Richard Betts heads the Climate Impacts area of the UK Met Office. The first bullet point on his webpage under areas of expertise describes his work as a climate modeler. He was one of the lead authors of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (WG2). On a recent thread at Andrew Montford’s BishopHill blog, Dr. Betts left a remarkable comment that downplayed the importance of climate models.
Dr. Betts originally left the Aug 22, 2014 at 5:38 PM comment on the It’s the Atlantic wot dunnit thread. Andrew found the comment so noteworthy he wrote a post about it. See the BishopHill post GCMs and public policy. In response to Andrew’s statement, “Once again this brings us back to the thorny question of whether a GCM is a suitable tool to inform public policy,” Richard Betts wrote:
Bish, as always I am slightly bemused over why you think GCMs are so central to climate policy.
Everyone* agrees that the greenhouse effect is real, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Everyone* agrees that CO2 rise is anthropogenic Everyone** agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know. The old-style energy balance models got us this far. We can’t be certain of large changes in future, but can’t rule them out either. So climate mitigation policy is a political judgement based on what policymakers think carries the greater risk in the future – decarbonising or not decarbonising.
A primary aim of developing GCMs these days is to improve forecasts of regional climate on nearer-term timescales (seasons, year and a couple of decades) in order to inform contingency planning and adaptation (and also simply to increase understanding of the climate system by seeing how well forecasts based on current understanding stack up against observations, and then futher refining the models). Clearly, contingency planning and adaptation need to be done in the face of large uncertainty.
*OK so not quite everyone, but everyone who has thought about it to any reasonable extent
**Apart from a few who think that observations of a decade or three of small forcing can be extrapolated to indicate the response to long-term larger forcing with confidence
As noted earlier, it appears extremely odd that a climate modeler is downplaying the role of—the need for—his products.
“…WE CAN’T PREDICT LONG-TERM RESPONSE OF THE CLIMATE TO ONGOING CO2 RISE WITH GREAT ACCURACY”
Unfortunately, policy decisions by politicians around the globe have been and are being based on the predictions of assumed future catastrophes generated within the number-crunched worlds of climate models. Without those climate models, there are no foundations for policy decisions.
“…CLIMATE MITIGATION POLICY IS A POLITICAL JUDGEMENT BASED ON WHAT POLICYMAKERS THINK CARRIES THE GREATER RISK IN THE FUTURE – DECARBONISING OR NOT DECARBONISING”
But policymakers—and more importantly the public who elect the policymakers—have not been truly made aware that there is great uncertainty in the computer-created assumptions of future risk. Remarkably, we now find a lead author of the IPCC stating (my boldface):
… we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know.
I don’t recall seeing the simple statement “We don’t know” anywhere in any IPCC report. Should “we don’t know” become the new theme of climate science, their mantra?
“THE OLD-STYLE ENERGY BALANCE MODELS GOT US THIS FAR”
Yet the latest and greatest climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report show no skill at being able to simulate past climate…even during the recent warming period since the mid-1970s. So the policymakers—and, more importantly, the public—have been misled or misinformed about the capabilities of climate models.
For much of the year 2013, we presented those model failings in dozens of blog posts, including as examples:
- Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?
- Models Fail: Land versus Sea Surface Warming Rates
- Polar Amplification: Observations versus IPCC Climate Models
- Model-Data Comparison: Hemispheric Sea Ice Area
- Model-Data Precipitation Comparison: CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Model Simulations versus Satellite-Era Observations
- Model-Data Comparison with Trend Maps: CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models vs New GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index
In other words, the climate models presented in the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report cannot simulate what many persons would consider the basics: surface temperatures, sea ice area and precipitation.
Shameless Plug: These and other model failings were presented in my ebook Climate Models Fail.
“APART FROM A FEW WHO THINK THAT OBSERVATIONS OF A DECADE OR THREE OF SMALL FORCING CAN BE EXTRAPOLATED TO INDICATE THE RESPONSE TO LONG-TERM LARGER FORCING WITH CONFIDENCE”
A few? In effect, that’s all the climate models used by the IPCC do with respect to surface temperatures. Figure 1 shows the annual GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index data and linear trend (warming rate), for the Northern Hemisphere, from 1975 to 2000, a period to which climate models are tuned. The linear trend of the data has also been extrapolated until 2100. Also shown in the graph is the multi-model ensemble member mean (the average of all of the individual climate model runs) of the simulations of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature anomalies for the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive. The CMIP5 archive was used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report.
Figure 1
The model simulations of 21st Century surface temperature anomalies and their trends have been broken down into thirds to show that there was little increase in the expected warming rate through two-thirds of the 21st Century with the constantly increasing forcings. In other words, the models simply follow the extrapolated data trend through about 2066, in response to the increased forcings. See Figure 2 for the forcings.
