates are also 3.0-8.5x higher than the average warming the earth has experienced over the past 160+yrs… Does that make any sense? In all honesty; the numbers really suggest not, and that these predictions don’t make all that much sense. There is neither no president for it, even with CO2 levels now ~120ppm (40+%!!!) higher than in pre-industrial times… Given the now well-document “pause in global warming” since the early 2000s, likely lasting till the late 2020s, early 2030s, based on know natural cycles, these predictions by the IPCC’s computer models become even more erroneous.
* needed in the sense of getting the GSTAs to the by the IPCC predicted levels by 2100
@ur momisugly John Robertson
– I’m NOTTheAussiePhilM
WUWT shouldn’t publish nonsense, IMHO…
😉
Paul Pierett says: @ur momisugly February 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm
The politics and Press are shameful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it is.
You forgot these horrors. These people have even less resources that the UK, EU or the USA:
February 10, 2010 – Mongolia: The Disaster You Haven’t Heard Of
tens of thousands of people, and millions of animals, are right now in a daily struggle between life and death, and many have already lost. I’m speaking of our brothers and sisters — two- and four-legged — caught in the most catastrophic winter the country of Mongolia has seen in at least 30 years…. As of this writing, Mongolian and international aid agencies estimate that more than 2 million domestic animals have perished so far in this dzud. Ten to twelve million died in the last disastrous episode ten years ago, and this dzud is regarded as far worse. Some fear that up to 20 million animals — half of Mongolia’s total herd — may succumb before tolerable weather arrives in late May.
And it happened again a short three years later:
February 26, 2013 – Tibetan nomads in Ladakh call out for help, Thousands of livestock perish
And this February in a different part of China
February 9, 2014 China on blizzard alert – Snowstorms kill livestock, disrupt lives
Continuous snowstorms in northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region have killed more than 300 livestock
South America is not immune either:
September 2013: More than 25 000 animals killed in southern Peru, Drugs sent to combat illnesses caused by cold and snow – “After their livestock died, I am afraid that people are going to die now if this bitter cold continues,” says reader Argiris Diamantis. “Many people are already sick, 500 kg of medicines is being sent to them.”
October 2013: Chile – One billion dollars damage to fruit crops – Worst cold spell in 80 years hammers Chile fruit crops
October 1 2013: Argentina – 2,200 cattle die in snowstorm
Walter Allensworth:
Your post at February 10, 2014 at 12:34 pm
Further to richardscourtney’s mild criticism of your post I would ask you to consider this theory of mine.
I believe that the reason the deep oceans have temperatures of 4.0 deg. C is that sea water gets to it’s maximum density at that temperature. The water with the greatest density sinks to the bottom. This in turn means that there is sea water at both higher and LOWER temperatures above that densest base layer,.particularly in the polar regions which have substantial quantities of (sub 4.0 deg. C) water to feed levels above the base layer, and possibly across all oceans at all latitudes, fed by the ocean currents whose circulation passes near the polar regions.
This colder water is thus nearer the ocean surface and the source of heat, so it’s warming will take precedence over the warmer water below it simply because any heat penetrating that far down will meet the colder water first.
I submit that this unconsidered heat sink (the sub 4.0 deg. C water layer) above the base layer is sufficient to absorb all the energy ascribed by warmistas to have entered the deep oceans and all that will result is an increase in the depth of the 4.0 deg.C base layer.as colder water above it warms up to that temperature.
I will undertake to explore this theory by computer modelling if any government funding is available?
(sarc)
Paul Watkinson.
“If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.”
Won’t you think of saving poor Nemo, if it’s not the grandkiddies?
The deep ocean is not “4.0” or “4.1” °C. That “densest temperature” applies only to fresh water, preferably distilled. Saltwater is denser “all the way down” to sub-0 temps, and denser than 4°C freshwater. The very deepest trenches tend to fill with the saltiest, coldest water, streaming off the Antarctic as surface freezing dumps salt as sea ice forms.