Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
UPDATE (Dec. 24, 2014): Looks like someone at NCAR wasn’t as open minded as I thought. The links at Kevin Trenberth’s media page to my blog have been removed. Good thing I archived it.
# # # #
We’ve discussed the work and opinions of NCAR’s Dr. Kevin Trenberth in many blog posts over the years. As recent examples, Trenberth’s opinions on the unusual warming in the extratropical North Pacific and on the possibility the PDO may have switched phases were discussed in Axel Timmermann and Kevin Trenberth Highlight the Importance of Natural Variability in Global Warming… (WattsUpWithThat cross post.) We discussed how in 2007 Dr. Trenberth revealed the weak underbellies of climate models in the post Seven Years Ago, An IPCC Lead Author Exposed Critical Weaknesses of the IPCC Foretelling Tools. (WUWT cross post.) And with respect to the possible impacts of the 2014/15 El Niño on global surface temperatures, we have the post The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 9 – Kevin Trenberth is Looking Forward to Another “Big Jump”. (WUWT cross post.)
I recall this subject coming up on one of the WUWT threads this year, but I wanted to write a post solely about this subject, to bring it to everybody’s attention.
TRENBERTH LINKS MY BLOG POSTS AT ONE OF HIS NCAR WEBPAGES
I fully understand that this is not an endorsement by Dr. Trenberth but I also understand that this does not mean he’s disputing the content. Under the heading of “Watts Up With That postings | January 31, 2014” on his Media webpage, Dr. Trenberth provides the titles and links to 11 of my blog posts, starting in January 2013 and ending in January 2014.
Watts Up With That postings | January 31, 2014
- Open Letter to Kevin Trenberth – NCAR
- Trenberth Still Searching for Missing Heat
- More on Trenberth’s Missing Heat
- A Different Perspective on Trenberth’s Missing Heat: The Warming of the Global Oceans (0 to 2000 Meters) in Deg C
- Even More about Trenberth’s Missing Heat – An Eye Opening Comment by Roger Pielke Sr.
- Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth’s Article “Has Global Warming Stalled?”
- A Couple of Comments about the Oppenheimer and Trenberth Op-Ed in the Washington Post
- Meehl et al (2013) Are Also Looking for Trenberth’s Missing Heat
- Trenberth and Fasullo Try to Keep the Fantasy Alive
- More on Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) “An Apparent Hiatus in Global Warming?”
- Comments on the Nature Article “Climate Change: The Case of the Missing Heat”
The first post is linked to a cross post at WattsUpWithThat. The others are linked directly to my website Climate Observations.
Again, I do not take that as an endorsement of my work. But I do find it extremely remarkable that a lead author of the IPCC’s 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Assessment Reports would link blog posts written by someone who’s a student of his work on ENSO, but at the same time skeptical of his beliefs on global warming and climate change. Remarkable.
Many thanks to Kevin Trenberth for being so open-minded. It is unfortunate that there aren’t more climate scientists like him who are willing to present data-based findings that oppose their research.
Maybe someday, maybe when he retires, Dr. Trenberth and I can discuss ENSO and its long-term impacts on global surface temperatures and ocean heat.
(Just in case others at NCAR aren’t as open-minded, I’ve archived that webpage here.)
It’s always good to have an exit strategy.
A note of respect too to Bob Tisdale for writing this piece. In a field where, too often, the attitude is nose-to-nose hostility, it’s particularly good to see people with differing views exchanging a nod of recognition that they’re dealing with another human and not just a robot set to ‘contradict’. The Christmas spirit is rising early this year: good will to ye both.
No scientist should take sides. Leave that to the uneducated lunatics in Government.
Trenberth is referred to as “distinguished scientist” and calls himself a Nobel Laureate (shared). These descriptors can’t both be right.
Thanks Bob. Good thoughts.
I’ve never heard anyone say Dr. Trenberth was stupid. His Climategate remark for which he’s most famous, was perceptive and outspoken.
I am jumping in with a comment on Mr. Watts’ “How I got my life back” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/05/how-i-got-my-life-back-my-hearing-has-been-restored-to-near-normal/ because comments Mr. Watts is right, as well, about the Starkey hearing aids; I just got one today, and it is, indeed, amazing. A reminder of what we always knew: Human ingenuity can dig us out of some pretty deep holes.