Figure 2
So, Dr. Betts’s “a few” appears to, in reality, be the consensus of the climate science community…the central tendency of mainstream thinking about climate dynamics…the groupthink.
And the problem with the groupthink was that the climate science community tuned their models to a naturally occurring upswing in surface temperatures. See Figure 3.
Figure 3
Should the modelers have anticipated another cycle or two when making their pre-programmed prognostications of the future? Of course they should have. The models are out of phase with reality.
But why didn’t they tune their models to the long-term trend? If they had tuned their models to the long-term trend, there’s nothing alarming about a 0.07 deg C warming rate in Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures. Nothing alarming at all.
A NOTE
You may be wondering why I focused on Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures. Well, it’s well known that climate models can’t simulate the warming that took place in the Southern Hemisphere during the recent warming period. See Figure 4. The models almost double the warming that took place there since 1975.
Figure 4
CLOSING
Dr. Betts noted:
A primary aim of developing GCMs these days is to improve forecasts of regional climate on nearer-term timescales (seasons, year and a couple of decades) in order to inform contingency planning and adaptation (and also simply to increase understanding of the climate system by seeing how well forecasts based on current understanding stack up against observations, and then futher refining the models).
In order for the climate science community to create forecasts of regional climate on decadal timescales, the models will first have to be able to simulate coupled ocean-atmosphere processes. Unfortunately, with their politically driven focus on CO2, they are no closer now at being able to simulate those processes than they were two decades ago.
SOURCE
The GISS LOTI data and the climate model outputs are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m 95% confident that they don’t know what their doing.
Without the models, they have nothing. Now one of the high priests is saying that the models are basically worthless. It’s dead, Jim.
So, Richard Betts being one of the lead authors of AR5, must have been aware of the following declaration by Thomas Stocker in a widely broadcasted video at the AR5 Summary For Policymakers in September 2013:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615
At 1:30 Stocker shows a graph (SPM 10) with modelled carbon emmisions vs temp out to 2100. He clearly states that this graph has been adopted “by governments through the IPCC process” and that there is a clear relationship between emmisions and temperature. This was the main graph shown to the world via their media conference on the day the SPM was released.
Stocker was stating unequivocally that:
a) these temperature/emmisions model outputs were rock solid evidence out to 2100, and
b) that governments had already acted to heed that information via their input into the SPM drafting process.
That puts modelled data to 2100 as the prime impetus for all government policy on global warming from the date of this video, henceforth.
(Of course, Stocker didn’t use the word, “model” in relation to this graph, making its apparent authority all the more impressive)
Sounds like the “precautionary principle” is in force. We don’t know if there will be a problem, but their might be one, so we must act.
Yup, that is their rationale. In reality of course if we don’t know what is happening, for all we know we could be preventing another ice age which might occur if we cut emissions. Their application of the precautionary principle is implicitly assuming they *do* know emissions are causing damaging warming despite their claims we should act “just in case”. In reality they are proposing action, when according to the precautionary principle no action should be taken unless it is proven to be harmless.
Of course in general the usually concept of a “precautionary principle” is nonsense since a change may be better than the status quo, the evidence for both the status quo and a change need to be factored in. The quality of the evidence and level of certainty needs to be factored in. If a crank came up with a theory that claimed if the public doesn’t stop drinking coffee and tea we will all be dead in 20 years, should we act just in case? In addition of course they pretend that action is innocuous without trading off the economic damage it can do. In addition of course principle needs to be factored in, whether with uncertain theories these people have a right to force us to go along.
Dr Betts is one of very few who is willing to engage in extended discussion with a sceptic, to admit to the uncertain state of climate science, the failings of models to model long range (or even short range over a few days) and to explain mechanics of the models themselves to a questioner.
Kudos to him on his honesty in the age of outright alarmist hyperbole.
I agree and he should be praised for his willingness to discuss the issues.
We will see more of this manuoevring in order to protect their government funded job and pension.
Let us not forget:
Dr Betts was one of many who remained silent when Al Gore gave us Inconvenient Truth. There was totally silence when the alarmism was at its height. They were silent when countries put forward pointless emission controls.
The Met Office continues with the CO2 meme and the extreme weather nonsense.
Julia Slingo has stated before that they could do better if they had more expensive computing. However, the models seem to have peaked at their most uselessness.
Should “we don’t know” become the new theme of climate science, their mantra?
Yes.
It’s funny, isn’t it, when these guys accidentally let the truth slip out? Where was Betts when climate policy was being debated? When people trot out GCM output as predictions of future climate and evidence we must do something now, why isn’t he speaking up?
Yes! I give him credit for engaging with the sceptical community but watching his work get used to such drastic effect without stepping up to clarify the uncertainty is a big strike against him. I’m sorry but you can’t divorce yourself from your work like that. The public pays for his work and if he thinks he can take our money producing this stuff and then sit on the couch while the results are used by politicians to worsen our lives, he has a twisted understanding of his place in this world. The fact that he is coming clean now about the uncertainty after the SFP does all the damage, represents in my view the selfish actions of someone looking out for number one. Perhaps it’s more complex but that is how it appears.
