People send me stuff. In this case I have received an embargoed paper and press release from Nature from another member of the news media who wanted me to look at it.
The new paper is scheduled to be published in Nature and is embargoed until 10AM PDT Sunday morning, July 20th. That said, Bob Tisdale and I have been examining the paper, which oddly includes co-authors Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky and Dr. Naomi Oreskes and is on the topic of ENSO and “the pause” in global warming. I say oddly because neither Lewandowsky or Oreskes concentrates on physical science, but direct their work towards psychology and science history respectively.
Tisdale found a potentially fatal glaring oversight, which I verified, and as a professional courtesy I have notified two people who are listed as authors on the paper. It has been 24 hours, and I have no response from either. Since it is possible that they have not received these emails, I thought it would be useful to post my emails to them here.
It is also possible they are simply ignoring the email. I just don’t know. As we’ve seen previously in attempts at communication with Dr. Lewandowsky, he often turns valid criticisms into puzzles and taunts, so anything could be happening behind the scenes here if they have read my email. It would seem to me that they’d be monitoring their emails ahead of publication to field questions from the many journalists who have been given this press release, so I find it puzzling there has been no response.
Note: for those that would criticize my action as “breaking the embargo” I have not even named the paper title, its DOI, or used any language from the paper itself. If I were an author, and somebody spotted what could be a fatal blunder that made it past peer review, I’d certainly want to know about it before the paper press release occurs. It is about 24 hours to publication, so they still have time to respond, and hopefully this message on WUWT will make it to them.
Here is what I sent (email addresses have been link disabled to prevent them from being spambot harvested):
===============================================================
From: Anthony
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 9:01 AM
To: james.risbey at csiro.au
Subject: Fw: Questions on Risbey et al. (2014)
Hello Dr. Risbey,
At first I had trouble finding your email, which is why I sent it to Ms.Oreskes first. I dare not send it to professor Lewandowsky, since as we have seen by example, all he does is taunt people who have legitimate questions.
Can you answer the question below?
Thank you for your consideration.
Anthony Watts
—–Original Message—–
From: Anthony
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:48 AM
To: oreskes at fas.harvard.edu
Subject: Questions on Risbey et al. (2014)
Dear Dr. Oreskes,
As a climate journalist running the most viewed blog on climate, I have been graciously provided an advance copy of the press release and paper Risbey et al. (2014) that is being held under embargo until Sunday, July 20th. I am in the process of helping to co-author a rebuttal to Risbey et al. (2014) I think we’ve spotted a major blunder, but I want to check with a team member first.
One of the key points of Risbey et al. is the claim that the selected 4 “best” climate models could simulate the spatial patterns of the warming and cooling trends in sea surface temperatures during the hiatus period.
But reading and re-reading the paper we cannot determine where it actually identifies the models selected as the “best” 4 and “worst” 4 climate models.
Risbey et al. identifies the 18 originals, but not the other 8 that are “best” or “worst”.
Risbey et al. presented histograms of the modeled and observed trends for the 15-year warming period (1984-1998) before the 15-year hiatus period in cell b of their Figure 1. So, obviously, that period was important. Yet Risbey et al. did not present how well or poorly the 4 “best” models simulated the spatial trends in sea surface temperatures for the important period of 1984-1998.
Is there some identification of the “best” and “worst” referenced in the paper that we have overlooked, or is there a reason for this oversight?
Thank you for your consideration.
Anthony Watts
WUWT
============================================================
UPDATE: as of 10:15AM PDT July 20th, the paper has been published online here:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html
Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase
Abstract
The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.
of interest is this:
UPDATE2: rebuttal has been posted
After reading through the snarky rebuttals to rebuttals, and a careful consideration of where we stand vis-a-vis, climate models that look like random number generators, unexplained temp rise hiatus, and cowardly climate scientists (hiding their concerns in fear of making some blackball grant list), I am left with only one thought of which I am reasonably certain.
That thought is, the climate modelers and their champions must realize that TIME is their enemy. Time, and its relentless arrowlike flow as an Occam razor scythe of simplifying real world data cutting down model projections like straw, will strike down the models and professional reputations of the model adherents.
Time will cure the CAGW insanity of the current era.
I’m just hanging out to see what their concept of ‘best’ and worst’ is…..very scientific I am sure…
ScienceCasts: Solar Mini-Max.
If it were figure skating they would throw out the two top and bottom scores :/
Two wrongs don’t make a right… unless you average them, in which case it depends on who is doing the averaging.
Perhaps someone pointed this out earlier, but I guess I will say it again for it needs to be said.
