The “uncertainty monster” strikes again
We’ve been highly critical for some time of the paper in summer 2015 by Karl et al. that claimed “the pause” or hiatus went away once “properly adjusted” ocean surface temperature data was applied to the global surface temperature dataset. Virtually everyone in the climate skeptic community considers Karl et al. little more than a sleight of hand.
No matter, this paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.
That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.
Also of note, see the offset as designated by the two colored X’s in Figure 1:
Models and observations don’t even begin to match.
The subtle origins of surface-warming hiatuses
Christopher Hedemann, Thorsten Mauritsen, Johann Jungclaus & Jochem Marotzke
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature Climate Change (2017) doi:10.1038/nclimate3274
Received 12 July 2016 Accepted 17 March 2017 Published online 17 April 2017
During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Earth’s surface warmed more slowly than climate models simulated1. This surface-warming hiatus is attributed by some studies to model errors in external forcing2, 3, 4, while others point to heat rearrangements in the ocean5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10caused by internal variability, the timing of which cannot be predicted by the models1. However, observational analyses disagree about which ocean region is responsible11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Here we show that the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance. Energy budgeting for the ocean surface layer over a 100-member historical ensemble reveals that hiatuses are caused by energy-flux deviations as small as 0.08 W m−2, which can originate at the top of the atmosphere, in the ocean, or both. Budgeting with existing observations cannot constrain the origin of the recent hiatus, because the uncertainty in observations dwarfs the small flux deviations that could cause a hiatus. The sensitivity of these flux deviations to the observational dataset and to energy budget choices helps explain why previous studies conflict, and suggests that the origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3274.html
(paywalled)
From the Introduction:
The surface temperature of the Earth warmed more slowly over the period 1998–2012 than could be expected by examining either most model projections or the long-term warming trend1. Even though some studies now attribute the deviation from the long-term trend to observational biases17, 18, the gap between observations and models persists. The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 °C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5; ref. 19) ensemble-mean projection1—a gap two to four times the observed trend. The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.
Key excerpts:
…
The coupled climate model MPI-ESM1.1 is forced with CMIP5-prescribed historical forcing from 1850 until 2005, and extended until 2015 with the RCP4.5 scenario (see Methods). When the red line lies above the grey line, at least one ensemble member is experiencing a hiatus, defined as a deviation of more than 0.17 °C per decade below the ensemble mean. This deviation is the same as the gap between the CMIP5 ensemble mean (black cross) and the observed (yellow cross) GMST trends for the period 1998–2012. Contours represent the number of ensemble members in bins of 0.05 °C per decade.
…
From our analysis of observational estimates, we are unable to exclude the TOA anomaly as a possible cause of the recent hiatus. Referencing the observations to an alternative energy budget (rather than that of the large ensemble) could shift the absolute position of the green and yellow crosses in Fig. 3c. However, their relative distance from one another and the size of their error bars would not change.
The role of the TOA and the ocean in each hiatus can be determined by comparing their relative contributions to the flux-divergence anomaly. For hiatuses in the large historical ensemble, the negative (cooling) anomaly is caused entirely by the TOA in 12% of cases and by the ocean in 24% of cases. In the remainder (64%), the negative anomaly is caused by the TOA and ocean acting together (bottom left quadrant of Fig. 3c). TOA variability is therefore involved in 76% of all hiatuses.
…
We conclude that the TOA may have been a source of significant internal variability during the hiatus. Our conclusions are not an artefact of model-generated TOA variability29—the large ensemble produces TOA variability that is similar to that in the observational record (Supplementary Fig. 7). Rather, our conclusions are based on a simple yet robust principle, namely that the Earth’s surface layer has a small heat capacity. The surface temperature can therefore be influenced by small variations in the large yet mutually compensating fluxes that make up this layer’s energy budget. Comparing the small variability in the TOA imbalance with the total TOA imbalance under global warming27, 30 obscures the significance of these small variations for the hiatus.
…
(bold mine)
This is the true dilemma at the heart of the hiatus debate: the variability in ocean heat content alone has no power to explain the hiatus, and the measure that can—the surface-layer flux divergence—is dwarfed by observational uncertainty. While there are attempts to fill the gaps in observations with ocean reanalyses such as ORAS4 (refs 9,23), the resulting data are of questionable integrity during the hiatus14, 21 and, as we show, disagree with the budget based on CERES21 and WOA22. Even if these disagreements could be reconciled, the process of anchoring satellite observations with ocean heat uptake makes the contributions from TOA and ocean difficult to disentangle, because their absolute difference is unknown. Therefore, unless the uncertainty of observational estimates can be considerably reduced, the true origin of the recent hiatus may never be determined.
