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.
Yep…. you sum it up perfectly…. “global warming” then “climate change” was all about surface warming. To turn around and explain that it has all gone into the oceans is the equivalent of saying, “Sorry, we were wrong about that”.
Such a settled science.
Steven Mosher says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:01 pm
” …Blog commenters do not get tell policy makers what information assists them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, but we DO get to kick their a$$es out of office and if the government continues to insist on ignoring reality and what is best for the country there is always Defenestration.
What I see missing from this discussion is the realization that the modelers actually, really, totally, unquestioningly, sincerely (if that latter word attaches to their sort of mindset) believe their models are right and the observations are wrong. For them this is not a sarcastic joke – it’s their true belief, however convoluted and irrational and delusional it may be. Their ideology, which they are forbidden by its first and overarching principle to question, says their models are right, so there is no possibility in their minds of the models being wrong – only that which does not comport with the models is wrong. They will most assuredly cling to this belief no matter how much contrary, physical, upside-the-head evidence comes along to refute it. They’ll still claim global warming is the cause when the next ice age descends upon their heads and scrapes away they ivory towers they inhabit.. And obviously they don’t mind at all that 33,000 people died from hypothermia in 2013 in the UK thanks to the carbon policies they promote.
– – –
Calculations of energy with temperature must be converted to Kelvin before usage.
4 C is 277.15 K, then 4.1 C is 277.25
To summarize :
Temperature increase from 277.15 to 277.25 (all in Kelvin).
Chad;
That 33K hypothermia death figure should be used with caution.
I believe that was total UK deaths in the cold months, of which about 5-6K were maybe “excess deaths”.
Further, residents of “temperate” (non-tropical) climes tend to have better coping skills and tolerances for temperature swings. Most hypothermic deaths occur in sub-tropical areas hit with unexpected cold snaps. It’s a lot harder to kill a Brit or German with cold than an Algerian.
If only climate would be the problem. We are governed by power addicts. Agenda 21 Big Brother. We all know it is like that but most don’t want to think or talk about it. Your government never would do things like that. Think again.Those who govern hate freedom because you can’t govern free people. Slavery was never abolished it just changed its appearance.
Steven Mosher says: at February 10, 2014 at 1:01 pm “Suppose I am a policy maker.”
I am supposing from your comments that you are not.
There is a huge difference between using information you can not be sure of and using information that has been proved wrong . You conflate the two in your lecture.
As for your conclusion – “Blog commenters do not get (to) tell policy makers what information assists them.” – speaking as a policy maker I am open to all suggestions via all forms of communication. Certainly “97% of scientists” and other so called experts do not get a monopoly of access based on their record to date.
Don’t be so dismissive Mr Mosher. One person, one voice.
Steven Mosher says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:01 pm
“Suppose I am a policy maker.”
I tried, but was unable to suspend disbelief.
“Policy making is not science. Policy making can be guided by science or informed by science, but in the end it not making hypotheses and predictions. It’s making decisions based on many factors: science, economics, self interest, lobbying, principles, constituents interests, bribes, etc”
Ok, that’s not bad. Then you mess it up with
“Blog commenters do not get tell policy makers what information assists them.”
Reminds me of some advice I was given before I became a policy maker:
“What you need to understand about this game is that there a number of players, but thousands of referees”.
Dear Professor Robert G. Brown,
Thank you for your fine lectures today at 1:32pm and 2:04pm (even though in the latter one you yelled your head off at us through the entire last half (just kidding — I think your request for that close-bold got lost between the change of Mod shifts — and, hey, at least that kept us awake in our first class after lunch). Heh, heh, no doubt, God made that Mod-shift timing happen, for, anyone with your high intelligence needs SOMETHING to keep him or her humble —
#(:))…. yeah, I know you don’t think God exists, that’s one reason why I said it, lol ;).
Anyway, your students are blessed. Thank you for writing so that I could understand what you were saying.
