Oh this is hilarious. In a “Back To The Future” sort of moment, this press release from the National Center for Atmospheric Research claims they could have forecast “the pause”, if only they had the right tools back then.
Yes, having tools of the future would have made a big difference in these inconvenient moments of history:
“We could have forecast the Challenger Explosion if only we knew O-rings became brittle and shrank in the cold, and we had Richard Feynman working for us to warn us.”
“We could have learned the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor if only we had the electronic wiretapping intelligence gathering capability the NSA has today.”
“We could have predicted the Tacoma Narrows Bridge would collapse back then if only we had the sophisticated computer models of today to model wind loading.”
Yes, saying that having the tools of the future back then would have fixed the problem, is always a big help when you want to do a post-facto CYA for stuff you didn’t actually do back then.
UPDATE: WUWT commenter Louis delivers one of those “I wish I’d said that” moments:
Even if they could have forecast the pause, they wouldn’t have. That would have undercut their dire message that we had to act now because global warming was accelerating and would soon reach a point where it would become irreversible.
Here’s the CYA from NCAR:
Progress on decadal climate prediction
Today’s tools would have foreseen warming slowdown
If today’s tools for multiyear climate forecasting had been available in the 1990s, they would have revealed that a slowdown in global warming was likely on the way, according to new research.
The analysis, led by NCAR’s Gerald Meehl, appears in the journal Nature Climate Change. It highlights the progress being made in decadal climate prediction, in which global models use the observed state of the world’s oceans and their influence on the atmosphere to predict how global climate will evolve over the next few years.
Such decadal forecasts, while still subject to large uncertainties, have emerged as a new area of climate science. This has been facilitated by the rapid growth in computing power available to climate scientists, along with the increased sophistication of global models and the availability of higher-quality observations of the climate system, particularly the ocean.
Although global temperatures remain close to record highs, they have shown little warming trend over the last 15 years, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the “early-2000s hiatus”. Almost all of the heat trapped by additional greenhouse gases during this period has been shown to be going into the deeper layers of the world’s oceans.
The hiatus was not predicted by the average conditions simulated by earlier climate models because they were not configured to predict decade-by-decade variations.
However, to challenge the assumption that no climate model could have foreseen the hiatus, Meehl posed this question: “If we could be transported back to the 1990s with this new decadal prediction capability, a set of current models, and a modern-day supercomputer, could we simulate the hiatus?”
Looking at yesterday’s future with today’s tools
To answer this question, Meehl and colleagues applied contemporary models in a “hindcast” experiment using the new methods for decadal climate prediction. The models were started, or “initialized,” with particular past observed conditions in the climate system. The models then simulated the climate over previous time periods where the outcome is known.
The researchers drew on 16 models from research centers around the world that were assessed in the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For each year from 1960 through 2005, these models simulated the state of the climate system over the subsequent 3-to-7-year period, including whether the global temperature would be warmer or cooler than it was in the preceding 15-year period.
Starting in the late 1990s, the 3-to-7-year forecasts (averaged across each year’s set of models) consistently simulated the leveling of global temperature that was observed after the year 2000. (See image at bottom.) The models also produced the observed pattern of stronger trade winds and cooler-than-normal sea surface temperatures over the tropical Pacific. A previous study by Meehl and colleagues related the observed hiatus of globally averaged surface air temperature to this pattern, which is associated with enhanced heat storage in the subsurface Pacific and other parts of the deeper global oceans.
Letting natural variability play out
Although scientists are continuing to analyze all the factors that might be driving the hiatus, the new study suggests that natural decade-to-decade climate variability is largely responsible.
As part of the same study, Meehl and colleagues analyzed a total of 262 model simulations, each starting in the 1800s and continuing to 2100, that were also assessed in the recent IPCC report. Unlike the short-term predictions that were regularly initialized with observations, these long-term “free-running” simulations did not begin with any particular observed climate conditions.
Such free-running simulations are typically averaged together to remove the influence of internal variability that occurs randomly in the models and in the observations. What remains is the climate system’s response to changing conditions such as increasing carbon dioxide.
However, the naturally occurring variability in 10 of those simulations happened, by chance, to line up with the internal variability that actually occurred in the observations. These 10 simulations each showed a hiatus much like what was observed from 2000 to 2013, even down to the details of the unusual state of the Pacific Ocean.
Meehl pointed out that there is no short-term predictive value in these simulations, since one could not have anticipated beforehand which of the simulations’ internal variability would match the observations.
“If we don’t incorporate current conditions, the models can’t tell us how natural variability will evolve over the next few years. However, when we do take into account the observed state of the ocean and atmosphere at the start of a model run, we can get a better idea of what to expect. This is why the new decadal climate predictions show promise,” said Meehl.
Decadal climate prediction could thus be applied to estimate when the hiatus in atmospheric warming may end. For example, the UK Met Office now issues a global forecast at the start of each year that extends out for a decade.
“There are indications from some of the most recent model simulations that the hiatus could end in the next few years,” Meehl added, “though we need to better quantify the reliability of the forecasts produced with this new technique.”