Or perhaps he just genuinely disagrees with sceptics but still wants to engage to challenge himself?
It is nice to think the best of people. And it confuses them on the internet.
“Everyone agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know….We can’t be certain of large changes in future, but can’t rule them out either. So climate mitigation policy is a political judgement based on what policymakers think…”
Yes, as the facts continue to stack up against them, all that’s left is the Precautionary Principle, based entirely on “what policymakers think.” Now that’s one scary scenario!
Weaselling his way toward an exit?
Without the consensus of the average of the model outputs.
AKA Garbage in: Gospel Out.
The Cause has nothing.
There is no CAGW, no AGW, no need for the IPCC, nor these endless gabfests on the taxpayers dime.
But most sceptical people realized this quite early, about the same time we tried to make sense of the CAGW claims.
They said:”We have science”, But I could never find this elusive evidence.
They claimed the “Best Opinions”, I thought, Witchdoctors.
I read the IPCC reports, they said coulda,woulda, shoulda.. we have no clue, not measurements,but WE FEEL.
Then came those amazing “investigations” of Climategate.
Good enough for government I guess.
And I now know no one in my local government bothered to read the IPCC literature.
Just the Summary of talking points.
10 (last) years ago it was “it’s going to be large”, now they “can’t tell”, in 10 (1) more years it’ll be “never mind”.
IF the affect of CO2 was large, wouldn’t it be able to over power the other natural cycles?
Newly Retired Engineer
August 26, 2014 at 10:51 am Edit
Sounds like the “precautionary principle” is in force.
This goes back to Pascal’s Conundrum. The point being that mitigation to possible problems should be undertaken if the costs are negligible.
The costs are not negligible.
Therefore, the Precautionary Principle must yield to a sober cost/benefit analysis.
Seven, six, five, eleven, nine, and twenty-five, today,
Four, eleven, seventeen, thirty-two, the day before,
Boots, boots, boots, boots, moving up and down again;
There’s no discharge in the war.
Hi Bob and Anthony
Excellent post!
This text from Bishop Hill succinctly summarizes where we are with these multi-decadal climate models.[http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/8/24/gcms-and-public-policy.html]
“You can see that policymakers are getting a thoroughly biased picture of what GCMs can do and whether they are reliable or not. They are also getting a thoroughly biased picture of the cost of climate change based on the output of those GCMs. They are simply not being asked to consider the possibility that warming might be negligible or non-existent or that the models could be complete and utter junk. They are not told about the aerosol fudging or the GCMs’ ongoing failures.”
Roger Sr.
He’s saying, “We don’t know what’s going on – but let’s panic anyway!”
In the post on Bishop Hill, it reports on what Tim Palmer said
“Climate models are only flawed only if the basic principles of physics are, but they can be improved.”
Climate models are NOT basic physics models. Tim is incorrect. Except for a few effects; e.g. the pressure gradient forces, advection, gravity, ALL other physics, chemistry and biology are based on tuned parameterizations.
I discuss this separation of modeling components into these two parts in my book
.Pielke Sr, R.A., 2013: Mesoscale meteorological modeling. 3rd Edition, Academic Press, 760 pp. http://store.elsevier.com/Mesoscale-Meteorological-Modeling/Roger-A-Pielke-Sr/isbn-9780123852373/
in Chapters 7 and 8.
All parametrizations contain tuned coefficients and functions, usually based on a small subset of real world climate conditions.
If the climate and policy communities believe these models are fundamental physics, they are naive and being duped.
Very interesting. Thanks for enlightening me. I’ll be sure to buy your book.
John Robertson: I’ve always thought that climate change science is a bit like downtown Los Angeles. When you get there, there’s no there there.
“Weaseling towards and exit”. Excellent!
He is bemused. You silly deniers are just so childlike in your unsophisticated view of these matters, which are so obvious to us real scientists and our admirers.
‘It’s funny, isn’t it, when these guys accidentally let the truth slip out? Where was Betts when climate policy was being debated? When people trot out GCM output as predictions of future climate and evidence we must do something now, why isn’t he speaking up?’
————————————————————————————————————————————–
He does speak up, especially on twitter, this is a recent reply to me on Bishop Hills blog:
Lord Beaverbrook
I share your despair of the media. They are all as bad as each other, whether it’s the Guardian or the Daily Mail. They all have to shore up their end of the artificially-polarised debate.
Many of us who visit Bishop Hills blog have conversed with Dr Betts for years, he has my trust and respect and we may not always agree but he knows the science, and the IPCC.
Posts like this are a little disingenuous and put good people in awkward situations much the same way as those who wished to join the GWPF. Is this the intention of the post?