Your grateful student,
Janice
P.S. With all that brainpower, you are quite verbose… . Sometimes, that is NOT a good thing. Here is some advice for you for your Valentine’s Day date this Friday (if you want her to think you are a wonderful fellow, that is — if you don’t care, meh, go ahead and talk!).
Have a lovely time and remember:
“There is a huge difference between using information you cannot be sure of and using information that has been proved wrong“… . (Phil’s Dad at 3:38pm today)
Excellent point, thus, repeated with emphasis.
Phil, you have a dad to be proud of, young man. #(:))
Ta. Just trying to avoid Gail’s defenestration. 😉
I would like to make a confession… I’ve been cheating. I’ve been using Windows Live Writer to compose my comments that contain block quotes, bolding and other decorations. Yes, I’ve been using WYSIWYG software. Look, I’m a computer scientist, and just like how the best barber has the worst hair cut, I just don’t do html well, I’m a C++, C# app developer and not a web guy, or a script kiddy.
Warning, if you use Writer, it will not properly translate your jokes to proper html. By my experience it some how flattens my jokes after submitting :-).
[The mods will refrain from fattening them back up. Mod]
None of the modeling tools can be predictive tools. The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Because of that, no finite set of past states is sufficient to predict future states. This has been known since Edward Lorenz’s paper “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” in 1963. A butterfly can flap his wings in Beijing and change the weather in Omaha. That means you can never predict the weather (or climate) in Omaha until your measurement grid is infinte. When anyone attempts to predict the future from past states, first ask “Is his record of past states finite?” if it is, then he is incompetent or a fraud. See Michael Mann. Lather, rinse repeat.
Dear Don,
The “chaotic” aspect you talk about means that chaotic systems such as weather are not predictable at all, as a matter of principle, beyond relatively short-term horizons. It is not a matter of finite data; it is simply that small changes in such systems create patterns of change over time that are inherently unpredictable. We have a sense of this, now, at the quantum level, and realize that we can work only in probabilities at best — and that’s for the very “simple” world of particle position.
At the global climate level, gross guesses can be made, of course, and that’s what models are trying to do. But a model that gets it about right — with a very low sensitivity of CO2 — would be rejected by the catastrophists before it debuts on the world stage.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Has anyone examined the 4 models (two higher, two lower) closest to the obs to see if they are actually doing something right worth noting? Yes, it could be “blind man’s walk” or “Texas Sharpshooter” on those four. . .but then again, perhaps not.
One odd thing about chaotic nature of weather and climate is that a 10th of a degree can be significant in that it gives you a different trajectory over time. The measured temperature difference increases until it gets to the outside of the envelope, and then dives back into the middle. Two different trajectories initially differing by a 10th of a degree will have wildly different results. You just don’t know which one will be warmer or colder at an arbitrary time in the future. It is Chaos!
“a lot of work”. What Colonel Young often says after having a conversation with Dr. Rush in the show Star Gate Universe.
This is what I am reminded of every time Mosher makes a comment on WUWT.
Walter Allensworth says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:34 pm
“If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.”
How do you know it won’t really matter? Have you done a dynamic energy balance study?
We know that fresh water is densest at 3.98 C, but this does not apply to salt water. It gets denser right to its freezing point at -1.94 C. See:
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/density.html&edu=high
So even if we had a small layer at 4.1 C for a split second at a depth of 1000 m, the extra heat would quickly dissipate so all of the nearby ocean would have the same temperature. Sea water is denser than fresh water at the same temperature, however it is possible that very warm sea water is less dense than cold fresh water, but a change of 0.1 C will not be enough to make any difference. If it did, ocean levels would be rising quickly.
I have to wonder if behind all of these models they can be reduced to nothing more than a random walk with a constant forcing. At least, I can program up a random walk and reproduce these 90 model runs almost exactly. Take white noise, yearly data, bias the mean by 0.03 (CO2 forcing), set sigma to 0.03, then integrate. All you have to do is reduce the forcing in the mid-late 90’s to account for Pinatubo and you can reproduce the entire set almost exactly. Except for Pinatubo its a straight line fit; they aren’t accounting for any periodic/cyclical affects at all.
