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.
I know I am late to this thread, but I have to respond to Steve Mosher’s comments about policy makers. Most policy makers today seek to find the “science” which supports their political agenda and objectives. They have no consideration other than winning a political battle. This means that there can be no science based on models, it has to be based on empirical data that has been verified and validated. Your statement that policy makers are free to choose the model they desire is probably the most telling statement ever made by a person purporting to be a scientist. Shame on you.
Phil’s Dad says: @ur momisugly February 10, 2014 at 4:07 pm
Ta. Just trying to avoid Gail’s defenestration. 😉
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just pass that advice on to other policy makers. please
(Now I have to clean off my monitor again)
Policy makers are in a hurry and tend to follow the loudest person with the most defined argument. They don’t have time or inclination to dig for the truth. Just get on E span and watch the congressional committees at work. A group of policy makers has an IQ lower then the lowest member of the Group.
The Climate science and climate policy makers were done with their work before Blog writers had any chance for input. We are merely pointing out their error and lies. pg
Michael, I think Dr. Spencer may have ‘smoothed’ , or otherwise processed, the observed data to some extent for presentation purposes. For example, if you plot the same UAH satellite data (which he is the lead scientist for) with a 12-month, or 60-month smoothing you can get quite different looking graphs. In this way, the data from before 15 years ago will visually appear to influence the more recent data. Thus:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:60/plot/uah/mean:12
The alternative satellite data (RSS) shows a cooler recent trend than UAH.
You’d need to ask him exactly what he did, but Dr Spencer clearly doesn’t feel much pressure to present his data with a blatant bias towards his expressed opinions, unlike many of his critics.
RoHa says:
February 10, 2014 at 6:05 pm
“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.
How long will it take to make a difference? The 0.1 took 60 years assuming the numbers are right. So to raise the ocean to the average air temperature of 15 C would take over 6000 years. There are not that many hydrocarbons for us to do that. Besides, technology will advance. Keep in mind that the stone age did not end because Earth ran out of stones.
michaelwonders says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:08 pm
I appreciate the honestly of this graph. Though many have said there has been no increase in temperature in the last 15 years, this graph actually shows differently, no?
————————————————
I’m no expert Michael, but my guess is it is because the graph plots the global temperature average, running 5 year mean, which is not the same thing as a plot of the 15 year global annual temperature trend line.
In defense of Mosher, he is on target. No question…..
However, he also exposes a serious issue in of its own.
Policy makers have to tune in, if you will.
They have been subjected to such officially funded slanted science over so long, reality vs modeling comparisons are a big blow to such policy. They know where their bread is buttered.
They know also when the cards of ” fact” are stacked against them.
Just sayin, you gotta wonder what folks like Mosher and Stokes see standing on their opposite shoulders and who they listen to. Devils and Angels look alike sometimes…….
My compliments to Dr. Spencer!
I almost forgot what I wanted to post after reading the comments. My Bad
Thank you for doing what you do!
It is appreciated and is too often left unsaid……
The Scientific Method
1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.
2. Develop a hypothesis that possibly explains the phenomenon.
3. Perform a test in an attempt to disprove or invalidate the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven, return to steps 1 and 2.
4. A hypothesis that stubbornly refuses to be invalidated may be correct. Continue testing.
The Scientific Computer Modeling Method
1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.
2. Develop a computer model that mimics the behavior of the phenomenon.
3. Select observations that conform to the model predictions and dismiss observations as of inadequate quality that conflict with the computer model.
4. In instances where all of the observations conflict with the model, “refine” the model with fudge factors to give a better match with pesky facts. Assert that these factors reveal fundamental processes previously unknown in association with the phenomenon. Under no circumstances willingly reveal your complete data sets, methods, or computer codes.
5. Upon achieving a model of incomprehensible complexity that still somewhat resembles the phenomenon, begin to issue to the popular media dire predictions of catastrophe that will occur as far in the future as possible, at least beyond your professional lifetime.