I accept the point you make about placing ‘good’ people in awkward positions; long term that may be to no one’s advantage.
However, I do not think that that is the intention of the post.
Most of us sceptics consider that the main problem with climate science is the certainty. The fact is that we do not know enough, and the data is so poor that it is very uncertain
It is the claims of certainty, rather than being honest and admitting that there are huge uncertainties and huge error margins, that so undermine claimate science, as a science.
It is good to see someone admit the truth, namely we do not know. And that should be published far and wide.
It’s agnorance.
Taphonomic August 26, 2014 at 9:56 am
“**Apart from a few who think that observations of a decade or three of small forcing can be extrapolated to indicate the response to long-term larger forcing with confidence”
Wait. Isn’t that exactly what is done by those hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that predict extinctions, sea ice free North pole, plagues, droughts, flood, famines, super storms, etc., etc.? Don’t all the peer reviewers agree? So they are all wrong?
Tap, I also thought of this and wrote up a boilerplate response, before reading the comments.
Instant resoponse to any modeled study utilizing climate models as data points.
Richard Betts, who heads the Climate Impacts area of the UK Met Office, claims his areas of expertise as a climate modeler and was one of the lead authors of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (WG2). Says –
“Everyone (Apart from a few who think that observations of a decade or three of small forcing can be extrapolated to indicate the response to long-term larger forcing with confidence) agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know. The old-style energy balance models got us this far. We can’t be certain of large changes in future, but can’t rule them out either.”
So your XXX study is based on “We Don’t Know.”
Bob – I don’t recall seeing the simple statement “We don’t know” anywhere in any IPCC report.
But they are 95 percent certain.
There is something about Betts.
The problem is that a heck of a lot of climate scientists remain silent rather than counter media hype.
Seems like an expert who works for the MET office like Mr Betts would be in a position to give a press release clarifying the innacuracies being put forth by offending journalists or media outlets. He can gently blame media but he has the power to change the situation like few of us have! Come on Mr Betts, time to do better.
So here we go with the “everyone agrees” and “reasonable” words. If I don’t agree with all you say I am not reasonable. Very similar to RGB’s rational wording.
There has been no evidence that CO2 can cause warming in the open atmosphere. In fact if you look at the ice core temperature vs. CO2 graph we see temperature goes up from the low before CO2 rises. And at the top temperature goes down before CO2 heads lower.
CO2 neither sufficient nor necessary for the temperature to change.
– – – – – – – – –
No, that is a mis-direction away from the problematic primary aim that has foundered on skeptical shores. The primary aim of the past 2+ decades of development of GCMs was to myopically emphasis / exaggerate an alarming basis for GAST increase concerns going all the way out to approx. the year 2100. That, in spite of what Betts says, remains the primary aim of current continuing efforts to develop GCMs by the IPCC centric advocates of the observationally unsubstantiated CAGW hypothesis.
Still, this whole dialog about Betts’ comment at the BH blog begs a question. Why is the main stream climate science focus predominately lacking in vigorous open and transparent critical dialog / debate of the observationally unsubstantiated CAGW hypothesis?
In skeptical discussions it is popular to obliquely refer to political expediencies as the root answer to my above ‘why’ question. { below comment* by Tisdale is an example } It is insufficient as a root cause. I think to understand why then we need to look at the last 150 or 200 years of increasingly non-objective trends found in the history of the philosophy of science. Politics is at best just a secondary manifestation of the root cause found in the philosophy of science. It is too convenient for scientists to point to the community of politics and say ‘it was them’.
* Tisdale said in his closing remarks, “In order for the climate science community to create forecasts of regional climate on decadal timescales, the models will first have to be able to simulate coupled ocean-atmosphere processes. Unfortunately, with their politically driven focus on CO2, they are no closer now at being able to simulate those processes than they were two decades ago.”
John
Uncle Gus August 26, 2014 at 11:25 am
“He’s saying, “We don’t know what’s going on – but let’s panic anyway!”
Besides not knowing “what” is going on he’s also saying, “We don’t even know if there is something, anything going on to begin with”.
Let alone what it may, may not, could or otherwise be consistent with any of their foolish notions.
HOST: So, you have a testable theory of AGW, but now that you’ve told us it isn’t any model, what, then, is your testable theory?
ANNE ELK: Oh, what is my theory?
HOST: Yes. Your testable theory, if not any model.
ANNE ELK: Oh what is my theory, that it is. Yes, well you may well ask, what is my theory.
HOST: (slightly impatient) I am asking.
ANNE ELK: And well you may. Yes my word you may well ask what it is, this theory of mine. Well, this theory that I have–that is to say, which is mine, this theory which belongs to me is as follows. Ahem. Ahem. This is how it goes. Ahem. The next thing that I am about to say is my theory. Ahem….