Steve McIntyre writes: IOP: expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”
The publisher of Environmental Research Letters today took the bizarre position that expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”.
The publisher stated that the rejected Bengtsson manuscript (which, as I understand it) had discussed the important problem of the discrepancy between models and observations had “contained errors”.
But what were the supposed “errors”? Bengtsson’s “error” appears to be the idea that models should be consistent with observations, an idea that the reviewer disputed.
The reviewer stated that IPCC ranges in AR4 and AR5 are “not directly comparable to observation based intervals”:
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
Later he re-iterated that “no consistency was to be expected in the first place”:
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
Read Steve’s entire post here: http://climateaudit.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/iop-expecting-consistency-between-models-and-observations-is-an-error/
==========================================================
Wow, he’s basically saying “models have no inconsistency with reality”. Damn, I guess we just aren’t as qualified as members of the sacred order to read graphs like these:
Ross McKittrick writes in comments at CA:
I have no idea if Bengtsson et al. is a good paper, not having seen it. But the topic itself is an important one, and notwithstanding those attempts at gatekeeping mentioned above, there’s no stopping the flow at this point because the model/observational discrepancies are so large and growing. A few recent examples in print include:
– Fyfe, J.C., N.P. Gillett and F.W. Zwiers, 2013: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nature Climate Change, 3, 767-769, doi:10.1038/nclimate1972
– Swanson, K.L., 2013: Emerging selection bias in large-scale climate change simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, DOI: 10.1002/grl.50562.
– McKitrick, Ross R. and Lise Tole (2012) Evaluating Explanatory Models of the Spatial Pattern of Surface Climate Trends using Model Selection and Bayesian Averaging Methods. Climate Dynamics DOI 10.1007/s00382-012-1418-9.
– Fildes, Robert and Nikolaos Kourentzes (2011) “Validation and Forecasting Accuracy in Models of Climate Change International Journal of Forecasting 27 968-995.
– Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis & N. Mamassis (2010). “A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data.” Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55(7) 2010.
– McKitrick, Ross R., Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman (2010) “Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Sets”. Atmospheric Science Letters, DOI: 10.1002/asl.290
And I know of another one nearly accepted that continues the theme. It may be that Bengtsson et al. had some flaws, though I agree that the reviewer didn’t point to any. Instead the reviewer tries to argue that models and observations are not meant to be compared, and the editor swallowed this nonsensical argument, no doubt happy for a straw to clutch at.
But nobody should be surprised that ERL has the slant that it does: This is a journal with Peter Gleick, Stefan Rhamstorf and Myles Allen on its editorial board:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/page/Editorial%20Board
You can’t advertise a hard-line editorial stance any better than that. Well, maybe they could: they list as their #1 Highlight publication of 2013… Cook, Nucitelli et al.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/page/Highlights-of-2013
Strangely, they really seem to be objecting that the Times had the nerve to run the story after all the work that’s been done to convince the press about the supposed dangers of “false balance”:
With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of ‘balance’ on a topic as societally important as climate change, we’re quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.
Evidently they too subscribe to that editorial position: don’t print anything that might give the impression there’s actually a range of scientific views out there.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The publisher of Environmental Research Letters today took the bizarre position that expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”. ”
Since most of it is policy funded and based “science” it’s only purpose is to be consistent with the UNFCCC?
Reality? We ain’t got no reality. We don’t need no reality! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ reality!
During my career as a chemical engineer I wrote many computer models. If I had said, “we should not expect consistency between the model and observations”, not only would I have been fired, I would have been drop kicked out the front gate.
Ralph Kramden says, May 16, 2014 at 3:02 pm: “I would have been drop kicked out the front gate.”
If you ran reactions based on such models, kicking you Stupid reality.
(Stupid tags; mods, please delete that botched attempt.)
Ralph Kramden says, May 16, 2014 at 3:02 pm: “I would have been drop kicked out the front gate.”
If you ran reactions based on such models, kicking you would not have been necessary.
a href=”http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-11-22/”>Stupid reality.
(where the heck did the bracket go? last chance. wish we had preview.)
Ralph Kramden says, May 16, 2014 at 3:02 pm: “I would have been drop kicked out the front gate.”
If you ran reactions based on such models, kicking you would not have been necessary.
Stupid reality.
“ It may be that Bengtsson et al. had some flaws, though I agree that the reviewer didn’t point to any. ”
On the contrary, the referee pointed to many flaws, and you actually quote from the report
http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times
For example you quote this:
“One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).”
which might have the interpretation that provided, or it might mean that they are not comparable because they refer to different physical and/or mathematical quantities. You would really need to full paper to tell – perhaps Bengtsson et. al. could be persuaded to provide the whole text?
What’s fascinating is that the disparity between global climate models and observations seems to be an easy fix.
The model error is consistently in one direction…..too warm.
If you use a gun to shoot at a target 50 times and your shot is to the right of center by, let’s say 2 4 inches each time(a marksman would not be dumb enough to let it go on that long), the solution is simple.
No, not move the target over to the right and still shoot at the same target. You adjust the gun(or aim 1 to 4 inches to the left of the bulls eye).
Climate scientists using global climate models apparently are not very good shots when it comes to hitting global temperature targets and worst of all, they are not smart(objective) enough to make the obvious adjustments in timely fashion.