6. Continue to “refine” the model in order to maximize funding and the awarding of Nobel Prizes.
7. Dismiss as unqualified, ignorant, and conspiracy theorists all who offer criticisms of the model.
Repeat steps 3 through 7 indefinitely.
michaelwonders says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:08 pm
Though many have said there has been no increase in temperature in the last 15 years, this graph actually shows differently, no?
When that statement was made, it applied from 1998 to 2012 on HadCRUT4 for statistically significant warming. Now it would be 16 years from 1998 to 2013. In general, there are two additional things that need to be known. Namely which data set is used and are we talking about no warming or no statistically significant warming? See my latest post for the latest numbers here for a number of sets:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/another-year-another-nail-in-the-cagw-coffin-now-includes-december-data/
richardscourtney says:
February 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Ole – El Torero!
A gracefully artful sweep of the linguistic cape….
Mr. Gary Mount, of course you may quote me on that, and LOUDLY, too! And I’ll even add something to it here: “Gary Mount — I have a software engineer brother (thus, I realize how highly intelligent you are). In fact, I’ve known several software engineers and they are ALL not only super-intelligent, but their intelligence is broad as well as deep. As a class, they are among the finest thinkers I know, combining impeccable global logic and analogizing with mastery of more linear, technical, subject matter. They also, with only a few exceptions (and all but a few of these make up for their social obtuseness with their adorably geeky personalities), are remarkably helpful, kindhearted, FUN, people.
How’s that? #(:))
“WASTE” your time?!!! I — beg — your — pardon. lol — glad you had fun (I think?) with the Hampster Dance Song — I LOVE IT. “Yeeeeeeehaww!” Makes me happy every time I hear it.
If you can stand to “waste” some more of your time, here is the…
Best Dance Song — Evah! — “Sing, Sing, Sing” (Benny Goodman)
(2nd is “Mony, Mony” by Billy Idol, but that’s just for the music; lyrics are too raunchy to post — I just try to ignore them and DANCE!!!)
Hint (to prevent another Star Trek, oh, brother!, disaster): Play the above tune the next time you have to sweep. You will sweep faster (which will make up for all the time “wasted” dancing with the broom) and it will keep you occupied so you won’t load and watch The Trouble with Tribbles (or whatever, lol).
#(:))
**************************************
Speaking of wasting time, Mr. V. P., I think I’d better refrain from any further repartee, delightful as it has been; I’ve already wasted enough of the other commenters’ time today. Thanks for getting back to me, though. Good luck with that book!
To allay any concerns about sexism, I called V. P. “Mr.” based on the research by a commenter recently that strongly indicated that V.P. is a “Mr. ___ ” (I’ve forgotten the name). V.P.’s response to this was not to deny it but to say something like, “You would be better served sticking to the main topic, here… .”
Okay, this thread is about kaput, so, V.P., I will answer your question (of 6:42pm):
No.
@ur momisugly Werner Brozek
“How long will it take to make a difference?”
Not long, I would imagine. Godzilla seems pretty sensitive to environmental changes.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067148
“Besides, technology will advance. Keep in mind that the stone age did not end because Earth ran out of stones.”
I should hope so. Throwing stones isn’t going to be much use against a 100 meter tall dinosaur with radioactive breath.
The person who gets to decide if a wrong model is still useful is NOT a blog commenter.
The person who gets to decide is a policy maker.
Suppose I am a policy maker. 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
As a policy maker I am well within my rights to look at model that is biased high and STILL USE IT
Steven
The policy maker seeks input from “experts” as part of the many variables of public policy. There are politicians (Albert Gore for example), who will take an expert opinion and use that as a bludgeon against the body politic as a means to gain power. This is no different than public policy makers using studies about smoking and cancer as a means to power by regulating and suing tobacco companies (and getting on television to proclaim how concerned they are about the public). These are called appeals to authority and that appeal is used as the basis for their crusade.
Thus any public policy maker who uses wrong science as a basis for implementing public policy is building a house on sand. This is especially the case when it becomes obvious that the authority was wrong. It erodes public confidence in both science AND public policy. It gets worse as the politician does not want to be seen as wrong and will persist in defending (and voting for) stupid policy long after everyone in the real world has seen its failure (ACA as another example).
