Over the past few months, there have been a number of articles about how the climate science community could have presented their message differently, or responded differently, so that they could have avoided the problem they’re now facing with the halt in global warming. Example: the problems with communications by climate scientists to the public were the subject of a recent editorial, and linked webpages, at Nature Climate Change titled Scientist communicators. In reading it, you’ll find the editorial is really nothing more than a rephrasing of manmade-global-warming dogma.
One of the climate science community’s primary problems was a very basic message…an intentionally misleading message. That is, it wasn’t how it was communicated; it was the message itself. I ran across that message again as I was searching for links for a chapter on atmospheric temperatures for my upcoming book The Oceans Ate My Global Warming. It appeared on the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) Climate Analysis webpage. That webpage includes data that runs through 2013 in many cases, so it’s relatively new. Under the heading of TROPOSPERIC TEMPERATURE, RSS write (my boldface):
Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:
- Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
- Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
- The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.
The message from the climate science community has been and continues to be:
- If climate models are not forced by manmade greenhouse gases, then the models cannot simulate the warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century, and
- If climate models are forced by manmade greenhouse gases, then the models can simulate the warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century,
- Both of which lead to the stated conclusion that only manmade greenhouse gases can explain the observed warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century.
IPCC 4th ASSESSMENT REPORT
The IPCC was blatant in their presentation of that misleading message in the 4th Assessment Report. It appeared in the AR4 Summary for Policymakers. The fourth bullet-pointed paragraph on their page 10 reads (my boldface):
It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM.4). The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing. The ability of coupled climate models to simulate the observed temperature evolution on each of six continents provides stronger evidence of human influence on climate than was available in the TAR. {3.2, 9.4}
Figure SPM.4 from AR4 is presented as my Figure 1. 
Figure 1 (Figure SPM.4 from AR4)
They then further reinforced that message with their Figure 9.5 of AR4’s Chapter 9. The accompanying text, under the heading of “9.4.1.2 Simulations of the 20th Century” reads:
Figure 9.5 shows that simulations that incorporate anthropogenic forcings, including increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and the effects of aerosols, and that also incorporate natural external forcings provide a consistent explanation of the observed temperature record, whereas simulations that include only natural forcings do not simulate the warming observed over the last three decades.
Figure 9.5 from AR4 is presented as my Figure 2. 
Figure 2 (AR4 Figure 9.5)
IPCC 5th ASSESSMENT REPORT
The IPCC continued with their misleading presentation of climate models (with and without anthropogenic forcings) in AR5. It was presented as Figure TS.9 on page 60 of the Full Working Group 1 AR5 Report (Caution 357MB). The IPCC writes:
Observed GMST anomalies relative to 1880–1919 in recent years lie well outside the range of GMST anomalies in CMIP5 simulations with natural forcing only, but are consistent with the ensemble of CMIP5 simulations including both anthropogenic and natural forcing (Figure TS.9) even though some individual models overestimate the warming trend, while others underestimate it. Simulations with WMGHG changes only, and no aerosol changes, generally exhibit stronger warming than has been observed (Figure TS.9). Observed temperature trends over the period 1951–2010, which are characterized by warming over most of the globe with the most intense warming over the NH continents, are, at most observed locations, consistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including anthropogenic and natural forcings and inconsistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including natural forcings only. A number of studies have investigated the effects of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) on GMST. Although some studies find a significant role for the AMO in driving multi-decadal variability in GMST, the AMO exhibited little trend over the period 1951–2010 on which the current assessments are based, and the AMO is assessed with high confidence to have made little contribution to the GMST trend between 1951 and 2010 (considerably less than 0.1°C). {2.4, 9.8.1, 10.3; FAQ 9.1}
My Figure 3 is the IPCC Figure TS.9 from AR5. 
Figure 3 (AR5 Figure TS.9)
Then the IPCC added a new wrinkle…they shifted focus. Instead of stating that the warming is “only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing”, they use the misleading model comparisons as proof that the “human influence has been detected”.
The Summary for Policymakers for their 5th Assessment Report (AR5) reads:
D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}
Their Figure SPM.6 from AR5 is presented as my Figure 4. 
Figure 4 (Figure SPM.6 from AR5)
The IPCC continues on page 74 of the full AR5 WG1 report. The simulations with anthropogenic and natural forcings are described as “emerging anthropogenic and natural signals”, while simulations with only natural forcings are being described as “the alternative hypothesis of just natural variations”:
The coherence of observed changes with simulations of anthropogenic and natural forcing in the physical system is remarkable (Figure TS.12), particularly for temperature-related variables. Surface temperature and ocean heat content show emerging anthropogenic and natural signals in both records, and a clear separation from the alternative hypothesis of just natural variations. These signals do not appear just in the global means, but also appear at regional scales on continents and in ocean basins in each of these variables. Sea ice extent emerges clearly from the range of internal variability for the Arctic. At sub-continental scales human influence is likely to have substantially increased the probability of occurrence of heat waves in some locations. {Table 10.1}
My Figure 5 is AR5 Figure TS.12. 
Figure 5 (Figure TS.12 from AR5)
The IPCC then presents a series of similar graphs on page 930 in their Figure 10.21, and continues with their misrepresentation of climate model capabilities. On page 927, under the heading of “10.9.2 Whole Climate System”, they write (my boldface), again using the “emerging anthropogenic and natural signals” and “alternative hypothesis of just natural variations”:
To demonstrate how observed changes across the climate system can be understood in terms of natural and anthropogenic causes Figure 10.21 compares observed and modelled changes in the atmosphere, ocean and cryosphere. The instrumental records associated with each element of the climate system are generally independent (see FAQ 2.1), and consequently joint interpretations across observations from the main components of the climate system increases the confidence to higher levels than from any single study or component of the climate system. The ability of climate models to replicate observed changes (to within internal variability) across a wide suite of climate indicators also builds confidence in the capacity of the models to simulate the Earth’s climate.
The coherence of observed changes for the variables shown in Figure 10.21 with climate model simulations that include anthropogenic and natural forcing is remarkable. Surface temperatures over land, SSTs and ocean heat content changes show emerging anthropogenic and natural signals with a clear separation between the observed changes and the alternative hypothesis of just natural variations (Figure 10.21, Global panels). These signals appear not just in the global means, but also at continental and ocean basin scales in these variables. Sea ice emerges strongly from the range expected from natural variability for the Arctic and Antarctica remains broadly within the range of natural variability consistent with expectations from model simulations including anthropogenic forcings.
My Figure 6 is the IPCC’s Figure 10.21 from AR5. 
Figure 6 (Figure 10.21 from AR5)
The IPCC must like those model-data comparisons, because they certainly do like to offer variations of them.
Unfortunately for the IPCC, the models they show with only natural forcings (the blue curves) do not present natural variability. The climate models employed by the IPCC cannot simulate naturally occurring, coupled, ocean-atmosphere processes that cause multidecadal variations in surface temperatures. These variations are most evident in the surface temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere, and they are driven by the naturally occurring multidecadal variations in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) and the naturally occurring multidecadal variations in North Pacific sea surface temperatures (not represented by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation/PDO data). See the post Multidecadal Variations and Sea Surface Temperature Reconstructions.
Figures 7 and 8 are model-data comparisons for the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific and the North Atlantic for the period of Jan 1870 to Feb 2014. The model outputs and data have been detrended. The models are represented by the multi-model ensemble-member mean of the CMIP5-archived model simulations of sea surface temperature for the respective ocean basins. Those are the models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. The model mean represents the forced-component of the climate models, or, in other words, the model mean represents how the sea surface temperatures would vary if they varied in response to the anthropogenic and natural forcings used to drive the climate models. (For further information about that topic, see the post On the Use of the Multi-Model Mean.) The data is the ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data used by GISS and NCDC in their global land+sea surface temperature products. The detrended data and model outputs have been smoothed with 61-month running-average filters to minimize the annual variations, thereby highlighting the decadal and multidecadal variations.
As illustrated, the forced component of the models (the model mean) fails to produce the multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans. This indicates the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific and North Atlantic are capable of varying over decadal and multidecadal timeframes without being forced to do so by manmade greenhouse gases and aerosols. 
Figure 7
# # # # 
Figure 8
Keeping in mind that we’re looking at detrended data, the models do not simulate the cooling that took place from the late-1800s to the 1910s, and they failed to simulate the warming from the 1910s to the early-1940s. Likewise, the models failed to simulate the cooling from the early-1940s to the mid-1970s, and they do a poor job of simulating the warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century…even though the models are tuned to the late warming period. (See Mauritsen, et al. (2012) Tuning the Climate of a Global Model [paywalled]. A preprint edition is here.)