Let’s have us a global temperature projecting contest. Take any time frame that isn’t skewed in the short run by an El Nino and I bet I can do better than the global climate model projection. The farther out, the better I can do.
What’s that you say? The government is the judge of the contest and they have already awarded first place to the models that are completely missing the target.
Hey, I object. I can prove that I can do better than the models, please just give me a chance to show you
The contest is settled, stop trying to interfere with our work. Go away denier. On your way out, don’t forget to leave us the $100 entry fee.
The amount of distance that a shot hits consistently to the right of center should result in an adjustment to the gun to make it shoot that same distance, farther to the left.
Tonyb,
So many articles I wish I’d have saved. One of my favorites had something similar to this:
We know sea levels were 3 feet higher in the past. We don’t know why they were higher, but we know it wasn’t for the same reason as today. (Meaning of course, AGW)
==========================================================
How many passengers can you take? I could recommend a few that have deserved free passage.
Better yet, does yours craft have an autopilot?
If you stay behind and your model crashes, what have we lost?
If the association between the Times and the GWPF develops such that
the inadequacies of the climate science are exposed more widely, then I
shall subscribe to the Times on Line, More power to them!
How about our site host giving this paper a nice full page spread and commentary to boot?
Show them what real science is and how to do it.. As the paper has been rejected they no longer have an intellectual property to stop its publication elsewhere.
If the output of the climate models is not to be compared to actual measurements then the validity of these models becomes irrefutable, and they are not scientific.
Anthony, you write: Wow, he’s basically saying “models have no inconsistency with reality”. I believe you meant to say “no consistency”.
So when Boeing tested the new wing of the 787 and it broke, contrary to what their models said the wing should do, they modified their models based on the new data from the broken wing. Perhaps this reviewer could enlighten Boeing about the true relationship between models and reality?
No, publication of Bengtsson’s paper was not rejected under a false pretense, it’s only his colleagues setting him straight. Just a standard method of discipline in Climate Science.
UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
May 16, 2014 at 2:20 pm
Then modelers have a duty to change their graphics and clearly indicate that the lines on the graph cannot be read as being about the real world. The next step would be to explain why readers should care about graphs that are not depicting the real world. Let’s be honest, even with the humble folk.
You need the SPM 10 graph from AR5 in this article too. That doesn’t just show a model averaged line that bears no relation to the instrumental record- they actually colour the hindcasted portion black and label it “historical” as if it really IS the instrumental record. And that’s mighty convenient because it shows a whopping hike in temperatures from 2000 to 2013 that just doesn’t exist. This graph was the poster child for the AR5 SPM press conference, broadcast globally in late 2013. It served to indoctrinate billions across five continents.
And that sleight of hand went unnoticed precisely because this paradigm of non correlation between models and data is so embedded in the alarmist psyche: if modelled data doesn’t need to mirror the instrumental record to pass as valid, it means you can present it as a ‘valid’ alternative-world scenario and then rubber-stamp it with the grand, real-world label, “historical”.
SPM 10 was a calculated set-up to fool countless, busy, hardworking people who don’t have time to delve beyond the IPCC sound bites and graphic wizardry.
Scute
There is a precedent for all this – the response to the Spencer and Braswell paper published in Remote Sensing. As explained by Peter Gleick in his post in Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/09/02/paper-disputing-basic-science-of-climate-change-is-fundamentally-flawed-editor-resigns-apologizes/
[begin quote – upper case added for emphasis, and d-word hyphenated]
The Spencer and Braswell paper fails in these requirements. But this is also the way science works: someone makes a scientific claim and others test it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, AND FITS THE MODELS. Once again, despite the fervent desires of climate skeptics and d-niers, the vast body of literature and the basic conclusions about the growing threat of climate change remains intact: the climate is changing rapidly and humans are the dominant cause.
[end quote]
Walt The Physicist says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Not only they are consistent… by being wrong in one direction, …
They are also consistently wrong.
Mike Maguire says:
May 16, 2014 at 3:24 pm
========================================
Yes Mark you got my comment here, David A says:May 16, 2014 at 1:13 pm. What is informative is indeed that the models are in fact consistently wrong in over predicting warmth. This indicates something fundamental and wrong is consistent in all the models. The most likely forcing they have wrong is the climate sensitivity to CO2.
Now you would think they would adjust their sights as you not indicated. Remarkably the IPCC takes the mean of all the “wrong in one direction” models, and bases their ever failing predicted future disasters on this.
The problem with stating that all models are wrong is that it leads to the following syllogism.
a) Models are wrong (major premise)
b) Bengtsson’s papers use models (minor premise)
c) Therefore (at least some of) Bengtsson’s papers are wrong (conclusion)
Which line would you like to modify? ( The minor premise b) is verifiable)
Ah, but you see, the problem is that you’re comparing models to actual temperature measurements. In a decade or so, they can safely ‘adjust’ today’s temperatures to match the models, then they will point out that the models match reality, and have always matched reality; any supposed inconsistency in the past was just because reality was wrong.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
May 16, 2014 at 4:40 pm
======================================================
You missed the mark with your straw man argument there. (Almost as much as the wrong climate models) Keep repeating this assertion and you can continue to miss the mark.)