Pat Kelly says:
February 10, 2014 at 2:33 pm
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…
This is a good question. The answer is because a 5 year mean was plotted and the average of the last 5 years is higher on UAH than the average from 1996 to 2000. See the two graphs below. One is drawn with a mean of 12 months and the other with a mean of 60 months. Note the difference at 1998. Note how the La Ninas on either side of 1998 drag 1998 down. That is why I do not agree with those that say we are cherry picking if we go before 1998 in a trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:60
From one of the “others…”:
Re: “… climate may well be as predictable as are those orbits.” (V.P. at 5:02pm)
That may be.
Prove it.
— no, no, (chuckle) don’t make bald-faced assertions, PROVE it with data and evidence for a causal mechanism.
Note: Saying, “I can prove it, just buy my book,” is not proving anything except your gift for salespersonship. Yes, yes, I remember you said that you will be giving away a lot of copies and that your mission is more important than your sales volume. But, come now, dear V.P., you are still pushing your book… .
Oh, and “But, I know that it is true” won’t work, either.
Re: “No one can answer my questions.” So WHAT? I’ll bet I could come up with hundreds of questions that no one can answer. And the mere fact that they are not answerable would prove exactly: nothing except the obvious — people are not omniscient…. oh, you know somebody who is…. That wouldn’t be somebody who will soon be publishing a book, would it?
V.P. — you are so much fun. Unlike some of the other super-sincere believers in hocus-pocus ideas around here, I have no qualms about teasing you, thus, I do not refrain as I do with them, for I can see that your arrogance is an impenetrable shield to any hurt I might risk causing. So, yeeeeehaw, thank you, Mr. P.!!! This is fun.
Now, tell us some more about that book.
rgbatduke says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:32 pm
……………….
I always look forward to your posts. Clear, concise, and well reasoned. Your students are indeed fortunate.
Thank you.
Dear Janice. Do you realize how much of my valuable time has been wasted with some of your links? Do you not realize the addictive power Happy Hamster Dance videos have? When I finally snapped out of my happy hamster dance induced transitory state, I realized that I had just spent the previous couple of hours watching blooper out-takes from Star trek Enterprise. How I went from hamsters to Tribbles I’ll never know. 🙂 “where they will be no Tribble at all”, still my favorite line.
Janice says: “@Gary Young Mount — I have a software engineer brother (thus, I realize how highly intelligent you are). I”
Can I email your comment to friends and acquaintances of mine ?
V.P. : I’m adding you to my list of “a lot of work” follow up.
Dr. Robert Brown (rgbatduke) I don’t know how to express my appreciation to you for your participation in the discussions here at WUWT other than to say Thank You.
I am here by choice and only have knowledge to gain. That is my only motivation. I follow your comments very closely and often re-read carefully to make sure I haven’t missed anything. You provide the “brain candy” that I am here for. I’m sure many others feel the same way.
So again let me say Thank You.
Brian H says:
February 10, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Chad;
That 33K hypothermia death figure should be used with caution….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those were EXCESS winter deaths beyond those expected from normal causes.
Rumage rumage…mumble…
Aahh
…the latest Office of National Statistics figures show that there were 25,700 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in winter 2010.
Winter deaths rose by almost a third in 2012-13 – Age UK describes 30,000 excess winter deaths as shameful and urges government action on energy bills
2013 – About 2,000 extra deaths were registered in just the first two weeks of March compared with the average for the same period over the past five years. ‘An increase in fuel costs and the extended winter means that more people are going to suffer, and more will be unable to afford to eat and heat their homes. It’s a scary prospect.’
“If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.”
You say that now, but when it wakes up Godzilla, you’ll change your tune.