It’s hard to imagine how the IPCC can claim that the climate models with only natural forcings could somehow represent “the alternative hypothesis of just natural variations”, when the models with natural and anthropogenic forcings cannot simulate the “natural variations”.
Let’s return to the quote from the Technical Summary about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. They wrote:
A number of studies have investigated the effects of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) on GMST. Although some studies find a significant role for the AMO in driving multi-decadal variability in GMST, the AMO exhibited little trend over the period 1951–2010 on which the current assessments are based, and the AMO is assessed with high confidence to have made little contribution to the GMST trend between 1951 and 2010 (considerably less than 0.1°C). {2.4, 9.8.1, 10.3; FAQ 9.1}
First, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is represented by detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies, using the coordinates of 0-70N, 80W-0. Refer again to the model-data comparison in Figure 8.
Second, it’s of little importance if the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation contributed little to the global mean surface temperature from 1951-2010. What is important is that the IPCC is overlooking the fact that they tuned their models to naturally occurring upswings in the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and extended their projections from those upswings…without considering the likelihood that the upswings would be followed by a naturally occurring downturns in the surface temperatures of both basins. In other words, they did not tune the models to the long-term trends of the Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature datasets, which account for the multidecadal variations; they tuned the models to the recent high-trend period that represents only one-half of “cycles”. See Figures 9 and 10. 
Figure 9
# # # # 
Figure 10
Yet the climate science community somehow seems surprised that global surface temperatures have stopped warming. They look more and more foolish with every passing year and with each new IPCC assessment report.
ADDING INSULT TO INJURY
As I have presented on numerous occasions over the past 5 years, ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data both indicate that naturally occurring processes are responsible for the warming of the global oceans, not manmade greenhouse gases. If this topic is new to you, please refer to the free illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” (42MB) for an introduction. The discussions and documentation are much more detailed in my ebook Who Turned on the Heat?
SIDE NOTE
You may wish to continue to read the RSS Climate Analysis webpage because they then go on to write (their boldface):
But….
The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.
And then RSS present three model-data comparisons that show the models failing to simulate lower troposphere temperatures globally and in the tropics and that only Arctic lower troposphere temperatures are warming as predicted by models.
CLOSING
As I was writing this, it occurred to me that this post would make a good supplement to my ebook Climate Models Fail. I’ll try to prepare a pdf edition of this post for those who are collecting them. Please check back in a couple of days.
The global atmosphere has ceased to warm. Some would respond ‘For now’. Perhaps the famous parrot was only dead ‘for now’.
“Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation”. Climate models are wrong then. But we already knew that.
If people are deliberately ignoring these very basic obvious facts about the climate, and yes they are facts, then why should we accept anything they say.
Scientists who ignore important facts on purpose. Is there anything more ridiculous than this.
And worst of all. This applies to 97% of them.
It is not a “science”, it is just a movement.
So … GCM’s don’t mirror observed warming unless we add a variable of our own choosing.
But … now the GCM’s don’t mirror the more recent lack of warming. Unless we take the variable of our own choosing out?
Bill Illis says: “It is not a ‘science’, it is just a movement.”
I suspect you’ll see comments responding to the word “movement”.
As I have commented before: A geocentric model of the solar system doesn’t explain observed planetary motions unless you add epicycles. That doesn’t prove that epicycles are real.
It’s all about watching the pea:
“The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing. ”
Note that they do not actually say “can only” be simulated by….
Deception my omission , not lying.
I suspect you’ll see comments responding to the word “movement”.
Indeed, a collective bowel movement, perhaps.
Bob,
This is a great essay.
I do have one question:
Of the models that do reflect the reality of troposphere measurements, are they in general low sensitivity or high sensitivity models?
Bill Inis: “And worst of all. This applies to 97% of them. ”
97% is a fiction. There are plenty of scientists who remain silent , either by intimidation, not wanting to rock the boat or just happy milking the cash cow and not wanting reduce funding to their own professional futures.
The latter section are wilfully spinning papers, abstracts and grant applications and though numerous are not 97%. Don’t give any credibility to that figure even in criticism.
Bob, you make a good point of how none of the model outputs fit in any regions. Nice work.
But I can’t see why you detrend observed SST when comparing to model output in fig 7 and 8.
Could you explain that.
hunter says: “Of the models that do reflect the reality of troposphere measurements, are they in general low sensitivity or high sensitivity models?”
Sorry, I can’t answer your question.
Bob the RSS link does not work , is it correct ?
http://www.remss.com/research/climate
What do you get if you only use natural forcings?
See: http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/
Unable to connect
can’t establish a connection to the server at http://www.remss.com
Your link looks OK so either their server is down or I’m having IP blocking problems.
Greg says: “But I can’t see why you detrend observed SST when comparing to model output in fig 7 and 8.”
The data are detrended and smoothed simply to highlight their decadal and multidecadal variations…which do not exist in the climate models.
And I also included the “undetrended” and “unsmoothed” (“raw”) data in Figures 9 and 10 as a reference.
Greg, the RSS links work on both of my computers.
Gotta go. I’ll stop back during lunch break.
Your highlighting of the second point is perfect! That really is the crux of their problem. The climate models DO NOT explain the warming. They cannot hindcast it nor forecast it! They are modeling something that does not exist. yet they always run back to them.
They have communicated their message very well. The problem is not the communication, but the message. It is just plain wrong.
I wrote this blog post back in 2010 when suddenly realised the Team’s approach to climate change “logic”: http://sunriseconsulting.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/illuminating-interview-on-uk-channel-4.html . I still find it unbelievable that the “gap theory” is considered to be good science. Rather than work to disprove the theory as a normal scientist might, AGW proponents seem to persist in trying to prevent publication of any research that might close the gap. And now that the gap is closing, they persist in pretending it isn’t. You do wonder what their motivation might be if it’s not science…
Climate models: Not enough parameters to make it, too much CO2 to fake it.
“The ability of coupled climate models to simulate the observed temperature evolution on each of six continents provides stronger evidence of human influence on climate than was available in the TAR. {3.2, 9.4}”
Model simulation equals evidence. Is that really true?
That’s the quote of the essay for me.
Because, of course, there are natural forcings. And if you can’t get them right you can’t tell what is left over as unnatural forcings – the work of man.
Which invalidates any model that uses Anthropogenic forcings to wiggle fit any part of the temperature record.
I have just done far too much financial modelling to believe any climate model. You can manipulate a model to tell you anything you want. It’s the most corrupt form of science.
It’s about power, money, and influence
Because climate science community’s primary problems was a very basic message…an intentionally misleading message, a nonscientific message, and always an alarmist message; people are getting tired of the hype. The true message has very little to do with science or even climate it’s about politics and persuading Western (or rich) populations and politicians to give away $trillions in tax to the UN’s wasteful eco and green programs.
Any time a researcher “tunes” a model, he is required to cross validate that tuning by
comparing its results over all periods for which there is data. One can ALWAYS
fiddle with a model’s parameters and achieve a fairly good fit for a portion of the historical record.
That’s one reason it’s so dangerous to use models. And for a consistent rising pattern , one could get good results by using the retail price of Campbell’s tomato soup as the model’s predicting mechanism.
Yes. I was going to add something similar. A modeler in chemistry who cannot make a model do anything required, is not very good at modeling. If the will is there, it is not difficult to deceive the ignorant, including yourself. [And in climate science you can be retired or dead before anyone rumbles you.]
IPCC lied, people died.
Some computer modeling or simulation is fine and useful. Flight simulators are pretty good now days.
During my ‘middle’ career I wrote electronic simulations of digital circuit boards for complex radar signal processing. As with all simulations, you need to understand EVERYTHING within your simulation otherwise you get rubbish coming out.
We appear to know and understand perhaps 10% of climatic inter-reactions so my default stance is to assume ALL climate models will be useless for decades to come.
HOW TO MAKE INTERNATIONAL HOT AND SOUR CLIMATE CHANGE SOUP
(Warning: this soup may be a little too hot and spicy for some)
1. Begin with your basic CO2 stock; bring to simmer.
2. Add pre-cooked free-range temperature data. Be sure to toss out any that doesn’t look good. Only the Best ingredients go in this soup.
3. Finely chop fresh aerosols, both human and volcanic in origin, and add.
4. Add Liberal amounts of the special sauce of melting glaciers and sea ice, and stir.
5. Mix in acid and rising oceans. The acid helps with the sourness.
6. Add spice of Alarm (hot-hot-hot!).
7. Cook for at least 20 years, with heat supplied by the MSM, NGOs, politicians, and Useful Idiots.
8. Serve with Liberal dollops of Guilt and Shame.
Enjoy!