I applaud these beginnings towards uphold the high standard of scientific integrity enunciated by Noble Laureate Richard Feynman in his 1974 Commencement Address to Caltech, Cargo Cult Science. e.g.,
His missing heat comment was quite accurate despite some of the blowback he received. The oceans simply have so much energy capacity such that climate model heat can easily disappear in them without our instrumentation finding it.
“without our instrumentation finding it”
This means it has left the realms of science.
I wonder if it’s warmer in Atlantis now? 😉
Andrew
Without testability, his statement wasn’t accurate. It was idle speculation.
Its was needed in the first place because of total failure of what he told us was ‘settled science ‘ and that reality has failed to match the claims made by ‘the Team’ ,of which he is part , this same Team attacked and smeared any who suggested otherwise. Like a player at the roulette wheel that claims he was always ‘going to’ say read when he picked black and it came up red , the guy is trying to have his cake and eat it.
Trenberth and Tisdale have this in common: they both think El Ninos have something to do with warming which is nonsense. Tisdale’s Part 9 of El Nino etc. story on May 20th also uses NCDC global temperature curve that has fake warming in the eighties and nineties and should not be used. Not only does he use it but he also divides what should be a single horizontal section into two imaginary and short hiatus platforms. You should use satellites for anything after 1979 as I keep saying. All three ground based temperature data sets are corrupt after that point. And forget about any further steps after 2015 – you do not understand anything about the hiatus that you are trying to emulate there.
The surface “data sets” are if anything more corrupted before 1979, after which date the CACA crooks’ ability to fake “data” is limited by the watching satellites. But they’re free to ravage the past at will, which they do with reckless abandon & joy. Making previous decades cooler is as useful to HadCRU, GISS & BEST as warming up more recent decades.
Your are correct about Tisdale using data without discretion. He is oblivious to the need to select carefully, and weed out corrupt sources.
Well, rats … my post on Trenberth didn’t get listed amongst the others.
I suppose I can understand why, as my post highlights Trenberth trying to change the goalposts by reversing the null hypothesis. I fear I lost a lot of respect for the good Doctor when he tried that underhanded trick. That’s trying to win by cheating. The only good news about his actions was that they exposed the level of desperation on the alarmist side.
w.
Yes! Regardless of his current intentions, it is hard to excuse Trenberth for advocating reversing the null hypothesis to benefit a theory that he himself admits is missing some heat that he cannot explain. But also, it wasn’t that long ago that the editor of Remote Sensing resigned under pressure for daring to let Dr Roy Spencer’s paper be published. Trenberth was obviously central to that bit of politics, even going so far as to brag that he’s received an apology from the editor in question.
Trenberth has an awful long way to go if his intention is to engage on a more fair and equitable basis. Linking to some of Bob’s posts is pretty minor in comparison to his other, more negative, deeds.
Absolutely right, both you and Willis. I had forgotten both of those moves by Trenberth; thank you so much for reminding me.
Willis is spot on. Trenberth trying to reverse the null-hypothesis for AGW was something that truly shocked me. His use of the “D” word in his address to the AMS also spoke to character.
But in 2010 his paper on pole-wise energy flow being the “primary driver” of Hadley, Ferrel and Polar tropospheric circulation was certainly stepping intentionally to the wrong side of the line. Attempting to write the established meteorology of radiative-subsidence out of science is a sure indicator of a charlatan, from Perriehumbert onward.
Serious question: Are there two Steven Moshers? Reason I ask is that some of his comments are pretty much all in lower case, poorly punctuated and snarky. Then, there are comments which are properly punctuated, with mixed case and well argued. Truly weird to read, especially on this thread.
I’ve seen this before on this and other blogs from many different commenters. Could it possibly be caused by “thumb-typing” on a PDA, vs touch-typing when you finally got back to your PC keyboard?
DonV: Then I figure he needs to get the snark out of his thumb: the typos and poor punctuation I can (just) excuse (actually, on second thoughts, I can’t excuse it. It’s just bloody lazy – and I have a tablet).
