One of the biggest issues facing climate science today is the divergence of reality (observations) from the model output. The draft image from IPCC AR5 (seen below) clearly illustrates this as does the analysis done by Dr. Roy Spencer. WUWT regular Tom Trevor wrote this short paragraph in comments, and it seemed prescient to me, so I thought it was worth elevating to Quote of the Week.
You know when I was a boy I would build models, I wasn’t very good at building models, but I built them anyway so I could play with them afterwards. I would pretend that the models were real ships or planes, but I always knew they weren’t even close to real ships or planes. For some reason these people can’t seem to tell the difference between a climate model and the real climate.
Original comment here
The IPCC AR5 draft models-vs-reality image:
Dr. Roy Spencer’s analysis of models-vs-reality:
![CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png?quality=75)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We have become so innured to the weasel words of climate science that we almost don’t read them any more. And when the MSM gets a hold of these speculations, add another layer of biased obfuscation.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Dr Spencer’s simple technique of superimposing the tens of (taxpayer funded) broken models and the real temperature was the visual catalyst for the average citizen to understand this academic & scientific fraud?
This.
It reminds me of what goes on with 5th grade young girls. You make your graph look like all the others or your not in the click.
“clique”
Beat me to it!
“you’re not in the clique”
Grammar is the difference between “knowing you’re nuts” and “knowing your nuts”.
I’ll have to borrow that line.
Great example, must try to remember it Peter, thanks.
Not a clique I would wish to associate with.
done by Dr. Roy Spence….
Who?…..LOL…typo third line
You people just don’t understand…..one day the temp is going to shoot straight up and meet that line
just wait and see
It’s called volatile induced anthropogenic global rectified alarmism…………….VIAGRA
Lat,
I think you’re right on. That is HARD science right there. Unfortunately the warmunists and their believers will soon find they’ve been STIFFED. The only thing going UP are their expectations, which will soon go limp as their house of cards is ERECTED on sand. Their expected CLIMAX is definitely PREMATURE.
Their VIAGRA problem will soon become:
FLACCID: Failed Long-term Anthropogenic Climate Change Identification Disorder.
I am so EXCITED to be here! You have no idea!
🙂
ROTFL…………you’re good!……really good!!
You guys are friggin geniuses!!
You 2 win. Laughed at both. You should be writing for Conan!!!
Who is this guy Spence?
: > )
The weather/climate on the other hand are not a 5th grade young ladies.
Ah! Prove it.
I just love Spencer’s spaghetti graph. That one picture is worth more than a billion words!
Spencer’s graph illustrates starkly the failure of projected CAGW for this century. If this was any other science they would dial down dramatically projected warming, but they can’t because the IPCC would be shut down and climate change funding would dry up.
And maybe save a billion dollars, if we could get our betters to understand that.
Anyone who tuned their Climate model that produced a +1.0 deg C sensitivity lost their funding 20 years ago. That funding selection gave us the GCM failures we have today.
+1
Not far off topic, have you ever seen Robert Crumb’s illustration of “3 futures” ?http://www.lagunabeachbikini.com/index.php/2010/09/06/the-future-of-american-surburbs/
I suppose the warmists want the 3rd case, the “Ecotopian future”. I love the fun future too.
We are all supposed to fear the “Ecological disaster” of course, but I doubt it will happen.
We have already experienced the ecotopian model. Horse-drawn plows, horse-drawn carriages, horse-drawn carts (as a child I used to jump in the ice-man’s wagon to filch slivers of ice in the summertime.) Believe me, it is not an idyllic experience. Especially dodging the horse-hockey everywhere.
Only my PE teachers have called me “Spence”. Hope Anthony doesn’t have any exercise planned for my future. Against my religion.
Reminds me of that quote “If man could fly, he would not. It would be considered exercise.”. 😉
You’ve got religion as well?
Hi Roy, you never told me what you thought of my end result [not model]
last graph
on the bottom of the minima table.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
It shows man made warming is exactly 0.000K/annum….
Modern climate scientists like their comforts – they don’t like to leave the office, and when they do, it often ends badly (ship of fools, anyone? 🙂 ).
I believe the climate modelers have a Mr. Spock fetish. They believe they are on the bridge of the Enterprise and can calculate the how to save the known universe from an out-of-control black hole using a pocket calculator.
An example of how to base a model on reality:
http://animals.io9.com/scientists-found-an-algorithm-to-turn-all-of-us-into-sh-1628074565
The interesting thing is that previous researchers “thought” they knew what the herd and the sheepdog did and tried to model it without doing any in depth observation. This led to failure of the models.