Brad R says:
March 7, 2014 at 3:31 am
As I have commented before: A geocentric model of the solar system doesn’t explain observed planetary motions unless you add epicycles. That doesn’t prove that epicycles are real.
==================
But they are anthropogenic. 😉
steverichards1984 says: March 7, 2014 at 5:04 am
Some computer modeling or simulation is fine and useful. Flight simulators are pretty good now days.
– – –
Historically, car simulations were much harder:
http://channel9.msdn.com/blogs/charles/brian-beckman-the-physics-in-games-real-time-simulation-explained
Thanks Bob for your tenacity. The idea that a computer will output unexpected results is silly.
Bob,
Thanks for the answer. It seems strange that with the apparent dependence on ensemble or spaghetti style illustrations that it would not be possible to ID the few models that are closest to reality.
Next time I don’t have enough money to pay the rent, I’ll tell my landlord that the difference is anthropogenic global warming.
To go with Bruces soup may I suggest freshly minced Wild Fowl collected from the base of local wind turbines or fried on the wing Swallow courtesy of the neighboorhood solar farm.
But they are winning the battle for the ignorant and easily influenced.
I have a friend who recently spouted the entire meme over coffee but with additional gems like “Germany gets 30% of its electrical power from solar”. He really didn’t believe me when I pointed out that that was off by a factor of 10, that the Germans originally had a goal (since abandoned) of generating 25% of electrical needs by ‘renewables’ by 2025.
He also cited to me the ‘extreme weather’ meme as evidenced by the unprecedented increase in the ferocity and frequency of Hurricanes and Typhoons. I shouldn’t have but I blurted out, ” That isn’t true. Where are you getting this stuff?” and the conversation went downhill from there. Seems his source was National Geographic. The average person is being brainwashed with this stuff via the old ‘repeat the same misinformation often enough from multiple sources and eventually it becomes fact’.
This is the crux of the problem. The models underestimate natural climate variation and then tune their results to a strong natural warming phase of the varying climate. They use their own underestimation of natural variation in the models as “proof” that the climate cannot have strong positive temperature swings.
Do any of the models use a longer time period for tuning, one that might better capture the shape of the data back to 1920? That might help fix the models, but it would probably also force them to move much of the CO2 warming over into the column of natural warming driven by oceanic cycles.
Why is it that people will acknowledge that fossil fuels are a major anthropogenic contributor to global warming, but never make the connection that fuels are burned for heat, and heat is what causes temperatures to rise. CO2 may or may not contribute. The heat emitted from our energy use is four times the amount accountable by the actual measured rise in atmospheric temperature. The rest of the heat affects land and water temperatures as well as melting glaciers at a rate of one trillion tons a year. Climate sensitivity to CO2 was established without factoring in the very real effects from heat and is meaningless. We are being subjected to the present permitting and licensing of more nuclear power plants in spite of the fact that nuclear plants emit more than twice the total heat as their electrical output.
Greg says: @ March 7, 2014 at 3:42 am
The latter section are wilfully spinning papers, abstracts and grant applications and though numerous are not 97%. Don’t give any credibility to that figure even in criticism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AHHhh but that number is very very useful as an example of why SCIENCE BY GOVERNMENT GRANT should be DEFUNDED!
(Lies coming back to bite all including those who remained silent.)
@ M Courtney
Yep that’s the keeper.
Climate models are wrong with and without anthropogenic factors – so why are we using them again?
http://imageshack.com/a/img203/3609/3vkq.png
[When you give other readers an on-line link, tell them WHAT that link is to and WHY they should spend their time going to that web site. Mod]
As Lindzen asks tin the APS climate seminar transcript – how well do the models reproduce the [natural] warming up to 1940, which cannot be greenhouse gas related? [The answer] is that they don’t reproduce the temperature increase very well and they overshoot the timing.
The only conclusion it is reasonable to draw is that not all natural factors are accounted for in the climate models then.
Greg says:
March 7, 2014 at 4:01 am
————————————–
It worked for me, Greg. I just used it a few minutes ago.
The IPCC fails logically by basing its results on “an argument from ignorance”.
The IPCC is claiming that “Based on what we have included in models – only including anthropogenic causes will fit the evidence and natural causes cannot.”
This is compounded by selective evidence
Over 95% of 34 year projections by IPCC models are outside the satellite and surface measurements over the last 34 years.
IPCC’s latest CMIP5 models cannot explain the last 17.5 year lack of warming.
i.e., as Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman explained, by the scientific method, “they are wrong”!
Just been looking at the IPCC energy budget sketch. 340 watts incoming from the Sun, 342 watts coming from greenhouse gasses. In that case we should be in thermal runaway.
Actually, I thought this IPCC report was helpful, because for the first time, we seem to have a starting date for global warming: around 1970. It it at this point that models begin to diverge from natural forcings.
And that’s progress. And least the IPCC seems to have a thesis, a testable start point in the data.
Meanwhile in Europe you have –
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scientists-must-stop-using-weirdo-words-if-they-want-to-convince-the-public-that-climate-change-is-real-admits-the-woman-in-charge-of-the-next-major-un-summit-9171518.html
“communication is our major challenge”.
This is Christina Figueres’ needs to do this because AGW, is an unproven scientific theory that will ruin Western industrial power is losing traction within scientific communities. Communication is required to propagate this tainted theory to the political classes as they have less scientific talent and thus cannot see the fraud.
Christina knows that to keep the whole scam rolling then more political pressure must be deployed to attempt to convince ordinary voting people and the politician that they empower.
Science be damned, she’s going for the low hanging fruit of politics with this fraud.
The alarmist are getting more alarming as the scam runs out of AGW steam.
I agree that the present temperature hiatus is best explained by the negative PDO which can be compared to the downtrends in early 1900 and at mid century. It’s amazing that so few scientists recognize this fact. But AMO and PDO alone can NOT explain the rising long term temperature trend. There has to be another explanation. The following graph from Lennart Bengtsson’s paper Determination of a lower bound on Earth’s climate sensitivity (Tellus 2013) shows the probable culprit.
http://www.tellusb.net/index.php/tellusb/article/viewFile/21533/html/101938
The full article can be read here: http://www.tellusb.net/index.php/tellusb/article/view/21533/html
I know this is going to be hard for the reader to believe but in my formative years I spent many of them locked up in prison. You see, I robbed banks. And, during all those years in prison I determined that I spent them in prison, not because I robbed banks, no, it was because of ‘how’ I robbed banks. It was strictly a communication problem. When I stood at the bank teller’s station I should’ve used different wording when I demanded they hand over the money. Ah, what a fool I was.
the back-and-forth over “base year” is incomprehensible in this piece, plus we get a new, silly bit of CAGW shorthand in the headline – “climate criticism”:
7 Mar: Australian: Annabel Hepworth: Coalition rejects climate criticism
Mr Hunt said the Climate Change Authority wasn’t “comparing apples with apples” when it declared the target was weaker than many other countries. The comments come as The Weekend Australian has learned of an “apples with apples” analysis by Department of Environment officials that uses a 2005 base year to compare targets between countries.
Australia uses a 2000 base year, with a policy of 5 per cent cuts below 2000 levels by 2020.
But Barack Obama’s target of 17 per cent cuts is set against a 2005 base year, as is that of Canada and Japan…
The new analysis is likely to add to the political ***furore over the measures Australia should take to tackle climate change, but also underscores the complexity of comparing targets between different countries…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/coalition-rejects-climate-criticism/story-e6frg6xf-1226848468974#
***Aussie media, with the help of anonymous sources in Washington, keeps up its attack on the public who voted in a Govt to repeal CAGW policies. our media really believes the US President is trying to save the planet:
7 Mar: Australian Financial Review: John Kehoe: Heat on Abbott as US pushes G20 climate change action
The United States is pushing for climate change to be an important agenda item when Australia hosts world leaders at the Group of 20 meeting this year, placing Prime Minister Tony Abbott in a potentially awkward position that conflicts with his domestic political agenda…
The government remains committed to meeting Australia’s goal of cutting emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, through paying big polluters billions of dollars to reduce their pollution.
However, European countries and Mr Obama are perceived to be more committed to addressing climate change…
***Sources in Washington say that when foreign governments and stakeholders have broached climate change in G20 lead-up meetings, Australian government officials have told them the issue is not a priority and suggested that other topics be discussed…
Mr Abbott may come under pressure from other countries to mention climate change in the official communique when he hosts world leaders, including Mr Obama, on November 15-16 in Brisbane…
http://www.afr.com/p/national/heat_on_abbott_as_us_pushes_climate_xxma1V2KrZxQjeryKlqzQM
Steve Keohane says:
March 7, 2014 at 5:20 am
Thanks Bob for your tenacity. The idea that a computer will output unexpected results is silly.