Code availability.
The MPI-ESM1.1 model version was used to generate the large ensemble and is available at http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/science/models/mpi-esm.html. Computer code used in post-processing of raw data has been deposited with the Max Planck Society: http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/faces/viewItemFullPage.jsp?itemId=escidoc:2353695.
Data availability.
Raw data from the large ensemble were generated at the Swiss National Computing Centre (CSCS) and Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum (DKRZ) facilities. Derived data have been deposited with the Max Planck Society (http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/faces/viewItemFullPage.jsp?itemId=escidoc:2353695). Supplementary Fig. 7 uses TOA flux reconstructions provided by R Allan40 (http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs01cll/flux) and satellite observations provided by the NASA CERES project31 (http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov). For observational estimates in Fig. 3c, we make use of data provided by the NOAA World Ocean Atlas22(https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT) and by the ECMWF Ocean Reanalysis System 4 (ref. 9; http://icdc.zmaw.de/projekte/easy-init/easy-init-ocean.html).
PDF files
Supplementary Information (3,616 KB)
Note: about 30 mins after publication, some grammatical and spelling errors were corrected, and a subtitle added.
Anthony, the agnostics deal with uncertainty and scientific humility, better than the true believers.
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is TOA?
Top Of Atmosphere
Looks like those highly paid Climate Scientists have finally ‘discovered’ Water Vapour Convection Cooling!
Good question, anthropic. The cited article may define it somewhere, but, there is no reason you should have known what that acronym meant; it is not common knowledge. Thanks for asking — for many other readers’ sakes!
(Source: https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/glossary/top-of-atmosphere-2/ )
If you want to learn about the basics of atmospheric circulation, read this book (or just the sample pages from it): https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sK1qTDhNBsYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Murray+Salby&ots=Zug7nkz_NW&sig=FortQPZKAuGDITC4q8z5yAwQwZo#v=onepage&q=TOA&f=false )
You might begin here:
Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, Murry Salby, p. 16.
“””””…..top of atmosphere
a given altitude where air becomes so thin that atmospheric pressure or mass becomes negligible.
…..”””””
Ergo, by definition there isn’t enough CO2 left above there to have any measurable effect on anything; either coming or going.
Negligible means something like: “Can be NEGLECTED for ALL practical reasons.”
They used the term; not ME !
G
When the difference becomes less than the rounding error.
Thanks for all you do, Janice. Many people appreciate your efforts to educate.
Actually, Prof. Salby’s updated textbook “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate” (2012) is a much better reference. Better still, watch his July 2016 presentation at
digital signal processing demonstration that anthropogenic contribution to increased atmospheric CO2 is <3%… insignificant. Who needs models when the data are so clear?
I had same question. Thanks
Top of atmosphere is about 5-10 km height over surface, where the atmosphere starts to get thinner, and infrared radiation goes out mostly straight to space.
“Natural variability” means we don’t have a clue what really drive specific climate parameters.
Yes, and it appears less and less like it is CO2 in any measurable way. Sad that Karl’s lifetime achievement is likely to be remembered as the man fudging the time series data using bucket data.
To go down in history in that way might have been on his bucket list.
It might have been sad, Leonard, if it hadn’t been either stupid, ignorant, or patently dishonest.
What can you say about a practice which adjusts good data to match bad, especially when the end result just happens to conveniently fit the paradigm?
It would be nice of some of the massive funding could be re-directed toward research on factors driving “natural variability”.
Entirely agree, but that might mean that the whole picture would become clearer and clearer, that CO2 is not the leading forcing mechanism, the basis for alarmism would be gone, and then … no political reason to throw anything like so much money at it. At which point, “climate science” becomes just another academic subject fighting for taxpayer dollars, right at the point when they would saying, “oops, sorry, we might have got some of this a little bit wrong …”. “Climate Science” is far too big an industry now to let this happen: it would mean huge numbers of those now dependent on it would be looking for other employment.
When I got my degree in what is now called climate science, I only knew one climatologist and he worked on obscure things with no funding. But that was before the CAGW scare. Now half of the funding for atmospheric related disciplines at my university comes from climate and many other seemingly unrelated departments benefit greatly as well.
CAGW is clearly the goose that laid the golden egg and this creates some unfortunate conflicts of interest
Mary, you must be a denier 😉 lol
Mary,
Say the magic words, “climate change”, and collect a grant.