You’d think that those who promulgate speculative, theoretical science OUGHT to be able to cite their critics, primarily to dispose of the strongest of their arguments and shore up their own positions. Maybe they’re opening up to the possibility that they missed something. Maybe this is a harbinger of the day when they’ll admit that they got something wrong. Maybe… Nah.
a bit surprised to see this at WaPo during Lima:
2 Dec: WaPo: Jason Samenow: Why prosperous autumn snows in Eurasia may portend a brutal East Coast winter
The increase in snow cover extent this October in Eurasia was fast and furious. That’s a compelling signal, says pioneering seasonal forecaster Judah Cohen, that the eastern U.S. faces a cold and snowy winter.
Cohen, who directs seasonal forecasting efforts at the firm Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), a unit of Verisk Climate, discovered the linkage between the behavior of Eurasian fall snow cover and eastern U.S. winters nearly 15 years ago. He has since applied the relationship in his winter outlooks and established an impressive track record. His outlooks have been on the money many years and at least in the ballpark most others…
Cohen: The snow cover was the second highest observed going back to 1972 and the speed of the advance was the fastest observed going back to 1997 (the first year that daily snow cover data became available). The signal from the snow cover was both strong and consistent…
Cohen: Like everyone else, we include the El Nino Southern Oscillation (El Nino). But the developing El Nino looks to be weak and was not much of a factor in our model.
Q: The National Weather Service has assigned “equal chances” for a cold or warm winter for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. Why do you think it’s reluctant to incorporate the AO-Eurasian snow cover relationship – which would suggest cold – more prominently in its outlook?
Cohen: It has been my opinion for my entire career that El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is too heavily emphasized in seasonal forecasting, especially for temperature, at all the national forecast centers, not just the National Weather Service…
Cohen: My colleague, Jason Furtado, and I have started a new Arctic Oscillation blog on the AER website that is updated weekly…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/12/02/why-prosperous-autumn-snows-in-eurasia-may-portend-a-brutal-east-coast-winter/
2 Dec: Accuweather: Cold Wave Grips Beijing and Seoul, Brings Snow to Japan
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/cold-wave-to-grip-beijing-seou-1/38287455
Yet it is lost upon Dr Cohen that the number 1 year for snow was the 1976-1977 analog of the el nino that we have been using and number 2 is the 2002-2003, both MEI bounceback enso events that we set up for the public WELL BEFORE THE SNOW STARTED FALLING. EL NINO OVEREMPHASIZED? Why I respect Dr Cohens work if one digs deeply enough you will see the snowfall is the SYMPTOM not the cause, the causing being the overall pattern which began revealing itself well before the fall. This enso event has been in the family that we outlined well before and I the very fact that the number 1 and 2 N hem snow events by the end of October were the kind of enso years we were talking about should speak loudly as to the importance of recognizing the type of enso event, and what was going on well before the observation of the snow
One should also understand that there are big winters where the snowfall is not as high.. the path to major winters is not exclusive to the October N hem snowfall. not by a long shot. The unmoved mover of the winter weather is what is driving the pattern, not the result of it
As for any politicians (& scientists) who have ever believed in global warming, or supported the carbon tax, or a carbon-constrained economy, there is no hope for them.
They are either too stupid or incompetent to be taken seriously.
Merely recanting, at this late stage, won’t be enough.
Make their lives hell too, just as they wished a diminished life on you.
http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5257
At some point, I keep thinking, a prominent member of the ‘climate scientist’ clique will call a press conference and dramatically announce that now realizes that he and his colleagues were completely wrong about ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’. He will also announce that he can demonstrate conclusively that the President and his Science Advisor are not only ill-informed, but intentionally perpetrating a deceit upon the American people.
Then I wake up. . .
/Mr Lynn
Mods: Any reason why my comment got stuck in moderation? /LEJ
I wish to add one more thing. I appear harsh at times in my statements on this matter and I should not be. The problem I think in all of this is the self examination as to what your goals really are and what demons lay inside of you. I have wrestled with this since I can remember. The very fact that my job involves constant questioning and analysis, and yes the fear of being wrong, makes me look at the whole climate question very differently than perhaps someone who’s entire life and identity depends on it. If the weather was taken away from me.. the actual weather, I would be devastated. But take away the climate question. I dont care, for I would still be using the methodology that involves looking at the past to help me in what I do.