***
I also chuckle a bit when I see computer-generated ‘random number patterns’. If a computer can do it, it ain’t random.
Greg says: March 7, 2014 at 3:42 am
Carol Costello, apparently taking another bite at her “settled science” rotten apple (and, rather curiously, not hosted by CNN that I can find), seeks remedial counsel at “The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication” where the now-infamous “97%” is still, apparently, an article of faith…
CNN’s Carol Costello Interviews Anthony Leiserowitz on Why Climate Change Isn’t A Debate
This is in keeping with “The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication”‘s stated “Mission” of empowering “…educators and communicators with the knowledge and tools to more effectively engage their audiences.”
“Engage” would not be my choice of words.
Philip Haddad says: @ March 7, 2014 at 5:27 am
Why is it that people will acknowledge that fossil fuels are a major anthropogenic contributor to global warming, but never make the connection that fuels are burned for heat, and heat is what causes temperatures to rise….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because that heat is local and minor.
Remember 70% of the earth is covered by water and most of that water is at just above freezing and humans especially cities occupy small areas in comparison
Also were you aware that TREES modify their temperature environment? Leaves have been found to regulate temperature to “around 21.4° Celsius plus or minus 2.2 degrees,”
However the real clinking argument is the solar energy has dropped 9% since the Holocene optimum. “Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes.” ~ “Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic” – 2010 Miller et al
See: NH Summer Energy: The Leading Indicator for an explanation and a very good graph.
I also suggest you read Willis Eschenbach’s
The Thermostat Hypothesis
wattsupwiththat(DOT)com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
The Thermostatic Throttle
wattsupwiththat(DOT)com/2013/12/28/the-thermostatic-throttle/
More writing in on the Thermostat listed:
wattsupwiththat(DOT)com/?s=Willis+Eschenbach+thermostat
As far as Glaciers go they are, long term increasing:
Himalaya Glaciers are Growing
Norway Experiencing Greatest Glacial Activity in the past 1,000 year (includes link to paper)
theinconvenientskeptic(DOT)com/2012/04/norway-experiencing-greatest-glacial-activity-in-the-past-1000-year/
Clearly the oceans moderate the climate, and demonstrate low frequency oscillations that are not accounted for in the climate models. As a result the models under-estimate natural variability and over-estimate CO2, which is evident by the divergence of the models from reality.
The climate models consider only that natural variability is noise, like a background static hiss. What they fail to consider is that natural variability has a much lower frequency. So low a frequency that it only pulses at most once during a human lifetime, and thus is inaudible. Unless you know what to look for you will miss it.
I hate to bring up politics, but the current US Administration and its allies are trying to spin the problems with Obamacare (ACA) as a communications problem also. They just haven’t properly conveyed to people the benefits they will experience from this law. Once they find the magic words to do that, all will be sunshine and lollipops for health insurance in America! The latest target date for this to happen is 2020. By then, hopefully, the GCM models will be in the dustbin of History.
“A beautiful bird the Norwegian Blue.”
NICE PIC OF SPRING ON MARS. SNOW ON SAND DUNES; WONDER …WHICH WAY TO THE BEACH ? SURFS UP !
Martian Sand Dunes in Spring
03/06/2014 11:00 AM EST
Mars’ northern-most sand dunes are beginning to emerge from their winter cover of seasonal carbon dioxide (dry) ice. Dark, bare south-facing slopes are soaking up the warmth of the sun. The steep lee sides of the dunes are also ice-free along the crest, allowing sand to slide down the dune. Dark splotches are places where ice cracked earlier in spring, releasing sand. Soon the dunes will be completely bare and all signs of spring activity will be gone. This image was acquired by the HiRISE camera aboard NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter on Jan. 16, 2014. The University of Arizona, Tucson, operates the HiRISE camera, which was built by Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Boulder, Colo. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Project for the NASA Science Mission Directorate, Washington. > More information and image products Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Univ. of Arizona Caption: Candy Hansen
Thanks Bob, a tour de force (or farce depending on how you look at it)
Bob Layson says:
March 7, 2014 at 3:12 am
The global atmosphere has ceased to warm. Some would respond ‘For now’. Perhaps the famous parrot was only dead ‘for now’.
>>>>>
The Warmists are having a hard time getting all those canaries to die, except from old age!
Also, thanks Bob for all the great reference material.
kenw says:
March 7, 2014 at 6:07 am
I also chuckle a bit when I see computer-generated ‘random number patterns’.
=============
Climate Science assumes that natural variability is random, due to chance. William Briggs has an interesting video on his site showing that what we call chance is not really random at all. It is a result of missing information. We call it chance, but really what we mean is the answer is hidden from us.
For example, Briggs holds up his hands, one has a coin. We call it chance when we pick one or the other. However, that is simply because we don’t know which hand holds the coin. Climate Science has a lot to learn in this regard.
Climate Science sees natural variability as random, due to chance because they are missing information. They don’t know what causes natural variability, so they attribute it to chance, and make assumptions that lead them to believe it is not important, that the effect is small. In reality they are missing information. They don’t know which hand holds the coin. They don’t know the true cause of natural variability and thus cannot accurately judge its importance.
◾Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
That is absolutely true.
It is also absolutely true that Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are included as input to the model simulation.
Even if their models could accurately simulate the global climate with their assumed effects of GHG added in, the logic that turns that into a conclusion of global warming is simply false. But the models can’t accurately simulate the global climate, GHG or not, so the global warming conclusion can’t even rise to the level of being false.
The problem is not the delivery, it is this fundamental failure of the message: It is not even wrong.
Tom J says: @ March 7, 2014 at 5:56 am
….. And, during all those years in prison I determined that I spent them in prison, not because I robbed banks, no, it was because of ‘how’ I robbed banks. It was strictly a communication problem….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, you are correct it was very much a ‘Communication Problem’
The “How to rob banks” without going to prison was figured out long ago.
You see person (A) would entice other people to put their gold and silver money into their keeping giving the people an IOU for their gold and silver. Then person (A) would lend this money out but instead of using the actual gold and silver they used MORE IOU’s. (Not being fools they insisted on being paid back in actually gold and silver and not their IOUs.) When the people who were robbed of their gold and silver found out MORE IOU’s were written than there was actual gold and silver there would be a ‘Run” to get their gold and silver back from person (A) while the getting was good. The laggards would not get their gold and silver and had a nasty tendency to place person (A) on a horse with a rope around the neck and then slap the horses rear.
This of course made persons of the A type rather nervous so they got the US Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and then had FDR confiscate all the gold from the people and forbid them from ever owning it again.
And THAT is how you safely rob a bank. {:>)
CAGW of course is just another iteration on the same theme. How to rob the masses with their blessings.
A2025MIKE says:
March 7, 2014 at 6:30 am
Mars’ northern-most sand dunes are beginning to emerge from their winter cover of seasonal carbon dioxide (dry) ice.
===========
Like Venus the Martian atmosphere is mostly CO2. Which explains the run-away greenhouse effect on Mars. Martian average temperatures as a result are in the range of 240 Kelvin, which Earth’s temperatures are only 15 Celsius. Clearly it is much hotter on Mars.
Climate Science Communications 101.
Jim Bo says: @ March 7, 2014 at 6:13 am
…“Engage” would not be my choice of words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Browbeat, brainwash, propagandise?
Good article for the learned crowd or the choir. The problem I see is too many have bought into the science of Man-Made Global Warming that doesn’t exist. I have on my shelf books about the last ice Age written with peer review contributing this inter Ice Ge period to the growth of the population of man rather than the other way around.
If these people are in charge of our colleges, government, represent us in global negotiations and our public schools, we are beating a drum. It won’t make a difference until this solar minimum kicks them in the gut, destroys their science and they kill off A few million Americans and domestic Animals on our farms like the 20,000 head of cattle in South Dakota Last Oct. In a snow storm.
Then the true idiots will come out like last year here in Florida. We have PETA trying to have a rancher jailed for animals lost in a freeze and idiots in South Florida trying to save Exotic annals that don’t belong here.
It would take five years of NAZI type propaganda training to clean up this mess. Let’s the chips fall where they may. Can’t fix stupid.
Like I told one hurricane scientist last week, If scientists don’t mention sunspot activity in their presentation and refer instead to the IPCC, any climate science conference is a waste of time and money.
I am getting off my soap box now.
Paul Pierett
correction: Martian average temperatures as a result are in the range of 220 Kelvin
I seem to remember that we had noticed Mars was warming as well in the recent past. If Mars has also experienced approx. 17 years of warming ‘pause’ lately, wouldn’t that be the nail in the coffin of all these climate models, seeing as they never predicted the current pause? And how can human caused pollutants cause ‘action at a distance’ on Mars?
ferdberple says:
March 7, 2014 at 6:26 am
….The climate models consider only that natural variability is noise, like a background static hiss. What they fail to consider is that natural variability has a much lower frequency. So low a frequency that it only pulses at most once during a human lifetime, and thus is inaudible. Unless you know what to look for you will miss it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is not like they are completely unaware of the natural variability with a much lower frequency either.
