Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
NCAR’s Dr. Kevin Trenberth was a lead author of the IPCC’s 2nd, 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports. Near to the publication of the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report 7 years ago, Dr. Trenberth penned a blog post at Nature.com Predictions of climate—a blog post that exposed many critical weaknesses in the climate models used by the IPCC for divining the future of climate on Earth. The post was filled with extraordinary quotes, including:
- …none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
- In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.
- Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.
- … if the current state is one of drought then it is unlikely to get drier, but unrealistic model states and model biases can easily violate such constraints and project drier conditions.
- However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate.
- So the science is just beginning.
- We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not?
Those are powerful statements. Please read Trenberth’s blog post in its entirety. You’ll find those quotes were reinforced by much of the remaining text. Occasionally, Trenberth interjected what could be considered global warming dogma to temper the critical aspects of the remainder.
One of Trenberth’s statements stands out as self-deception, plain and simple:
The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity.
Seven years later everyone knows the “current projection method” does not work. The climate science community has known all along that Earth’s climate is chaotic and non-linear. It was only a matter of time until their “current projection method” failed, and it didn’t take long.
Additionally, if the “current projection method” had worked, the climate-science community would presently not be scrambling to come up with excuses for the slow-down (hiatus) in global surface temperature warming. And they’ve come up with so many excuses, I’ve lost count.
I reminded people of this Trenberth blog post in a comment on the WattsUpWithThat cross post of one of my recent blog posts On the Elusive Absolute Global Mean Surface Temperature – A Model-Data Comparison. In the WUWT comment, I quoted the Trenbeth blog post:
None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
Then I noted: In other words, the models used by the IPCC were never intended to replicate Earth’s climate. They, therefore, cannot be validated or invalidated.
At this time in a blog post, I normally go on to illustrate and discuss numerous climate model failings. I’m going to deviate from my normal course and only provide a link to one post and it’s cross post. It was published soon after the release of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report last year. That post was Questions the Media Should Be Asking the IPCC – The Hiatus in Warming. It was cross posted at Joanne Nova’s website as Six questions the media should be asking the IPCC.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But, according to Piers J. Sellers “..if you have no faith in the predictive capability of climate models, you should also discard your faith in weather forecasts…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/wobbling-on-climate-change.html?_r=0
This post by Dr. Trenberth is politically and legally important. The reason for its importance proves illusive to people on both sides of the controversy over AGW..
In his post Trenberth distinguishes between “prediction” and “projection” thus avoiding applications of the equivocation fallacy that are popular among climatologists to this day. He says: “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been.” He goes on to say that “The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.”
At this point in his post Trenberth could have drawn the conclusion that the climate models provided no scientific basis for regulation of CO2 emissions for unlike predictions, projections were not falsifiable. However, he failed to do so. The EPA then went on to issue its “endangerment” finding regarding CO2 emissions, claiming scientific support for this finding that was not present. When I repeatedly pointed this out to the EPA they ignored me. In ignoring me the EPA violated its own procedure.
Models won’t generally prove that something will happen. But they can show that something can happen. Which is what endangerment means.
But the EPA doesn’t tell that to Joe Q Public and school kids, does it?
LOL,Well anything can potentially happen, but that’s not Science, is it?
I can potentially win the Power Ball Lottery, can’t I? Should I bet my future on this?
In order for a system to be controlled the associated model must provide information about what will happen given that a specified action is taken. In information theory this kind of information is called the “mutual information.” For the models underlying the “endangerment” finding the mutual information is nil. Thus the climate is uncontrollable on the basis of these models. However, the EPA has read its own endangerment finding as supporting attempts at controlling the climate such as Obama’s “war on coal.” Thus regardless of what is meant by “endangerment” the EPA’s finding of it has led to federal policies that are completely inappropriate.
Dr. Stokes,
I looked up your background, world-renowned expert in Computational Fluid Dynamics. Climate models Use CFD. Is this why you endlessly defend the indefensible, because these charlatans are using subroutines you developed?
I asked you earlier in the thread, what the models had shown us about climate. Still asking. Lots of us are…
“I asked you earlier in the thread, what the models had shown us about climate.”