Over the years, I have realized that the reason I love the weather was a gift from the good lord, and in the end, it made me see more clearly the majesty of the creation, and the creator. I found that the more I knew, the less I became relative to the creation and the creator. And that it was the pursuit of the answer that was the true test and lesson and how does that lesson get me closer to what I need to know about reaching beyond my grasp to heaven above.
However suppose your whole life is based around your identity as someone who has staked everything on one goa that has taken you beyond what you thought you would ever be. Not something you loved, no matter what, but something that because of, you have become loved. That if wrong, or if you find that goal was not what you have tied your identify too, that gave you recognition, that took you beyond what you thought you could be, you would essentially have nothing to show for what you have done. How can you possibly turn back? Imagine how hard it is to be a giant in the eyes of so many, having to justify this, if its all for naught. In what I do, its a fight every day, with a relentless opponent that has infinite possibilities, so one understands that you can get beat to the ground. But if there is just one result that you have to have, how can you turn away?
I was listening to Coldplays Viva la Vida, and it hit me, alot of climate scientists that support AGW are in the shoes of the singer of the song The first 2 lines of the song
I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
But then how can you admit you are wrong, if this is what may follow:
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own
I have a great deal of sympathy for the position the AGW scientist is in. Those are not just words. As Springsteen said in Brilliant Disguise
“God have mercy on the man. who doubts what he’s sure of”
Peace
Spoken like a real scientist, indeed lover of truth.
Thanks.
milodonharlani
You found the real bottom line in all of this, “truth”, be it climate or weather or whatever, the real scientist, or anyone in any field of endeavor for that matter, is only as good as his/her honesty in seeking the truth. Like Jesus said to Pilate, ” I came to bear witness to the truth.” What greater goal in anyone’s life?
Thanks for your comments on this thread, Joe. Tomorrow we have the December ENSO update. See ya then.
Cheers
That if wrong, or if you find that goal was not what you have tied your identify too, that gave you recognition, that took you beyond what you thought you could be, you would essentially have nothing to show for what you have done. How can you possibly turn back?
The whole piece was eloquent, but that really drives the point home. I said on certain other threads that there is no grand conspiracy. As M Courtney put, there is a confluence of interests. There’s a lot of scientists whose entire career is derived from something they need to be true, else not only is their life’s work for naught, but their prospects for future employment also in jeopardy.
Add to this the owners of green enterprises like windmills and solar farms, struggling to make a profit. Suddenly, they see governments budgeting to fight climate change via wealth transfers to undeveloped countries. Many of them, no doubt well meaning, wiggled their way into the politician’s offices, and said ‘hey, use that money to subsidize my business, you’ll be fighting climate change while keeping the tax money here at home and creating local jobs”.
Suddenly, the off course scientists persuading governments what to do are joined by private industry singing from the same song sheet. Banks and brokerages see an opportunity make money trading carbon credits like any other commodity, and on board they jumped. All of sudden, public and private organizations alike are experiencing a “confluence of interests”.
The while thing snow balled and got out of control, with no one, but NO ONE, able to willingly back out of what they started.
Since all the world’s institutions of science maintain published positions concluding AGW, all major universities, NASA and NOAA conclude the same, then the claims of conspiracy imply ‘they’re all in on it — a conclusion reasonable men and women will find ludicrous.
So now we hear about a soft conspiracy of sorts –it’s the moneyed interests leading ALL institutions of Science to conclude AGW — an equally preposterous assertion.
How do reasonable people believe such claptrap?
”How do reasonable people believe such claptrap?”
Warren ,
“soft conspiracy” are your words not David’s. David is clearly not claiming conspiracy, and I feel his analysis is solid. Particularly this –
The global warming inanity was not conspiracy, soft or otherwise. It is better described as Lysenkoism writ large, out of the confines of the soviet system it got totally out of control. The Lysenko disaster killed millions through starvation, but there was no conspiracy with this objective. The driving forces and players however are a direct parallel for AGW. Pseudo science, groupthink, fellow travellers, self interest, useful idiots and state persecution of sceptics.
Add this to the economic systems of western nations and another Russian lesson becomes relevant –
You’re hilarious.
Why is this remarkable? I ask this as not a criticism of Trenberth, but isn’t science proving, dis-proving, providing alternatives, poking holes in process, approach, assumptions, conclusions, welcoming opposing views since that provides the best chance at objective truth, etc. Science like the legal system was designed to be adversarial since that is the best chance of getting at objectives truths. Having a bunch of bobble heads marginalizing the non-bobble heads is not science, it is group-think with an ugly authoritarian streak.