Straight from the NASA website:
Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
So, that is the only “proof” that human-caused increases in “greenhouse gasses” (not just CO2?) caused the warming. What if only the estimated human-caused increase in CO2 portion was added?
Worse –
ThinkingScientist says:
March 7, 2014 at 5:32 am
As Lindzen asks tin the APS climate seminar transcript – how well do the models reproduce the natrarl warming up to 1940, which cannot be greenhouse gas related?
which is a question any “thinking scientist” would ask.
Notice that in relatively recent “Climate Change: Evidence and Causes”, an Overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences:
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
we read in the section titled “How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities” (Note again that this is “human activities”, not limited to human CO2 emissions) the following:
“Only when models include human influences on the composition of the
atmosphere are the resulting temperature changes consistent with observed changes.”
Well, except, for the last about 17 years the temperature isn’t changing so much while the “human influences” have increased.
Models don’t get the natural warming correct up to 1940 or so and these models aren’t getting it right recently.
Yet they remain “proof”!?
Egads!!!
Its not hard to produce solar vs temperature graph which produces a pretty good fit.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:50/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:50/offset:-40/integral/normalise
Only one model, Hansen’s 1988 scenario C, has produced output that has been followed by the evolving data – a temperature rise to 2000 and no significant change since then. The great problem is that the input to that model assumed the world ramped down its carbon diode emissions during the 1990s with zero emissions since 2000: wrong input, right output.
Just because the model output is right, it is not proof that the model input is right. In other words the transformation from input to output is not ‘invertible’,
If I cannot trust the models on a 25 year time scale, why should I trust them on a 100 year time scale? The model projections, and that is all we have, are simply not the basis on which to reorganise the global economy.
I believe .13K = .234 Rankine not F.
Thanks Bob.
I thought RSS was established to maintain integrity in the processing and reporting of data so one might expect the “SIDE NOTE” you have included be at the top of their report as a disclaimer for the rest of what they, or Ben Santer wrote?
michael hart says:
March 7, 2014 at 4:29 am
That’s it. Rising CO2 demonstrably wrecks everything, even climate models.
I think the problem is the Federal Reserve and the US government. It looks to me like the rate of change in the temperature closely fits the total value of US dollars in circulation. The “pause” thus has been caused by the over production of US Dollars to support all the wars that the US was involved in since about the middle of the last term of the Clinton Adminstration, and has accelerated with the devaulation of the dollar’s buying power under Bush and Obama. Really, it’s almost exactly a perfect fit. When you are searching for meaningless relationships, as the Goreites and the Mannites have been, you might as well grasp at this straw as any others.
OT – I see our friend Seth Borenstein is at it again in an AP article about El Nino. Highly misleading as it seems to suggest that only El Nino affects the world’s weather. Apparently La Nina and ENSO Neutral ‘events’ don’t. He is aided by our old friend Dr ‘Heat hiding in the deep ocean’ Trenberth (although it may be a case of selective quotation by Seth) I love Dr Trenberth’s comment “This COULD (caps mine) be a substantial event and I think we’re due.” And I think it COULD have major consequences.” He doesn’t enlighten us as to what he thinks those major consequences are.
Apparently an El Nino ‘leads to fewer Atlantic Hurricanes’ (fewer than the 2 last year?). It also increases Malaria and destroys crops.
This article is appearing in multiple newspapers, including my local paper in central Florida. It presents the model indication of a potential El Nino this summer as almost a certain fact, until you get about halfway through the article and it never tells you that its a model forecast.
http://www.denverpost.com/weathernews/ci_25292077/el-nino-may-be-way-summer-meteorologists-say
In other words, they did not tune the models to the long-term trends of the Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature datasets, which account for the multidecadal variations; they tuned the models to the recent high-trend period that represents only one-half of “cycles”.
This seems so obvious by just eyeballing the temperature reconstructions from 1850 or 1880 to present.
I have never understood how the IPCC or others could responsibly claim “observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing” when similar periods of warming occurred prior to 1950 or 1940 or 1900 when the forcing was “natural variability.”
Why would anyone believe the model projections or the IPCC meme when such obvious, misleading modelling is used to perpetuate consensus at the expense of better understanding of a very complex climate system.
The core problem of the AGW issue is that climate scientists used rising global temperatures from 1980 to 2005 as being man-made through mankind’s CO2 emissions; they never considered that such warming, minimal though it was in the historical context, was more than likely accomplished naturally.
It seems for skeptics it is one step forward and two back.
Even the recent GWPF sensitivity report is now being portrayed as skeptics admitting we are wrong:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26468564
The deck is rigged and stacked against us. We think we are making progress but CAGW meme is very much alive and kicking… hardly threatened… I’d say.
Even the malaria issue keeps raising it’s head constantly even though generally refuted:
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26470755
When will this MSM nightmare end. I want to get off this MAD merry-go- round. GK
“One of the climate science community’s primary problems was a very basic message…an intentionally misleading message. That is, it wasn’t how it was communicated; it was the message itself.”
“Climate change” itself is a problem. Global warming, as the problem (sic) was originally stated, was at least, with difficulty, measurable. “Climate change” is meaningless. The communication problem for climate “scientists” is finding words to make a nebulous concept concrete.
“Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” – George Orwell
They lost many of the young people I know when they changed their theme from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. Their argument that CO2 causes warming AND cooling illustrated just how ridiculous their claims are. And of course the cold and snowy winters don’t help their cause. How many of us, while shoveling snow measured in feet, not inches, have wished for some of that “Global Warming”.
Excellent analysis Mr. Tisdale. It clearly establishes the “tails we win, heads you lose” strategy of those already convinced that only man made actions drive global climate. All that need be done is to manufacture the science to support this position.
Over the past few months, there have been a number of articles about how the climate science community could have presented their message differently, or responded differently, so that they could have avoided the problem they’re now facing with the halt in global warming.
Wait! I know, I know, call on me!
How about not presenting a “message” at all since that is not the job of a scientist, it is the job of a political demagogue or religious leader? How about presenting results with simple scientific objectivity include clear statements about the limitations and uncertainty of the results given the data and models? How about using standard, commonly accepted statistical theory and thoroughly debugged tools in the processing of their results instead of inventing homemade principle component analysis software, badly, in order to deliberately and with malice aforethought eliminate the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period on the basis of a single series of bristlecone pines from a single part of the world? How about presenting results with a clearly visible picture of the range of probable error, both statistical and systematic? How about not pretending that the warming in the first half of the 20th century did not almost precisely match the warming in the second half without the help of CO_2, making their claim that latter half warming could only be explained with the help of CO_2 spurious (and by the way, the models fail to reproduce the warming of the first half of the 20th century altogether as is clearly evident at a glance at figure 9.8 in AR5 because the actual temperature has never varied like a hockey stick in the thermometric era, so one doesn’t even have to use their failure to reproduce “the pause”, they had already failed to reproduce the thermometric era hindcast)?
How about acknowledging that the General Circulation Models are unproven, almost impossibly difficult computations solving coupled Navier-Stokes equations known to have highly nonlinear, chaotic, multivariate solutions on an absurdly coarse spatiotemporal grid with incomplete descriptions of critical physics and an appalling lack of predictive treatment of named climate structures empirically known to have a profound effect on the evolution of the climate? How about letting the leaders of the world known that when four GCMs were applied to a toy problem vastly simpler than the actual Earth (a simple water world) all four converged to completely different climates, climates that had completely distinct temperatures, circulatory structure, and heat flow? How about not first linearizing CO_2-driven expected gain, then introducing a completely unproven nonlinear feedback from water vapor to amplify the un-alarming warming expected by a factor of two to five, in the teeth of a functioning climate that has enormous negative feedback stability and utterly lacks runaway self-amplifying warming solutions from fluctuations in water vapor alone?
Of course, if they did all of these things and then avoided the problem associated with delivering a message instead of honestly done and presented science, then 90% of the world’s climate science would be working in some other field, Europe would be economically stable instead of on the edge of financial collapse, millions of people who have died in both the first world and third world in the meantime because of energy poverty perpetuated and exacerbated by the entirely artificial inflation of the prices of energy and the imposition of ludicrous restrictions on the emission of carbon dioxide in energy generation processes while simultaneously continuing to oppose the only energy source (nuclear) that is even approximately capable of providing the energy the world needs without generating carbon dioxide, and millions more would not have died of mere starvation caused by the diversion of basic foodstock into inefficient “biofuel” production, raising world food prices beyond the means of the world’s poorest citizens.