The paper:
Meehl, Gerald A., Haiyan Teng, and Julie M. Arblaster, “Climate model simulations of the observed early-2000s hiatus of global warming,” Nature Climate Change (2014), doi:10.1038/nclimate2357
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Although scientists are continuing to analyze all the factors that might be driving the hiatus, the new study suggests that natural decade-to-decade climate variability is largely responsible.”
Ummmm…yeah. DOH! Isn’t that what climate realists (us) have been saying all along. Climate change is NATURAL!
Last paragraph so “the hiatus could last a few more years”. Seems like their models go right back to predicting warming once the new adjustments run through them. GIGO as usually.
“There are indications from some of the most recent model simulations that the hiatus could end in the next few years,”
Talk about wiggle words – they clearly have no more confidence (and rightly so) in their models now than they did 2 decades ago. Just putting out puff pieces like this to try to keep the whole CAGW thing from dying completely.
“We could have predicted the pause in global warming if only we knew how wrong we were back then.”
Today’s tools would have foreseen warming slowdown
Ri-i-i-i-i-ght…
OK then, predict when global warming will ‘resume’.
Or will it be a cool-down?
They haven’t a clue what’s going to happen even though their beloved CO2 continues to go up without a pause.
10 out of 262 model runs came up with the solution that actually occurred. By my calculations, 96.8% of model runs are junk.
there you are, the 97% consensus confirmed. 97% wrong.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
“Such decadal forecasts, while still subject to large uncertainties, have emerged as a new area…” In other words, they still haven’t a clue.
So 10 of 262 modeled simulations “lined up” with measurements? That is reassuring…. especially since the modelers already know the answer! The rubbish would be funny if it were not so potentially damaging. This is the kind of ‘science’ which merits nothing but cat calls and laughter.
Ridiculous is too kind a description. More accurate is that climate modeling is as intellectually corrupt a ‘scientific’ enterprise as I have ever encountered; can modelers honestly believe the public should be convinced by such post hoc tripe? Public defunding of UCAR is the only way to focus modelers’ minds, and is desperately needed.
When you’re always right, the most likely reason is you don’t know right from wrong.
“We could have forecast the Challenger Explosion if only we knew O-rings became brittle and shrank in the cold” – but that was well known and dismissed by managers with more urgent priorities.
“We could have learned the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor if only we had the electronic wiretapping intelligence gathering capability the NSA has today.” – except the Japanese, having read Sun Tzu (500 BCE), understood that it was never a good idea to let your adversaries know your intentions.
“We could have predicted the Tacoma Narrows Bridge would collapse back then if only we had the sophisticated computer models of today” – but the Roman Legions well understood the difficulties (ignored by the Tacoma Narrows Bridge architects) of resonance with bridges.
“Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, ‘It might have been.'” – John Greenleaf Whittier
The fact is that ‘climatologists’ are still using the tools they used a third of a century ago, with disastrously wrong results. These tools – computer modelling – are essentially DRAFTING tools – and their ‘theories’ are still on the drawing board.
Computer-aided design works VERY well, as long as the fabrication/construction crews actually follow the drawings. Engineering and design mistakes are just as likely now as they were in the drafting table days although these days there are fewer eyes actually checking the details and more eyes marvelling at the eye candy.
The Roman Legions understood the problems of marching on bridges, but I don’t think they understood vortex shedding.
Looking at this another way, they are admitting just how inadequate their models were back when they started this scam.
“the rapid growth of computer power available to climate” clowns has made it possible to run 100’s of millions of oddly specified models, then conveniently choose the ones that will influence ignorant politicians to take the bait … if I had an i7 with 192 gig of ram back in 1988 I could have created Shrek and Despicable Me, and been a billionaire by now.
10 out of 262 lined up? It’s more statistically significant to say that m&m candies cause acne
http://xkcd.com/882/
If today’s tools for multiyear climate forecasting had been available in the 1990s, they would have revealed that a slowdown in global warming was likely on the way, according to new research. The analysis, led by NCAR’s Gerald Meehl, appears in the journal Nature Climate Change.
==============
OK, here is the Berple Challenge to Gerald Meehl. Tell us the date on which THE PAUSE WILL END.
If your models could reveal the slowdown, then for sure then can tells us when the slowdown will end. So will it be today, tomorrow, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?
Any by the way, are you willing to put money on your prediction? Because I’m extremely confident that you cannot predict the end to the pause any better than can a pair of dice. And a pair of dice tell us the odds are very much against being able to predict when the pause will end.
‘Almost all of the heat trapped by additional greenhouse gases during this period has been shown to be going into the deeper layers of the world’s oceans.’
Really can they shows us the emprical data , not models , which prove this has happend , otherwise can they stop talking BS to cover the fact that the models ‘failed ‘ to work and so the need for ‘missing heat ‘ in the first place.
The ARGO floats give us some ocean temperature data but only down to about 2000 meters.
NOAA, here: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html
says the average ocean depth is about 14,000 feet. (4267 meters).
We aren’t even getting good coverage of the upper 2000 meters of the ocean let alone either the average depth or the “deeper layers of the world’s oceans”.