In the current state of affairs when Trenberth practices basic science with integrity, it is remarkable. But it shouldn’t be, it should be SOP.
Data? Pah! I have always thought Trenberth was a bit unreliable. We need to send him to a re-education camp to help him get his toes firmly back on the line.
You know, Trenberth has done some really good work. But he is still caught up in the never-ending pressure to conform to the warming hysteria. If he doesn’t sometimes play ball, he gets black-balled.
His papers go back and forth between sounding like a real scientist and those sounding like he is a global warming scientist/believer (which has always meaned in this debate being a serial misinformer).
I’d like him to just stick to the real scientists part and keep his head down where needed so that he does not become black-balled. The balance is a little closer to the real scientist side than he has been showing lately. And good on him for noting Bob Tisdale’s contributions. Good start towards the real scientist balance.
I agree with you. Bill, that Trenberth can mix science and dogma. Unfortunately, he often does it in the same paper.
Perhaps this is a case of “keeping your friends close, and your enemys closer” ?
Nicely said, although trenberth/balsama 2014 is a bit on the nonscientific/ religious side for my taste. Essay Missing Heat in Blowing Smoke. But Trenberth recognizing Bob Tisdales analyses is a big plus for Kevin IMO. And Bob’s thread here is IMO a big plus for scientific ( not political) detente. A step toward dialog about what might be true, and what the next relevant analysis/ experiment/ whatever in that process might be.
To paraphrase Gandi:
First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they challenge you.
Then you win.
On ocean climate influences, Bob is at least at step three, and probably a bit beyond. Bravo.
Sorry but Trenberth actions speak otherwise , as a chief member of ‘the Team’ he has no issue with doing whatever it takes to keep the AGW gravy train on the tracks , even if that means trying to undermine the scientific process as its basic level through reversing the null hypotheses. And how can blame him , after all its an approach that has brought him much that otherwise he would never have seen , so even if not a true AGW believer he certainly is one who has seem massive benefit from what he knew was bad science and worse scientific practice .
The real shame of such actions is the impact they will have on all science , to some extent playing the three wise monkeys or jumping on the bandwagon to gain research funding is a self-inflected injury. However, when ‘the cause ‘ falls its likely to take much good science with it that we all will end up regretting. And Trenberth & Co know this and frankly don’t care , they hope to be retired by then and so no longer have to deal with this sh*t storm. It is not just the disservice they doing to current science but the poised legacy their given to future science that ‘the Team’ should be condemned for.
The world will be a much better, richer & safer place when both GISS & NCAR are defunded & their imps & minions dispersed throughout a long suffering world forced to forage for themselves through the wreckage of Western Civilization they have helped to effect. Not to mention IPCC, of course. I don’t know if the Brits will ever wise up enough to defund Hadley Centre, which has been so perverted from its intended mission, just as have the above mentioned execrable US excrescences.
And forced.
The models are wrong. They claim a continued warming that has not occurred. Trenberth can’t admit the models are wrong so he claims the missing heat has vanished into the oceans.
Certainly this is an example of “The Big Lie” technique. No proof needed. Just keep repeating the lie and soon people will be blogging about it.
Eugene WR Gallun
See Brandon Gates recent post.
Guess you could say I was listening in to this very good quality discussion, a much higher quality and reasoned discussion of motives and trends than is usually the case on most of the popular Skeptic blogs.
But a discussion that is also at a more layman like level than say Judith Curry’s “Climate etc” where the elbow swinging academics, well practiced and versed in taking down anybody who doesn’t toe their own particular line makes it very hard indeed for a lay person to come in and post comments that will pass the academically sharpened snarls of some of the denizens of Climate etc.
As a lay person, you have to have a pretty tough hide to be able to mix it in that lot.
Over the last couple of months there has been a quite marked change in the subjects being discussed on the skeptic blogs at least.
It seems a lot of the debate / discussion has shifted from the science or lack of in the whole of catastrophic global warming meme to a discussion where the skeptics and even the luke warmers ;[ Climate etc’s latest post ] are increasingly looking at the motives and psychological drivers that have both entrapped. enticed and ensnared so many scientist who one would have thought would have been far more challenging of the whole of what behind the scenes was becoming quite obviously well known, that the path that climate science was following was without doubt dubious to just plain shonky to outright grossly wrong and even fraudulent.