Even if you want to study the mating habits of chipmunks, you have to put that phrase in your grant application if you want funding.
Anthony,
First paragraph, “slight of hand” should be “sleight of hand.”
Anthropic,
TOA: Top of atmosphere.
Fixed, thanks. Speech recognition error.
So what is Whisky Tango Foxtrot ?? Some Ham’s radio moniker ??
G
WTF, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, What The F**k>
In my early days I worked at a control desk with an imposing red key marked ‘SFA’.
I write and maintain a debugger for some of the code we work on at work. I added a command that let’s me check out some of the internal data of the debugger, the command summary lists it as:
Nit-pick. It’s “sleight of hand,” not “slight of hand.” See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleight_of_hand#Etymology_and_history
A significant paper. Let’s hear from real people for the real science discussion.
OK. To start with, here is the paper.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/Hedemann%202017.pdf
Thanks a lot. 🙂 🙂
Yes, thanks for this link, wish this could happen with every pay walled article.
WOW……so models are no good unless the produce the results you are looking for.
David Dirkse,
Models are tools.
As tools, they can only produce results based upon the way they are used.
If you give a monkey a quality chisel and some stone, and the end result is hideous, we don’t blame the chisel now do we?
WOW……so tools are no good unless the produce the results you are looking for. Thank you Aphan.
Again, tools are tools. I have a garage full of tools that have yet to “produce” anything at all by themselves. YOU might say (illogically) that they haven’t produced the results I’m looking for, and presume (irrationally) that because they haven’t, I must surely view these tools as “no good”.
But you’d be wrong, as well as behaving irrationally/illogially in much the same way you are right now in attempting to pin irrational and illogical thoughts/beliefs/statements on total strangers who have said nothing of the kind.
Now be a good monkey and stay out of the workshop.
Forrest,
David likes to make crap up and then attribute that crap to others, so he can win imaginary debates with himself. I’d get him a life sized straw man for a gift, but even inanimate objects deserve some respect.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, dear Aphan, you missed the boat. But don’t worry, if you wait a while another one will come along. This entire “paper” is based on models. Not real data but on models. Now….why do you like the models used in this paper, but don’t like the other models of the global climate? Are the results of the global climate models not to your liking?
‘It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories” ……….. Sherlock Holmes (Scandal in Bohemia).
Tsk Tsk Tsk David,
1-Your irrational presumption here that I (or anyone, or everyone here) believe that “models are no good unless they produce the results you were looking for” is merely that. An irrational presumption.
2- I didn’t miss any boat sweetie. You launched a leaky raft without oars and I refused to get in it due to it’s obvious condition.
3- While this examined how models interpreted the data, the authors state-
“We conclude that the TOA may have been a source of significant internal variability during the hiatus. Our conclusions are not an artefact of model-generated TOA variability29—the large ensemble produces TOA variability that is similar to that in the observational record (Supplementary Fig. 7). Rather, our conclusions are based on a simple yet robust principle, namely that the Earth’s surface layer has a small heat capacity.”
AND-
“Budgeting with existing observations cannot constrain the origin of the recent hiatus, because the uncertainty in observations dwarfs the small flux deviations that could cause a hiatus. The sensitivity of these flux deviations to the observational dataset and to energy budget choices helps explain why previous studies conflict, and suggests that the origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified.”
Now, let me ask you a perfectly logical question, since I’d like to see you discuss the actual science here instead of playing childish mind games about whose cognitive biases are the biggest…how do you feel about the conclusions of this paper? Agree? Disagree? Discuss…
Aphan, you pegged David to a tee. Don’t light THAT straw man on fire, it would release a lot of CO2.
Duncan
I suspect as much of a wet blanket that he is, I couldn’t light his argument on fire with a blow torch… 🙂
Thank you Aphan: 3- While this examined how models interpreted the data
….
I’ll wave to you while you stand on the dock waiting for the next boat.
…
I see your acceptance (or liking) of models depends on what results they produce. So typical.
PS….“We conclude that the TOA may have been a source of…” Love that word “may”
…
“the small flux deviations that could cause….” Love that word “could”
….
“suggests that the origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified.” There’s that word “may” again.
yep. filled with the exact same words as every other paper. 🙂
But I’m getting that you don’t agree with this one, but do others that use the same words….
As an engineer/PM I cannot slice, peel and tenderize with my words but then those that can do give me pause.
Hey Aphan, check this out: “The coupled climate model MPI-ESM1.1 is forced with CMIP5-prescribed historical forcing from 1850 until 2005, and extended until 2015 with the RCP4.5 scenario “……So they took the output of the CMIP5 model and fed it into the input of the MP1-ESM1.1 model to get the results. Impressive wouldn’t you say?