So yeah, they have some explaining to do. But don’t worry guys, I helped you out up above. You could still make it right, maybe even in time to avoid the pitchforks and torches…
rgb
@RGbatduke – Heresy! You are actually demanding that scientists do science and not politics? If that were to take hold, think of the consequences! Why there would be real advancement! Unexpected results that would cause further investigation. Inquiry! Testing! Discovery!
What a world that would be!
Paul Pierett says: March 7, 2014 at 6:46 am
While true, the window of opportunity to leverage that ignorance into some variation of a legislation mandated carbon tax scheme has been effectively closed with the imminence of election 2014 and the near proximity of election 2016.
More pressing, I’d suggest, is the ongoing threat of extra-legal “rule-making” by already out-of-control and rogue regulatory agencies like the EPA. I’m not sure that particular barn door can be closed without a titanic struggle…assuming it is even plausible that such a struggle could even commence.
rgbatduke says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:01 am
you know, I copied a post of yours and forwarded it to david appell; he threatened to notify “law enforcement because he viewed my forwarding of your post as a harassing email.
that was fun, I tell you.
As ferdberple (Mar. 7 at 6:39 am) comes close to implying, randomness and missing information per event (the so called “entropy”) are the same concept. Professional climatologists clearly don’t understand that this is true. If they had known this, they would have organized their research in a very different and much more productive manner.
For climatological orthodoxy, there is no such thing as “information.” Thus, “randomness” stands as an undefined or misunderstood concept.
The absense from climatological orthodoxy of information as a concept is a consequence from the failure of climatologists to reference their models to the events in a statistical population. The counts of the events in a sample that is drawn from such a population provide the builder of a properly constituted model with the counts which statisticians call “frequencies.” The ratio of a pair of frequencies is a “relative frequency.” A relative frequency is the empirical counterpart of a probability. “Information” is defined in terms of probabilities. As for climatological orthodoxy there are no events there are no frequencies, relative frequencies or probabilities; thus, “information” is missing as a concept.
davidesenstadt,
It might be fun to know delicate dave’s email, lol.
These GW promoters are such woosies. They call for the firing of (and sadly sometimes succeed) skeptical scientists. They get whole publications shut down by threat and intimidation. They get to file frivolus lawsuits to silence critics.
But if they get an email they don’t like, they are the phone to 911 calling for waaaahmbulance.
Cowards and cons, the lot of ’em.
The assertion that ‘scientists don’t know how to communicate science to policy makers’ is not true. Scientists had no trouble getting the Manhattan Project started. Scietists had no trouble convincing policy makers that electricity, internal combustion engines, telephones, radios, X-rays, antibiotics, partical accelerators, space probes, deep sea exploration, seismograph networks, etc. etc. etc. were needful of funding. And certainly the AGW enterprise, bloated on something close to $1 billion per day, is having no trouble communicating with policy makers.
The failure of AGW prmoters to get their ideas put into full force is that their ideas are obviously garbage. None of their predictions are working as claimed. None of the policies adopted under the guidance of AGW promoters work. The very name that the AGW community selected, “Global warming” has had to be abandoned in the face of reality.
We should start pointing out- loudly and clearly- that the problem is not the messenger’s style. It is the lack of substance in the message.
Thanks, Bob. Excellent article, deserves a link.
You write:
It’s hard to imagine how the IPCC can claim that the climate models with only natural forcings could somehow represent “the alternative hypothesis of just natural variations”, when the models with natural and anthropogenic forcings cannot simulate the “natural variations”.
I think they tried to confuse the problem so they could claim to be the only ones who understand it. This is dishonest, so I think you are correct; It is the message itself that has a problem, a problem of attempting to deceive and being caught in the deception.
I wonder if there is natural variation or maybe natural uncertainty in the climate just because of the uncertainty of weather. I think this would be different from the uncertainty of models due to unknown processes or uncertainty of models because of incomplete and inaccurate data. For example, if happenstance brings extensive snows early in the winter it is often said that it will make the whole winter longer because the snow reflects more sunlight and makes the atmosphere colder. It seems this kind of weather effect would be hard to catch in a climate model, hence climate models are inherently inaccurate.
“Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation”.
Bingo!
Let’s try this analogy. If we had a model and gave it nothing but positive, even numbers and programmed it to come up with the variation of numbers that add up to 1,000, it would only be able to give us answers that consisted of positive, even numbers.
There would be no odd numbers in the variations, because the computer does not know what odd numbers are.
How can a global climate model that doesn’t know anything about natural cycles(sun/oceans…etc) explain the warming any other way, other than by including the greenhouse gas warming it’s programmed to recognize?
dccowboy says: @ March 7, 2014 at 7:23 am
So cut out the article and save it to make copies. Then pray we get a whopping big La Niña. If we do Hand out The copies of the ‘Forecast’ by the ‘Enso Expert’ Trenbreth (see Wiki) and the actual fact to people before the November elections and ask them why we are wrecking our economy base on the words of an ‘Expert’ who can’t even predict six moths out.
Now everyone (even us Agnostics and atheists) start praying. {:>)
Vigorously whipped poo won’t turn into mousse au chocolat no matter how many newspaper critics write the stuff up on payola.
rgbatduke says: @ March 7, 2014 at 8:01 am
… But don’t worry guys, I helped you out up above. You could still make it right, maybe even in time to avoid the pitchforks and torches…
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Too late.
I have been collecting feathers and Hubby has just repaired two pitchforks and looked up how to make pine pitch tar from our pine trees.
Kaboom says:
March 7, 2014 at 9:43 am
Vigorously whipped poo won’t turn into mousse au chocolat no matter how many newspaper critics write the stuff up on payola.
=========================================================
Visualize whirled peas.
Kaboom says:
March 7, 2014 at 9:43 am
“Vigorously whipped poo won’t turn into mousse au chocolat no matter how many newspaper critics write the stuff up on payola.”
You don’t have this copyrighted, do you? This is so apropos to so much of the spin the leftists and progressives put on the lies and half truths they are spouting out, I can use it almost anywhere.
hunter says: @ March 7, 2014 at 9:00 am
The assertion that ‘scientists don’t know how to communicate science to policy makers’ is not true….. And certainly the AGW enterprise, bloated on something close to $1 billion per day, is having no trouble communicating with policy makers.
The failure of AGW prmoters to get their ideas put into full force is that their ideas are obviously garbage….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
The root cause of the failure can be traced directly back to the Father of Progressive Education, John Dewey. (SEE BELOW) Dewey determined that by dumbing down education, reducing literacy, and brain washing children from an early age (we start in Day Care now) he could produce good little brain dead selfless serfs only concerned about what was best for the State. Looks like he was wrong. The thirst for knowledge and the caring of parents for their children countered the brainwashing to a useful extent.
jayhd says:
March 7, 2014 at 9:54 am
Kaboom says:
March 7, 2014 at 9:43 am
“Vigorously whipped poo won’t turn into mousse au chocolat no matter how many newspaper critics write the stuff up on payola.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Needs to be Quote of the Week.
Another excellent critical work, Mr. Tisdale. You nailed their message and you nailed its serious failings.
Then they’re simulating the Great Dying of the Thermometers, which added 1.5°F to the “trend” at a stroke in 1990-1. This was neither a weather nor a climate event, but a “Hansen”.
Steven Kopits says:
March 7, 2014 at 5:41 am
Actually, I thought this IPCC report was helpful, because for the first time, we seem to have a starting date for global warming: around 1970. It it at this point that models begin to diverge from natural forcings.
And that’s progress. And least the IPCC seems to have a thesis, a testable start point in the data.
——————–
That made me want to investigate what changed societally starting in 1970. I read the Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s. Interesting look back.
More women in the workplace, which means more travel and fossil fuel burning. More computers and games, more people using electrical sources of entertainment. Recessions, oil crises, oil rich countries economical growth. Smaller fuel efficient vehicles and emissions control. The beginning of the mirrored skyscrapers.
I’m a dumb non-scientist, but when I read about the solar tea pots they built in the Nevada desert and how it heats the air to 1000 degrees, it did make me wonder what that, and the mirrored skyscrapers all over now, might do to global temperatures, if anything.
I thought of Anthony’s experiment with the mirror and lightbulb. Can the reflected heat of all these mirrors, particularly in cities near water, heat water vapor and raise global temperatures? Not all of that heat is reflected back into space, right? Or is it so minuscule that it doesn’t matter?
rgbatduke says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:01 am
“How about letting the leaders of the world known[sic] that when four GCMs were applied to a toy problem vastly simpler than the actual Earth (a simple water world) all four converged to completely different climates, climates that had completely distinct temperatures, circulatory structure, and heat flow?”