I wonder if they could have asked any ranchers about how they herd cattle….seems about the same concept i.e. Collecting and Driving
“King and his group suspect that the sheepdog algorithm would prove tremendously useful for human crowd control.”
Jawohl.
errr, have you seen the latest idiocy wher theyve tried to model sheep herds and replace the dog with a robot?
I am looking forward greatly to seeing how a robot copes with sheep going over/through fences and being flattened BY a aggro sheep.
be worth a lot for the laughs:-0
Hate to spoil a bit of the fun here, since agree with the general sentiment. But Dr. Spencer’s comparison is to RCP 8.5, which has elsewhere on this blog ( and elsewhere) been established to be literallyimpossible. The better comparison is to RCP 6.0 (the old SRES A2 is closer to 6.0 than to 4.5). Of course, the change from AR4 was made to obscure the many provably false assumptions in the explicit SRES, covered up by yet more IPCC blathering.
There is no need to resort to hyperbole to stop CAGW. The wheels are coming off all by themselves. Best that the high road is taken.
My understanding is that RCP 8.5 predicts .27C per decade which is right in line with AR4’s 02-.03C per decade prediction. I think the proper comparison is what the IPCC has predicted — not what other (saner) voices have decided as “literally impossible.” 😉
One of the major reasons why I have no confidence in these types of models is that they almost perfectly hindcast but start to diverge as soon as they forecast. They remind me of models that try to predict the stock market. You can, with sufficient effort, get them to do a reasonable curve fit of the past, but they have no predicative abilities.
Seeing as we’re doing nicknames….
…..wait…what?
I heard there would be models !!
CAGW motto:
“Reality? We don’t need no stinkin’ reality.”
Some people think the glass is half as warm as it should be and others think it’s half as cold as it should be.
And then there’s us SUPER optimists who think we’re halfway to our next beer….
But, will that half warm, half full, half-a$$ed glass of beer get them to their next supermodel?
Perhaps… …if there’s enough of that “renewable”, biofuel, ethanol in it!
Hurray for yeast! Zymurgically enhanced global-warmistalarmism!
On second thought, maybe not: they’re a litigious lot, and if we encourage ’em, they’ll start drinking the actual biofuel, too many will develop bizarre symptoms and cirrhosis, and they’ll sue us…
Climate modelers live in a rectum reality — where keeping your head stuck up your ass is all that matters.
There is hope for sufferers of proctocraniosis. One of these can be screwed into the navel:
http://www.johnernst.com/images/341.gif
Thank you Dr. Spencer for so succinct graphic analysis. Sums up the pause problem quite nicely.
Engineers build and test models and (mostly) get it right. That is their job, the models can fail but, lessons are learned, the models modified until the desired outcome is achieved. Think of aircraft,vehicles, buildings, bridges. The big difference in climate models is that Co2 is assumed to be major driver, producing the present divergence from reality, and I cannot see that changing in the future.
There is no connection between quiet,behind the scenes,engineering model generation where accuracy is literally life and death,and these noisy,politically motived grant seekers masquerading as scientists.
The bigger difference is that the parameters used in engineering design models are based on materials and situations that have often been thoroughly proven before being programmed into the model. Climate modelers have no idea how many factors impact climate, how the various known cycles that impact climate impact other cycles, not to mention those factors and cycles that are unknown. How can any true scientist (and I am not one) believe these models have any validity whatsoever?
I recently wrote an article on engineering models, it’s here. How we used to do it is here.
Interesting PP, I just felt that original comment did a disservice to model making.
In the real world, there is a price to be paid for being wrong.
In the climanista bizzaro world, there is price to paid for being right (realistic)
Tropical mid-troposphere, compared to a small number of balloon data sets – really? How many data sets were screened to come up with that one?
Last time I checked, balloon data sets were made up of more than one balloon.
“For the vast majority of mankind accept appearances as though they were reality, and are more influenced by those things that seem than by those things that are.” Machiavelli~ The Prince
”Die wichtigkeit oder Bedeutung eines Problems haengt immer auch von subjektiven, bewer tendens Elementen ab” Vollmer Gerhard, Wissenschaftstheorie in Einsatz, Stuttgart 1993
quick English translation:
The importance or significance of a problem always depends on subjective, personal evaluativable Tendens elements
Ich glaube dass stimmt.
Aber , ist ihr Glas halb simuliert … 8<)
Its looking like Bardarbunga is starting to go.
http://www.livefromiceland.is/webcams/bardarbunga/
http://baering.github.io/
Yep. Met Office: “Warning A fissure eruption has started north of Dynjujökull.”
http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/articles/nr/2947