The models tell us about many aspects of the ocean and atmosphere. I’ve shown earlier this GFDL animation of a model of El Nino:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX9nHyMP4L0%5D
I think it’s useful because it shows various aspects of what a GCM can and can’t do. The El Nino it shows is not a prediction. They show months but no year. No El Nino exactly like that will happen. But from this there is a huge amount that can be learnt about El Nino’s. The model has the complete velocities, pressures, temperatures, to much finer resolution than we normally get with Earth observations.
But you might say, that’s an event, not a climate. But if you look elsewhere, you’ll see many other long term phenomena – Gulf stream, Agulhas current etc. These don’t arise from initialization. The model produces them in response to the inputs of topography, fluid properties and forcings.
I’ve shown ocean because we are familiar with its medium and long term patterns. But it works for the atmosphere too.
A wonderful question from Michael Moon for Nick Stokes. Here it is again.
Nick is always here defending the models because his livelihood depends on it.
The median weekly income in the USA, the world’s largest economy, is $800. You and your ilk contribute to the Left’s attack on energy, which has already resulted in higher costs for people who cannot afford it even here, leaving aside what you are doing to the Third World. For shame…
Actual after he made this claim some one went through the IPCC report and pointed out they did indeed make predictions quite a few time , Trenberth like the rest of the Team mistakes the massive size of ego for proof of his claims.
In climatological arguments, the term “prediction” is generally polysemic (has many meanings). In his post, Dr. Trenberth does us the favor of disambiguating the polysemic form of “predict” into the two monosemic terms “predict” and “project.” Use of this disambiguation or its functional equivalent has the effect of avoiding applications of the equivocation fallacy. Often people and organizations use “predict” in its polysemic form thus installing the equivocation fallacy into climatological arguments. Among the organizations doing so has been the IPCC.
If the language of climatological arguments is disambiguated through the use of Trenberth’s disambiguation then the fact emerges that prior to AR5 none of the IPCC climate models made predictions. All of them made projections. Projections differ from predictions in being non-falsifiable and thus unscientific.
Six questions the media should ask themselves:
1. Why do you invoke the reputation of the scientific method whilst flagrantly disregarding in your reporting the annoying challenges to climate change orthodoxy that that method continues to throw up?
2. Why do you consider representing the inaccurate propaganda of vested interests to be a higher purpose than representing and defending the interests of those who buy your output through dispassionate, accurate and reflective reporting of the thorny subject of climate science?
3. What loyalty do readers show media titles once their belief in the reliability of that title passes a downward tipping point?
4. Do you calculate that you can get away with spinning climate deceit due to your readers agreeing sufficiently with other political lines you happen to take?
5. Do you believe that the codes of journalism have been irrevocably broken through the 20 year ‘reporting’ of ‘climate change/global warming etc’?
6. Do you think that a fundamental restructuring of the media industry is likely to happen as the full extent of media collusion in the great global warming ‘south sea bubble’ becomes known by the majority of readers?
This comment makes no sense. One of the chief problems with alarmist predictions is the bad statistics. vide the Hockey Stick.
One last time, Well Said, Sir!
Indeed, it should be graven with a needle into the corners of the eye as a warner to all who would be warned. One day climate science will be held up to world-spanning mockery for its utter disregard of the laws of statistics and its common rules of best practice.
Oh, wait. It already is, at least by such luminaries as William Briggs.
I’m trying to do my bit as well.
rgb
Old fossil :
Vide the hockey stick.
####
Hockey stick?
The hockey stick was not a prediction.
And Michael Mann was a geophysicist.
mpainter:
I’m unable to decrypt your post. Please clarify.
There is difference bewteen bad as in wrong and bad as wrong but effective in promoting an idea , the later is not a ‘problem’ for climate ‘scientists ‘.
mpainter
FYI:
I successfully decrypted your post with the help of old fossil’s post. Sorry for bothering you.
I remember reading, near the top of AR5 so to speak, their admission that models were useless. So what is the debate? Just ram it home. Brett Keane, from down south where the antarctic is expanding its influence right now.
rgbatduke November 13, 2014 at 9:21 am
he clearly knows perfectly well that because they caved to the Mann-attack IPCC cover art they were utterly discredited as of years ago.
Which cover art are you referring to? The only one I’m aware of that fits your description is the one prepared by Jones for the WMO document. Jones certainly didn’t cave to Mann on that, quite the opposite.
Sorry, not “cover art” — prominently displayed in TAR, as figure 2.3, and subsequently amplified to appear everywhere.