I did research on nonlinear dynamics, aka, chaos theory, for nearly twenty years and from my experience, these guys are pikers. I’m amazed that they couldn’t get four, a dozen, or even hundreds of distinct climates out of just a single model by simply twiddling the initial conditions a bit. Even simple iterated maps with three or four dimensions can give you multiple distinct strange attractors. They should be able to do much better with Navier-Stokes and an effectively infinite dimensional system.
It might be an interesting student project if you could get the code for one of the models and see how many different “Water Worlds” there are.
Bruce Cobb…you’re hilarious! No wonder Mann et al always look like they’re suffering from indigestion. 🙂
As Lindzen asks tin the APS climate seminar transcript – how well do the models reproduce the [natural] warming up to 1940, which cannot be greenhouse gas related? [The answer] is that they don’t reproduce the temperature increase very well and they overshoot the timing.
C-years — on the order of a tenth of a degree over per year, on average (there are multiple decadal stretches visible where the red line is as much as 0.5 C in excess of the black line, and almost no stretches at all where the black line exceeds the red line by one whole 0.1 C). This is an absurdly large systematic error in the MME mean, and is sufficient cause to reject any sort of null hypothesis that the models on average are correct, unsurprising since there is no reason to think that the mean of unvalidated models constitutes a validated model.
It’s a bit worse than this. Figure 9.8 in AR5 — poorly conceived and illegible as it is — is damning.
First of all “the modelS” (note plural) don’t do anything at all, as there is no meaningful statistical description of an ensemble of models. One can only judge one model at a time.
To the extent one tries do do something with the MME — hoping that the flaws in all of the flawed models will somehow cancel out, in spite of the amusing observation about whipping poo into chocolate mousse up above — well, the MME mean is the red line in 9.8a, and there is HADCRUT4 as the black line. Mentally integrate the difference between the red line and the black line over time. This integral should end up being very close to zero if the red line is a good representation of the black line within unbiased statistical noise. Without having numbers to sum, I get a mental estimate of around
This is also sufficient reason to conclude that all of the models in the MME cannot be correct — at least some of them must badly fail. But if one plots the spaghetti strands in the CMIP5 ensemble individually against HADCRUT4, do you think any of them would produce a believable fit? I don’t. I think that the p-value for every single model over the entire interval very likely sucks — any that don’t just fail a hypothesis test badly won’t do well on it, they will almost fail. This is evident because HADCRUT4 spends around half of its time at the lower bound of the entire CMIP5 envelope, most prominently in the range from 1900 to 1950 and in the range from 2000 to the present. Even in the reference period, HADCRUT4 spends far more time close to the lower edge of the envelope than the upper. This figure, of course, makes it impossible to do better, but it suffices to indicate that there are serious problems with CMIP5 and that yes, as paragraph 9.2.2.3 indicates, it is probably stupid to plot the Multimodel “Ensemble” flat supermean of the Perturbed Parameter Ensemble means of 36 non-independent models with different computational weights (in terms of contributing PPE counts) and without rejecting the obviously failed models in the ensemble and pretend that it has some predictive force. Too bad they didn’t put that paragraph in the summary for policy makers.
The EMIC models actually do much better, but there there is a clear trend and crossover. They actually are too cold in the remote past (and hence still exaggerate the warming of the models, but in a less evident way) and cross over during the reference period in such a way that one could almost believe that there is a decent model or two in there.
Curiously, the EMIC (Earth Models of Intermediate Complexity) models — which look like they are doing fairly WELL in the recent past, nicely tracking at least the beginning of “the pause” — do not extend past 2005. I wonder why? Could it be because, if they are run to the present, they actually predict the lack of warming, and if run into the indefinite future they show greatly diminished climate sensitivity? Or perhaps they aren’t really predictive models at all and cannot be run into the future. I couldn’t really tell from reading AR5.
rgb
Aphan says:
Thanks. The best part is, they can’t blame the cook(s)!
Bruce,
I CAN blame the Cook! And the Nuccitelli, and the Mann and the Lewandowski…..:)
In figures 7 and 8, what “trend” was removed? Linear increase through the observation period?
It might be an interesting student project if you could get the code for one of the models and see how many different “Water Worlds” there are.
This is, of course, the point of the Perturbed Parameter Ensemble application of the models (which is statistically one of the few bright spots in the attempt to model the insanely difficult N-S system. As you say, from any given (neighborhood of) a starting condition they do indeed get a substantial spread of future climates, and then attempt to reduce that spread to some sort of mean future climate. This per-model PPE mean is then super-averaged into the Multi-Model Ensemble mean.
All of which is enough to make me want to just beat my head against the wall. You can dress all of this up in as many learned publications as you like and it will still be deeply suspect methodology with no theoretically defensible predictive force. At least per model, you can look at the spread of future PPE climates and see if the real climate is decently represented by any of them, although even then one has to look at and compare the entirety of EACH trajectory to reality and not whether the PPE “envelope” of a given model “contains” reality (between five or ten models that sometimes descend to it, briefly). That’s the fundamental sham of figure 1.4 in the SPM — just because the envelope of all of the GCMs barely contains reality doesn’t make one single model in the entire ensemble plausible.
But yes, I sometimes wonder if the climate modellers have ever heard of strange attractors at all, let alone put any effort into trying to understand a NON-microscopic decomposition into large scale climate modes that are likely associated with long-lived attractors in the actual Earth climate system. Everything is linearized. Turn the CO_2 crank, up goes the temperature, and let’s throw in some H_2O linked positive feedback for good measure.
One can put together a decent non-linear argument for the assertion that rapid warming could trigger the next ice age. Ice melt in the arctic freshens surface waters, slows and shifts the north atlantic turnover in the global thermohaline circulation enough to cause it to phase lock to a new pattern further south. Heat stops being transported to the Arctic and northern Europe, which consequently cools. Whatever governs the tipping point into the known, major cold phase attractor dominating the Pliestocene ice age, the climate tips and the Holocene ends. We know from the Ordovician-Silurian transition that glaciation tips millions of years long have occurred in the past at CO_2 levels 10x or more the current level, so we have no good reason to think that they are impossible now. This freshwater blocking of the thermohaline circulation is one of the explanations offered for the Younger Dryas return to glaciation shortly after the Wisconsin glacial era started to end.
I just don’t think people appreciate either the depth of our ignorance, the impotence of our computational capability to solve problems of this complexity with anything like predictive force, or just how completely strongly nonlinear systems can confound your simple linear response expectations.
But we might eventually find out…
I find their communications to have been very effective.
The message was their willingness to deceive for the cause.
Name-calling, abuse and attack upon any who requested evidence for the extraordinary claims of catastrophic Global Warming, with or without the anthropogenic component.
Then the shift to Calamitous Climate Change, weak and deceptive communication from weak and deceptive academics.
What the belief, regardless of empirical scientific evidence, indicates is a person not suitable to partake in setting public policy.
Thanks to this nonsense, the fools and bandits who staff our governments are fully exposed.
What we do next, will set the tone of these kleptocracies for years to come.
Do we continue to reward incompetence, sloth and treason from our parasites?
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
“Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation”. Climate models are wrong then. Even the IPCC knows that. They are just hiding the fact from everyone to justify denying people access to cheap and reliable energy from fossil fuel which is pretty sick don’t you think?
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Oversensitive-How-The-IPCC-hid-the-Good-News-on-Global-Warming.pdf
@rgbatduke
Pedantic to quibble with such a good summary, but I think your description of the properties of solutions to Navier-Stokes equations actually describes the numerical approximations incorporated into GCMs etc. Actual solution of these pde’s is still, as far as I know, one of the top ten unsolved problems in mathematics ($1million if you can do it). So the numerical methods used in climate models likely produce ill-specified, chaotic dynamics and it is not even clear whether they relate accurately to the solutions of the actual fluid dynamics equations, about which relatively little is known!
Simple: They lied.
@Greg –
There are 10s of thousands of scientists who do not buy, never did buy the CAGW lie. See the Oregon petition; see the NIPCC’s publications. A HUGE MAJORITY of scientists have ALWAYS rejected the bullshit, but have been ignored by the idolatrous media and the corrupt academic journals.
rgbatduke says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:01 am
Over the past few months, there have been a number of articles about how the climate science community could have presented their message differently, or responded differently, so that they could have avoided the problem they’re now facing with the halt in global warming.
Wait! I know, I know, call on me!
They haven’t called on anyone who uses proper science and common sense so far. I suspect that since you do, you are on their “do not call” list.
Sorry.
I just heard about this, in the US Democrat Senators plan all-nighter on climate change.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/senate-democrats-climate-change.