If we are to believe a lot of the comments now emerging from the internals of the climate warming science as it all comes unstuck and which the above was apparently very obvious to most of the climate science community as the CAGW meme developed and evolved over some two and half decades.
But nevertheless something that the climate science community and climate alarmist advocacy groups did everything in their power to hide.
And a subject as seen here in this above discussion that now appears to be becoming an object of considerable debate and discussion as the CAGW science collapses and the driving motives for the whole debacle and gross deception starts to be debated and dissected in the blog sphere and no doubt soon to be dissected in both climate science journals as well as psychological journals.
One would have thought that with all the supposed scientific protocols and the integrity demanded of an individual who professes to practice science, that most scientists would have called out this science wrecking monster long before it became entrenched and started on the extremely confrontational and societal damaging path it now follows.
But it was not to be and we the ordinary people across both the developed world and the undeveloped world are much worse off for that failure of the climate science community to police itself and to maintain the ethical, integrity and impartial, non advocacy standards and respect for the science it was promoting.
Now the forensic examination begins over what is soon likely to be just another scientific cadaver in the long list of science created movements that were an outcome of a science and it’s practioners who somewhere, somehow lost both their moral and ethical compasses to, in each case, the great detriment of the science proffession and to scientific progress.
Ke[l]vin Tren[d]be[ar]th..
Why Add More.
Let The Big Lie Die.
If a Man Does not know his limits then Life will Reveal to him his limits.
Kelvin Trend Equals 0.
“Flatliner”, as we would say in the back of the truck to our new cadaver on the slab.
Ha
@RECOOK1978.
My original question to you:
‘The models do indeed have an error range, which is fully detailed in the IPCC 4th Assessment; the projections from these models are assigned a risk level based on the error estimates, and those risk levels are also defined. Do you not think that in in order for you to claim the models are over predicting the impacts, you have to demonstrate that predictions made by the models are in error more than the claims of the modelers?
Have you done so, or do you have a scientific source or reference that has done so?’
You replied to me:
“So you claim.
But prove it: Tell me the probability, and the worldwide ecomic impact on lives, health and jobs that :
1. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have cooled, or remained steady.
2. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by 1 deg C.
3. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by 2 deg C.
4. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by 3 deg C.
5. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by 4 deg C.”
My reply:
All you’ve done is re-ask the question I asked you.
The 4th Assessment evaluation of modeling accuracy is here: https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
How have you determined the models are doing worse than the IPCC’s own evaluation?
[To get an answer, you will probably need to address RACookPE, not RECook1978. .mod]
All that matters is that the models are doing far worse than reality. They have failed miserably, epically, totally, completely, laughably.
And so have you.
Besides which, IPCC ignores its own “science” in its conclusions for policy action. Every edition is worse.
In addition to Catherin’s correct and cogent comment, the IPCC uses the modeled mean as their central estimate, ignoring reality, as all the models run to warm. Further, numerous peer reviewed studies warning of future disaster, submitted and accepted, based on the modeled mean, not on the observations. Further, the IPCC ignores dozens of peer reviewed papers indicating a climate sensitivity lower then the IPCC. Further, as the IPCC models run ever further from the reality, they shamelessly claim ever greater confidence…
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_558-aug-30-06-08.jpg
The divergence between IPCC’s own “science”, already preposterously divergent from reality, and its political action recommendations and degree of certainty, would be hilarious if not so disastrously destructive and deathly.
But thanks for the graphic demonstration of my point.
Or points:
1) Even IPCC shows ECS getting ever closer to what the lab says it should be, ie at best ~1 C, and
2) The summary for policy makers diverges ever further not only from reality but from the already cooked book “science” of IPCC’s arse-covering experts.
Catherine, David A;
That chart again. I don’t know where whoever put that together learned how to baseline, but they totally muffed it. For CMIP5 output, the baseline period is 1986-2005. The ensemble means with a .95 CI envelop plotted against the average of GISTemp, HADCRUT4, UAH and RSS looks like this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSZEVmMFY5T2ZtOTA
Yes, a terrible failure. Totally awful.