Averaging the model runs do not make them more accurate in this case. Averaging only works when the averaged data is generally split both higher and lower than verification. In the case of climate models vs real world temps, the models DO NOT do this. They all run hot, and the best you can say is that the coldest of them are close to reality. You could use this reasoning 15 years ago when the model mean was not far off observations, but they have been diverging for too long to keep pretending it’s valid statistics.
Therefore, the only effect from averaging is to bring the most extreme failures closer to verification data. But it also draws the closer ones away from the verification data. But the model mean is not more accurate than at least 1/2 the models since they all started higher than the reality line. Seriously, does this need to be pointed out?
The only reason to do the model averaging is keep the most extreme predictions as part of the climate science pantheon. It serves no other purpose when we have real world data that all falls below the models. This is a political choice to keep the highest models funded and available for people to use to keep the highest end of the predicted range higher. 1.5 – 6 or 1.5 to 7, sounds better than 1.5 to 2.5, if your purpose is to convince people that they should be frightened.
Any statistician would know that averaging only works when you can reasonable assume they are evenly distributed about the actual mean. Since none of the real world data bears this out, it is quite simply baffling to keep defending this. There is no point pretending the averaging of the current models is anything but a political choice to give the most outrageous models a measure of credibility.
To summarize, they are sacrificing the models that are closest to real world data, to prop up the ones that are farthest away. Just another in a long list of questionable things that should be making any scientist more sceptical, not more certain.
As far as this paper goes. If they are just going to try and validate models by picking how a few models got close to one of many parameters. If they don’t closely match most of the variables (preferably close on all), they are still failed. If a model of the cardiovascular system closely models blood flow in the legs, but not the rest of the body, they are garbage. Again, does this really need to be pointed out?
Lew and Oreski have made careers of trying to find novel new methods of spin to cheerlead for CAGW. It’s always look at this, to try and distract from all those problems over there. When something is not given in a paper, it is almost definitely not there for a reason. Carefully censored data and views has become the norm in climate circles, with open honest science in the decline. When both are together, we already know this paper is being prepared to spearhead another media blitz (obviously true due to the media stuff already in the works). Simply put, if a new climate paper is given more PR and media blitz, it’s already suspect.
If it turns out to be good science, then I will accept it and absorb it into my views. But it already looks like a obvious spin paper that was supposed to be already plastered across the media before anyone got a chance to point out it’s flaws. And once the internet climate warriors have read a story about it, it will be quoted endlessly forever into the future, and none of them will ever bother to check if it was challenged or debunked. I routinely see retracted papers thrown out as proofs.
Again, as always, this is a black eye for science. Sceptics are not anti-science, the climate crowd has done way more damage than any sceptic.
A real world example of the averages of model projections not doing much to increase their individual validity:
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
However, the averages do show a warming trend. So from that angle, they match reality.
(In defense of English/Journalism majors, they are some of the most intelligent, creative, loving, caring, intelligent, thoughtful, rational, logical, erudite, autodidactic, well-rounded, understanding, intelligent, passionate, curious and intelligent people on Earth. And many of them are rather intelligent.)
From Poptech on July 19, 2014 at 9:27 pm:
Have you ever looked at Mosher’s Linkedin profile?
He’s making a living sifting data while writing and using R. It’s safe to conclude he has a greater proficiency with computers and R than your pride will allow you to admit. Your loss.
The conspiracy minded might think the omission deliberate, in the hope that skeptics will criticise the papers conclusions, whereupon the authors say well we didn’t name specific models therefore your complaints re results when you have no idea how we reached them proves you are all a bunch of conspiracy minded nutters.
By pointing out their omission you have potentially spoilt all their fun
😉
Sorry for being a bit off topic, but here is what is really happening this side of the pond.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10978678/Owen-Paterson-Im-proud-of-standing-up-to-the-green-lobby.html
I have no doubt that those of you in the US and elsewhere will have similar examples from your own countries.
Sorry to be off topic but I have a question. In my memory I remember the acronym CAGW being commonly used by proponents, and skeptics. I know there was, and are currently, countless proclamations of catastrophe by the media, and scientist.
However currently the warmist say that CAGW is a term used by the skeptics. They point to the IPCC using the term CC, for Climate Change since its inception. I know that most scholarly publications used most commonly the term AGW, or GW. Yet I remember may uses of the term CAGW by proponents.
Am I wrong?
Did skeptics create that term?
If you have any linked evidence I would appreciate it.
Clearly the term CAGW is more accurate and pertinent, but I still need the history of the acronym.
Thanks in advance.
David A
From Matt L. on July 20, 2014 at 12:20 am:
And highly qualified upon graduation for specialized employment in the modern job market. They belong to a small subset of career employees suitable for select establishments where they will be repeatedly called upon to correctly inquire if a client would like French fries OR curly fries with that.
It is said a few can also aptly handle steak fries as well and even options like gravy or chili or cheese sauce, but that may require a doctorate.