God help us all.
you dont even need to go to this level to make this argument look like a joke…
What always struck me as insanely bizarre about this particular line of posturing is the fact that right in the IPCC report itself, they list basically every variable except co2s effect as having a low level of consensus and understanding. In this context the idea the models do not explain the warming of that period if only “natural” factors are included is meaningless, because we literally do not fully understand the variables involved. Considering that co2s effect is extrapolated from variables we literally do not full understand by itself tells us that the single variable the IPCC claims to understand simply cannot be fully correct, unless it was by some wild coincidence and stroke of luck. The idea that so many sources agree when in general they weight the same not fully understood variables in very similar ways is also meaningless. Pretending this is all “robust” as we often hear just takes this all to near the point of being criminal as far as I am concerned. It certainly isn’t science.
Then of course the obvious question is then why do these models then fail to explain the current lack of warming? Doh! There is obvious agenda here, which is disturbing. It actually speaks very poorly of human cognition that this isnt obvious to more otherwise intelligent people. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force. Meanwhile very real and pressing environmental issues are nearly ignored. It is a brave new world.
rgbatduke says:
March 7, 2014 at 11:38 am
First of all “the modelS” (note plural) don’t do anything at all,
=============================
Ah, the models. They have become the Holy Ghost of the Climate religion. I’m sure they exist somewhere, but the vast majority of people who invoke The Climate Models, couldn’t name one, or otherwise provide any knowledge of them whatsoever.
Excellent analysis, rgb. Thanks! I’m just saying that the models being grossly flawed will not get them dismissed. Not yet, at least.
It’s like saying “I have models of humans and dogs driving, but only the models that have dogs doing 90% of the driving can explain traffic accident rates.” That excludes the possibility that you just suck at modelling. That becomes a near-certainty when you talk about incredibly-difficult-to-model phenomena like the global climate system.
talldave2,
You might owe me a laptop. I spewed Pepsi Maxx all over it while reading your last post. Do you mind if I quote you every time someone brings up models? Still laughing….choking a little…but laughing….
Matthew R Marler says: “In figures 7 and 8, what “trend” was removed? Linear increase through the observation period?”
You are correct. The values of the linear trend for each month were subtracted from the data. Then the results were smoothed with 61-month running-mean filters, centered on the 31st month.
Regards
” You can dress all of this up in as many learned publications as you like and it will still be deeply suspect methodology with no theoretically defensible predictive force. ”
Hear, hear.
The most amazing thing in this whole “debate” is that there was never any reason to think anyone could predict climate in the relevant ranges. In 1974, attempting to do so was called “practicing necromancy” by MIT. The only real change since then is an apparent decrease in critical thinking skills.
When the ‘evidence’ is warm temperature and no ice/snow and you employ a fleet of icebreakers and shovelers and snow-plows. And still there’s ice…!
Does not look good.
When the sea level was rising, some-one checked and it was by…. millimeters.
Does not look good.
When people need and want electricity/fuel to continue to deFy the climate …you reduce the supply and increase costs?
Does not look good.
When you say the science is settled…and then add change to the name of your cause.
Does not look good.
Is that enough of a communication problem?
Change may be the right word but i’m not sure it’s the climate.
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.
In order to explain the “Pause,” the warmists actually said that CO2 from volcanic eruptions
explained it. What, I thought CO2 caused it?
No amount of evidence or contradictory data will dissuade them. They are absolutist believers
in a political religion. Their goal is zero energy production and the destruction of all
capitalist economic systems. I have read too many quotes by leading environmentalists
where they longed for a return to a pre-industrial lifestyle they described as as small scale
socialist utopia fashioned after American Indian tribes.
Remember how we were told how wonderful the invention of the catalytic converter was?
We were told you could almost breathe the exhaust of a car equipped with one. They
told us the primary emission was “Harmless Carbon Dioxide.”
These neo Luddite Malthusians are now attacking CO2 as if it were poison. If these people
actually believe their own propaganda, they would support nuclear power. Do not hold
your breath waiting for that to happen!
Bruce Cobb
I tried your soup recipe and it went well until I came to serve it to the guests when it suddenly turned into a Gazpacho.
Apparently people have noticed that Mother Nature isn’t as enamored by the models as some hockey fans.
Perhaps the models need more makeup?
Leonard Jones says: “I have read too many quotes by leading environmentalists
where they longed for a return to a pre-industrial lifestyle they described as as small scale
socialist utopia fashioned after American Indian tribes.”
Yeah , Tribalism isn’t that where one tribe becomes powerful and just takes the other tribes stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism
Just using your quote as a bridge to mine. I don’t think i am under said bridge 😉
Thanks
Wot’s in a model? … Built in bias confirmation to fool yerself or others.
NRG22 says:
March 7, 2014 at 11:13 am
Can the reflected heat of all these mirrors, particularly in cities near water, heat water vapor and raise global temperatures?
Reflected light on earth cannot raise global temperatures. If light is reflected, then other parts will be in the shade and be cooler. Think of a large magnifying glass where refraction occurs. The light from the sun comes to a point where it is very hot, but the areas around the hot spot are cooler than they would be if the sun just shone there. There is no free lunch.
mbur absolutely! Having failed in their political ideology, the new left radicals of the 60’s
traded their Stalinist politics for the religion of nature worshiping tree-huggers right after
the Vietnam war ended. They needed a new way to attack industry and capitalism.
Your description of tribalism is right on! We are led to believe that the American Indian was
a peace loving cool and groovy guy who had no concept of private property ownership.
While many tribes were peace loving, most were not. Some of the plains tribes were fighting
for thousands of years over (Get this) land ownership.
In addition to one tribe fighting another, the chief was often the toughest SOB in the tribe.
His word was law. He ate the most. He had the most possessions. Thomas Hobbes
and his words on the noble savages in his time:
“In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
My favorite of the contemporary eco-nuts is Ted Turner. He openly calls for the coercive
reduction of the population of the Earth by more than 9/10 so that the remaining 10% could
live in harmony with the planet. Even Stalin was not that bold.
NRG22 says: @ March 7, 2014 at 1:55 pm
I just heard about this, in the US Democrat Senators plan all-nighter on climate change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just read the comments.
Stomach turning. Especially since they were also talking about ‘Jobs’. Don’t these people have any clue as to what ENERGY means to jobs and the economy? Or are they hoping for a return to serfdom with themselves as overlords.
Gunga Din says: @ March 7, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Perhaps the models need more makeup?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean like this IMAGE
Gail Combs says:
March 7, 2014 at 6:14 am
Philip Haddad says: @ March 7, 2014 at 5:27 am
Why is it that people will acknowledge that fossil fuels are a major anthropogenic contributor to global warming, but never make the connection that fuels are burned for heat, and heat is what causes temperatures to rise….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because that heat is local and minor.
Exactly. If all you Tar Heels turned up the heat and opened the doors and windows, I doubt we Virginians would notice.
@James the Elder – Since Dominion Power services part of NC, we would notice! 😉
@Randy 1:56
Exactly.
But you would have had to read the AR’s to know this.
We are absolutely certain, based on woulda,coulda,shoulda and do not have a clue.
Team IPCC TM Science.
Well it stands to reason. We are dealing with lying liars who are feeding at the public trough while exercising their communistic desires to enact one-world governance, and in at least some cases, advocating “solutions” that will kill as many people as possible, because, as “The Matrix” made clear, humans are a virus that needs to be extirpated.//rant off and if you ask politely, I’ll tell you what I really think. 😉
@Leonard Jones, Gail Combs –
Let’s not forget John Holdren – he makes Ted Turner look like a schoolyard twerp by comparison.. And yes, the political class does want to make us serfs beholden to them.
It is in fact the message. CGW papers and comments said clearly that global warming would be measurable and inexorable and increasing and visible. But this has all proven false (not surprisingly). Now to explain that which “is there, but can’t be seen” we have various other hypotheses typically in direct contradiction to observable data or without any observable data to support them at all. This “science” has become, offering up dozens of hypotheses and then demanding that unless each is disproved, CGW is established. This is not the scientific method whatsoever, but its opposite. And then we hear complaints ad nauseam that “people are not interested in science.” People are interested in science, but people are skeptical of extraordinary claims, and so demand extraordinary evidence, or at least, minimal evidence. Probably by definition, evidence that cannot be presented or that is repeatedly refuted, is not extraordinary.
“Greater warming over land than over oceans.” Wouldn’t we expect this to be true of purely natural warming too? Have I got something wrong?
Their implants need some assistance–that’s for sure.
“Perhaps the models need more makeup?”
You can put lipstick on a pig……
It’s more like how the message is massaged for the masses. The economics of truth! Some would say…lies!
Since logic does not apply in their argument for why humans are responsible for the warming, there is no point in using logic to argue with these people.