The only thing being shown here is our lack of information.
true , but notice they are trying to make their claims a ‘fact ‘ by omission of the reality of how little is actual know and by claiming that ‘models ‘ produced empirically valued data for this which they do not.
Dishonest and massive egos seem to be career requirements for those working in climate ‘science ‘ these authors carry on that ‘fine tradition’
Getting closer to 7-day forecasts that predict anthropogenic global warming. Yep. Sounds just about right in terms of the ingredients for AGW Cool-aid. Weather is the new AGW. Climate is so in the past.
“There are indications from some of the most recent model simulations that the hiatus could end in the next few years,” Meehl added, “though we need to better quantify the reliability of the forecasts produced with this new technique.”
So, despite all the hoopla, he’s basically saying that he still doesn’t have much of a clue. Geez, what a bunch of crap.
the have already quantified the reliability – 10 out of 262 – 97% chance of error.
They were only off a little bit. 96.2% of the runs predicted Mann made warming instead of the 97% consensus of scientific warming that we’ve been told is real. That other 3.8% is skeptical noise and probably should have been dumped as extraneous error… but someone noticed it was historically correct. Oops…
And there, Anthony, nielszoo (and others) have delivered the best response that should be shouted from the rooftops whenever the Cooked 97% of scientists etc, etc paper is quoted. Something along the lines of:
When talking of 97%, remember, 97% of climate computer models FAILED to predict that AGW has peaked for the last 17 years! The very same models that are currently predicting thermageddon! Stick that in your POTUS!
soooooo….
They’re back to calling them predictions?
It’s strange, I don’t recall hearing any of the prominent “Climate Scientists” back in the 1990’s saying something to the effect of, “we don’t really have the necessary tools yet to say with certainty, but we believe it’s likely that unless we reduce our Co2 output, there will be accelerated warming that could prove to be dangerous to mankind”. I remember them being quite certain of the predictions from their models, and as today, ridiculing anyone who dared to express any doubt about whether we could could really forecast the climate. But of course now they have even more tools and technology, so this time they’re really really certain that catastrophe awaits unless we heed their advice.
… but 97% of the scientists seem to be convinced that they already had the right tools in the past and that they are sure that the warming is all man-made.
They will always be able to tell you two things:
1. What is going to happen 50+ yrs into the future
2. What they really meant to say would happen 5 minutes into the past
That’s astute.
See,that proves it! Our climate models are so good now compared to what they were just 10 years ago,that now we really do know what will happen from now on with the global warming climate change thing. The hiatus will end really soon and the warming is coming back with vengence.The permafrost will belch out ch4,the oceans will turn to vinegar,and the poley bears will be dead.No one will be laughing at Big All then,no siree!
Oh bullshit.
If today’s tools for multiyear climate forecasting could have predicted the current halt in warming 25 years ago, then those same tools could have confirmed that it had been stopped for more than a decade 5 years ago, and they could right now be used in hindcast to demonstrate the precise cause of the halt. Yet those “climate scientists” had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that their beloved warming has not been present for almost two decades, and many of them still won’t admit it even today.
And instead of newer, “more omniscient” tools with greater understanding providing a definitive explanation for why the warming stopped, we have a parade of ad hoc bullshit rationalizations that now total what? some 40 or so contradictory excuses for why they were incredibly wrong but are still completely right about global warming? Uh-huh.
The problem here is not the capability of the tools for multiyear climate forecasting. It’s the attitude of the tools running them.
I think we should clarify or redefine the “ pause”. Is it the time duration between when global temperatures stopped rising to when they resume ? What if the temperatures do not remain flat as they are now but start dipping and reach a trough point and then resume warming and reaching the same point when they first stopped warming some time much later. The latter case is the real pause as happened between 1880 and 1930 and again 1945 to 1980. These past cases are the real historical pauses which we may face again and not the one to two decade pauses that the alarmists now accept .
5 years ago the 97% consensus among climate scientists was that the Pause was not happening. Now the 97% consensus is that the Pause is real and has been going on for 15 years, but will end soon.
question: the consensus was clearly wrong 5 years ago. why would anyone trust them to be right now?
fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.
If today’s tools for multiyear climate forecasting had been available in the 1990s, they would have revealed that a slowdown in global warming was likely on the way, according to new research.
===============
BS. Only 10 out of 262 runs showed a pause. this means the models are predicting there is only a 3% chance “that a slowdown in global warming was likely on the way”.
this is consistent with what the models showed in the past. that a slowdown in warming was not likely. yet, the facts have turned out differently.
this is the inherent problem in prediction. there are a near infinite number of futures possible given our current present situation. some are long odds, some more likely, but no computer model can tell us which one we will actually arrive at.
toss a coin 10 times. the odds are identical that you will get 10 heads in a row as compared to alternating heads and tails. yet most people believe that the second possibility is more likely. These sorts of programming errors then get transferred from people’s beliefs to computer models. Since the models are never validated, the errors are replicated from model to model, similar to a genetic defect.
Failure of the 97%
There’s that magical 97% again!