This is where we are at today. AGW was and still is being used as a bludgeon by the leftist hippy generation as a means to help force the deindustrialization of the world and plant flowers, build solar panels and wind turbines and bio fuels (another stupid public policy driven by an appeal to authority). Since the appeal to authority was to NASA and climate scientists it was especially pernicious
So we have a double whammy, public policy built as an appeal to authority that was wrong, and then a further wrong solution which was fed to the climate scientists by the politicians whereupon they gleefully spouted solar panels and wind turbines as their hippy generation masters wanted. We have wasted half a generation now on this stupid policy while not investing in future power sources that are needed to support a world of nine billion humans.
A politician may have a right to use a wrong appeal to authority, but the consequences both near and far term may be dire to us all.
M Courtney says:
February 10, 2014 at 2:55 pm
Many graphs lie but the two right-wingers did spot a new way to lie with graphs. That needed to be highlighted.
————————
That was a bit ironic though, in the way the discovery of the slanted 0 line is first observed. The main narrator carries on for half of the video without taking note of the mispositioned zero line. Then his seated companion brings attention to it. I found that a bit amusing. I would have started the presentation by first pointing to that discrepancy. The two of them could have used more rehearsing. The flow of their presentation was somewhat stiff and disjointed to my mind.
[snip – more slayers junk – mod]
Janice Moore says:
February 10, 2014 at 5:12 pm
Full moon coming up. Will that affect your calculations?
———————————————————————-
It usually affects mine!!!
Janice Moore says:
February 10, 2014 at 5:30 pm
—————————————-
Someone else might be feeling a bit of the moon!
Funny, I was also influenced to make a comment on this new theorist….http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/06/satellites-show-no-global-warming-for-17-years-5-months/#comment-1564553
OT, but in response to Janice Moore @ur momisugly 7:59 (Feb, 10)
Great clip and I love Benny Goodman, especially with Gene Kruppa on the drums. But the question remains, who was better, Gene Kruppa or Buddy Rich (the Andrew Sisters, Artie Shaw, Harry James, to name but a few)?
Enjoy;
Oops. Seems to be a malfunction here (like climate models).
Try again.
Forget that.
Youtube Buddy Rich stick trick solo performance. Hope that works.
The people who tried to hijack science with the entire voodoo load of crap – it’s not even science it’s a hodgepodge of schemes to make global temperature look warmer and it’s well known how it happens, willful, public employee fraud –
have looted scientific reality into dogma ginned up in government ”press release” alarm industry feeding ladles.
There’s no ”science” when people can’t predict which way a thermometer will go.
No matter how many public employees, or alarm industry hacks say there is.
If there was they wouldn’t lock up like deer in headlights at the mention you know which way a thermometer moves and you’ll take the pepsi challenge with their voodoo on the spot.
============================
Roy Tucker says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:36 pm
The Scientific Method
1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.
2. Develop a hypothesis that possibly explains the phenomenon.
3. Perform a test in an attempt to disprove or invalidate the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven, return to steps 1 and 2.
4. A hypothesis that stubbornly refuses to be invalidated may be correct. Continue testing.
The Scientific Computer Modeling Method
1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.
2. Develop a computer model that mimics the behavior of the phenomenon.
3. Select observations that conform to the model predictions and dismiss observations as of inadequate quality that conflict with the computer model.
4. In instances where all of the observations conflict with the model, “refine” the model with fudge factors to give a better match with pesky facts. Assert that these factors reveal fundamental processes previously unknown in association with the phenomenon. Under no circumstances willingly reveal your complete data sets, methods, or computer codes.
5. Upon achieving a model of incomprehensible complexity that still somewhat resembles the phenomenon, begin to issue to the popular media dire predictions of catastrophe that will occur as far in the future as possible, at least beyond your professional lifetime.
6. Continue to “refine” the model in order to maximize funding and the awarding of Nobel Prizes.
7. Dismiss as unqualified, ignorant, and conspiracy theorists all who offer criticisms of the model.
Repeat steps 3 through 7 indefinitely.
Looks like my post last night didn’t make it through the WUWT Hypocrisy Filter. Shame, but not surprising.