Atually some of the models with the lowest warming are very close to the actual temperature trend. It would be of interest to analyse those and establish whether they are right for the wrong reasons (assuming that we know – or like to believe – what the right reasons are) or why they are so different from the ones with the higher climate sensitivity.
Anthony, do you understand these to be the best four models in that the show a pause or are they the best four models in showing a pause that will go away as they predict further into the future.
The best model IPCC wise is the one that assumes full action on climate change with massive carbon dioxide reduction .
If this is the case are they not shooting themselves in the foot?
The worst model is the one that assumes conditions as usual in carbon dioxide production, ie increasing levels with a hockey stick upwards.
Surely they cannot be throwing the most accurate input model out?
It is great that nature is publishing a paper with Lewindowsky as a lead author. No one else has successfully undermined any other published papers as much as he has by his mere presence. When he gets to actually commentating on it the repercussions will wreck Nature for years.
Can we have a competition please for this article called “guess the Reviewers”
I might win with Gergis, Cook, Turney and the PhD student who reviewed Gergis’s last work.
If the models have not been identified to protect the sensitivities of the modellers as suggested they must be a very defensive bunch.
There are better ways if saying it than best and worse which are subjective and judgemental terms. “Most/least supportive of the arguments posited by this paper” would be more descriptive and protect the sensitivities of the modellers. Perhaps the authors need to engage with a wordsmith. I’m normally as cheap as chips but I’d up my rates if I had to try to make sense of this stuff.
Is there enough information for an expert in the field to identify the models without explicitly naming them?
If not, I don’t see how you can use them objectively support an argument. If you are not going to to an objective correlation, which would mean exposing the model outputs allowing them to be identified, with the results you predict in your theory all you can say is “I’ve looked at the four models that are most supportive of my theory and they support my theory better than the other 14”
Science has got itself into a bit of a pickle hasn’t it?
u.k.(us):
In your post at July 19, 2014 at 7:34 pm you ask Poptech concerning GCM performance
And, of course, the “right answer” depends on the question asked.
If the question is,
‘Which if any climate models emulate the climate system of the real Earth?’
then the answer is
‘At most only one and if there is one then which one is not known: all others emulate a climate system which the Earth doers not possess.’
So, averaging climate model results is averaging wrong results.
I again provide the following explanation of this reality.
None of the models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect (such as the determination by Penner et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes )
would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.
This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
1.
the assumed degree of forcings resulting from human activity that produce warming
and
2.
the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.
More than a decade ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which was greater than was observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.
He says in his paper:
And, importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:
And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.
Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^2 to 2.02 W/m^2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^2 to -0.60 W/m^2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
Richard
The idea that the average of all the models would always yield the best answer is one of the most deluded things I have read here in a long time. If that were so, then many people would average the outputs of the thousands of models of the stock market and become wealthy with little effort or risk. I have never read of such a strategy working though.
In fact, I have read that most models of the stock market are “tuned” using historical data and they then work fairly well for a time as long as the stock market’s behavior matches the recent past pretty well. When the market changes, those relying on the model get whacked, or so I have read.
If there is a model of the climate that is correct, we are no closer to building it than we were 30 years ago. That, my friends, is a sad state of affairs.
I suspect this will be another good deed that does not go unpunished…
Mark Storval
I totally agree about averaging models. One of our regular contributors R.G.Batduke wrote an excellent piece a few months back about the absurdity of the practice….. but it continues. Scientific rigour was abandoned a long time ago in this field.
The political situation in Europe shows that climate policy is highly detrimental.
Mosher
“The issue is the four worst on this test will be the best on
Some other test”
Right, like the best on 1984-1998?
Is it any better to be best on 1999-2013 than on 1984-1998?
Steve Jones says:
July 20, 2014 at 12:43 am
Sorry for being a bit off topic, but here is what is really happening this side of the pond.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10978678/Owen-Paterson-Im-proud-of-standing-up-to-the-green-lobby.html
Owen Paterson was probably one of Cameron’s most effective ministers and I’m very sorry to see him go. His piece is excellent and very true.
I stopped voting Conservative a few years ago and one major reason is the way the government is squandering vast sums of money on wind farms that destroy the environment and don’t work most of the time. I’m now proud to be a UKIP voter and I’ll probably never vote Conservative as long as Cameron is leader.
But if Paterson becomes leader there’s a good chance I’d return to the fold.
Chris
Simple fact is that the avergae of models is a better tool than any given one.
deal with it – Mosher
===================================
But if they are all way out, as it seems they are, the average is still useless, isn’t it?
Mr Mosher:
does it make sense to average models? probably not. But you get a better answer that way
No you don’t. The average of a pile of excrement is still excrement