See Brandon Gate’s post of the comparison I asked Cook for. My condolences.
Brandon
I looked at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSZEVmMFY5T2ZtOTA and that is something very different. It is the plot of an ‘ensemble’ not the individual models so I can’t see that it is a reason to say there is something fundamentally wrong with ‘that plot’. If the ensemble is wrong, then at least half the population making it up is also wrong. Removing the wrong ones to create a ‘believable’ projection gives a future that just isn’t alarming, is it? How inconvenient (for some).
Also, the temperature has fallen below the 95% confidence range for the ensemble. The trend is horizontal and the ensemble trend continues upward. Clearly they are not responding to the same ‘physics’.
Exactly Crispin. If the PCC is predicting only .8 C to 1 C warming in 100 years, we can all go home as the benefits will likely far outweigh any harms.
My mistake, but my point still valid, as if the IPCC is not indicating 1.5 to 2 C warming, then this is very likely still net beneficial.
Additionally the IPCC greatly overstated the troposphere warming, and the ocean warming. There is a lot of heat still missing. In the meantime, in the real world, crops keep growing more food per acre and per acre foot of water.
Crispin in Waterloo,
There’s no cherry-picking on my end. That plot is based on all 138 model runs, all four RCPs, in the CMIP5 ensemble used for AR5:
bcc_csm1_1_rcp26_r1i1p1, bcc_csm1_1_m_rcp26_r1i1p1, BNU_ESM_rcp26_r1i1p1, CanESM2_rcp26_r1i1p1, CCSM4_rcp26_r1i1p1, CESM1_CAM5_rcp26_r1i1p1, CNRM_CM5_rcp26_r1i1p1, CSIRO_Mk3_6_0_rcp26_r1i1p1, EC_EARTH_rcp26_r8i1p1, FGOALS_g2_rcp26_r1i1p1, FIO_ESM_rcp26_r1i1p1, GFDL_CM3_rcp26_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2G_rcp26_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2M_rcp26_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp26_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp26_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_H_rcp26_r1i1p3, GISS_E2_R_rcp26_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_R_rcp26_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_R_rcp26_r1i1p3, HadGEM2_AO_rcp26_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_ES_rcp26_r2i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_LR_rcp26_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_MR_rcp26_r1i1p1, MIROC5_rcp26_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_rcp26_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_CHEM_rcp26_r1i1p1, MPI_ESM_LR_rcp26_r1i1p1, MPI_ESM_MR_rcp26_r1i1p1, MRI_CGCM3_rcp26_r1i1p1, NorESM1_M_rcp26_r1i1p1, NorESM1_ME_rcp26_r1i1p1, ACCESS1_0_rcp45_r1i1p1, ACCESS1_3_rcp45_r1i1p1, bcc_csm1_1_rcp45_r1i1p1, bcc_csm1_1_m_rcp45_r1i1p1, BNU_ESM_rcp45_r1i1p1, CanESM2_rcp45_r1i1p1, CCSM4_rcp45_r1i1p1, CESM1_BGC_rcp45_r1i1p1, CESM1_CAM5_rcp45_r1i1p1, CMCC_CM_rcp45_r1i1p1, CMCC_CMS_rcp45_r1i1p1, CNRM_CM5_rcp45_r1i1p1, CSIRO_Mk3_6_0_rcp45_r1i1p1, EC_EARTH_rcp45_r8i1p1, FGOALS_g2_rcp45_r1i1p1, FIO_ESM_rcp45_r1i1p1, GFDL_CM3_rcp45_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2G_rcp45_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2M_rcp45_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp45_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp45_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_H_rcp45_r1i1p3, GISS_E2_H_CC_rcp45_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_R_rcp45_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_R_rcp45_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_R_rcp45_r1i1p3, GISS_E2_R_CC_rcp45_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_AO_rcp45_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_CC_rcp45_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_ES_rcp45_r2i1p1, inmcm4_rcp45_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_LR_rcp45_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_MR_rcp45_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5B_LR_rcp45_r1i1p1, MIROC5_rcp45_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_rcp45_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_CHEM_rcp45_r1i1p1, MPI_ESM_LR_rcp45_r1i1p1, MPI_ESM_MR_rcp45_r1i1p1, MRI_CGCM3_rcp45_r1i1p1, NorESM1_M_rcp45_r1i1p1, NorESM1_ME_rcp45_r1i1p1, bcc_csm1_1_rcp60_r1i1p1, bcc_csm1_1_m_rcp60_r1i1p1, CCSM4_rcp60_r1i1p1, CESM1_CAM5_rcp60_r1i1p1, CSIRO_Mk3_6_0_rcp60_r1i1p1, FIO_ESM_rcp60_r1i1p1, GFDL_CM3_rcp60_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2G_rcp60_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2M_rcp60_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp60_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp60_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_H_rcp60_r1i1p3, GISS_E2_R_rcp60_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_R_rcp60_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_R_rcp60_r1i1p3, HadGEM2_AO_rcp60_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_ES_rcp60_r2i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_LR_rcp60_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_MR_rcp60_r1i1p1, MIROC5_rcp60_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_rcp60_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_CHEM_rcp60_r1i1p1, MRI_CGCM3_rcp60_r1i1p1, NorESM1_M_rcp60_r1i1p1, NorESM1_ME_rcp60_r1i1p1, ACCESS1_0_rcp85_r1i1p1, ACCESS1_3_rcp85_r1i1p1, bcc_csm1_1_rcp85_r1i1p1, BNU_ESM_rcp85_r1i1p1, CanESM2_rcp85_r1i1p1, CCSM4_rcp85_r1i1p1, CESM1_BGC_rcp85_r1i1p1, CESM1_CAM5_rcp85_r1i1p1, CMCC_CM_rcp85_r1i1p1, CMCC_CMS_rcp85_r1i1p1, CNRM_CM5_rcp85_r1i1p1, CSIRO_Mk3_6_0_rcp85_r1i1p1, EC_EARTH_rcp85_r8i1p1, FGOALS_g2_rcp85_r1i1p1, FIO_ESM_rcp85_r1i1p1, GFDL_CM3_rcp85_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2G_rcp85_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2M_rcp85_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp85_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp85_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_H_rcp85_r1i1p3, GISS_E2_R_rcp85_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_R_rcp85_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_R_rcp85_r1i1p3, HadGEM2_AO_rcp85_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_CC_rcp85_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_ES_rcp85_r2i1p1, inmcm4_rcp85_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_LR_rcp85_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_MR_rcp85_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5B_LR_rcp85_r1i1p1, MIROC5_rcp85_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_rcp85_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_CHEM_rcp85_r1i1p1, MPI_ESM_LR_rcp85_r1i1p1, MPI_ESM_MR_rcp85_r1i1p1, MRI_CGCM3_rcp85_r1i1p1, NorESM1_M_rcp85_r1i1p1, NorESM1_ME_rcp85_r1i1p1You can get the data from KNMI Climate Explorer and check it yourself: http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_cmip5
I used a simple numeric average of four observational temperature series: GISTemp, HADCRUT4, UAH and RSS.
As I so often repeat, there have been similar “pauses” in the instrumental record. My favorite example is 1945 to 1975, a 30 year period of declining temperatures. dbstealy apparently likes it too, and went to the trouble of generating a nice plot on Wood for Trees from ’58 to ’77: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/to:1977/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/to:1977/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:1977/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:1977/normalise/trend
AMO and PDO are the two most likely drivers of those periodic decadal ups and downs. The oceans absorb and release more energy over a few decades’ time than the buildup of CO2 over the same time period is responsible for. This does work both ways. Much of the upward trend from 1980 to 2000 was due to the oceans releasing accumulated energy as part of their natural cycle.
In short, it makes the most sense to look at CO2’s effect on trends over 50-100 years time. Much less than that and most of what you’ll be trending is the “noise” of internal variability between ocean and atmosphere.
warrenlb saks:
How have you determined the models are doing worse than the IPCC’s own evaluation?
Answer: real world data:
http://postimg.org/image/9r50kleih/
Oops, I didn’t realize David A had posted that chart. It shows clearly how totally wrong the IPCC and other models were/are.
warrenlb asked “How have you determined the models are doing worse than the IPCC’s own evaluation?”
That chart shows how very bad the IPCC’s own predictions/projections/evaluations have been.
When one side of the debate relies on data that debunks it’s own stated position, they have lost the debate. Simple as that. Any further argument is tantamount to Monty Python’s Black Knight.