Well models are no good when used to predict the behavior of a real system that they are not even a crude model of.
If you model the earth as a flat disk with an overhead TDC sun shining 24 -7 day and night at a mean distance of 186 million ,miles; it will not come close to emulating a very roughly pseudo spherical planet, that rotates on a tilted axis about once in 24 hours. I’m too lazy (and old) to figure the mean rotation period relative to the distant ” fixed ” stars, about a sun that is only 93 million miles distant on average, more or less (yes it is a non linear function).
G
David-aka Great and Powerful Oz
Since I have yet to say ANYTHING, pro or con, about this paper, everything you’ve posted so far is based upon your own idiotic and illogical assumptions. But it’s never stopped you before, so why start now? Do tell me oh Great Oz, what “results” did/do I want from this paper anyway?
Aphan and David Dirkse
Simile — a figure of speech in which two unlike things are compared
Aphan, your simile is a poor one in that it equates “climate models” with a “quality chisel” — the implication being that “climate models” possess the attribute of “quality”.
David Dirkse is more right than you are.
Eugene WR Gallun
No David, Observations are compared with IPCC models and the models are 2 to 4 times too hot. This is an important paper and it is in Nature Climate Change where all the CAGW proponents publish. Also, most thinking, scientifically literate sceptics agree that there has been warming, but it’s only one third of ini at causing all the angst and a good portion of the problem is natural variation(NV) . The debate is obviously a bit over your head but you do come to the site that insists on getting it right. It may surprise you to know that the thousands of IPCC scientists did not know of it, or thought NV to be minuscule. NV has been featured on this site for the decade of its existence and I believe the attacks on this site indicate that many attackers learned of the phenomenon here at WUWT. Now I’m not going to hold my breath and hope for a chorus of appreciation. What you will see as the AGW crises unravels is WUWT being an important unattributed resource for future successful research in a righting of the the climate science ship. Stick around and you’ll be surprised at the education available to you. Try to be a bit more respectful to the scientists on this site and open your mind a bit.
Eugene,
Actually, I meant that tools are tools. The only simile I used was comparing inept modelers to monkeys. 🙂
[Please do not insult innocent and perfectly functional monkeys by continuing to compare them to CAGW-funded “scientists” …. .mod]
Thanks George.
You nailed it
Climate models are complete waste of time and money. Nothing useful comes out of them.
Aphan, models are constructs, depending entirely on what the core beliefs of the model constructor, or programmer, considers correct. They cannot produce anything other than what they are intended to produce. If I construct a model that is designed to paint the screen with red pixels in the form of the infamous “bird” we all flip from time to time, no matter what you input to that model for data, it will not paint a blue box on the screen. When models are intended to produce “scary visions,” and the world continues on its merry way, they will still produce “scary visions” no matter what the data is. That is why models cannot produce useful data. On the other hand, David is wrong since models cannot produce anything but the results you are looking for. Therefore models are always good.
The simpler the thing a model tries to model, the better it’s chances of being accurate. (Not right, just accurate)
No Aphan – wishful thinking.
GIGO rules. Models are only as useful as the validity of their basic assumptions and crucially the quality of the first G.
And deepest apologies to both mods and monkeys. 🙂
Wow, so brains are of no use if one decides to be deliberately obtuse?
Who knew?
It is odd because I could have sworn I had read here that climate models were worthless garbage, or words to that effect. David has it exactly right. When a model produces a result you like it is accepted, Otherwise it is dismissed with cries of “we don’t want models we want data!”
Seaice1
“It is odd because I could have sworn I had read here that climate models were worthless garbage, or words to that effect.”
Some people feel that way. But it’s flawed logic to attribute something said by an individual, or even a handful of people, to ALL who post here. Climate models currently do not mimic Earth’s systems. Period. As such, they are extremely useful in telling us that scientists do not understand Earth’s climate well enough.
Now if garbage is programmed into a model, the end result will indeed be garbage. GIGO. If data is used properly, and the error margins regarding the output are noted, and the end results are viewed cautiously within the parameters of the margins of error, sure…they can be useful. If the data and margins of error, and codes used aren’t shared, no one can know whether it’s garbage or useful.
“David has it exactly right. When a model produces a result you like it is accepted, ”
Careful….you just exposed your own lazy standards for “acceptance”! But you probably don’t even realize that you are engaging in the exact same behavior that you are mocking! Just because you “like” what David is saying, you’ve accepted his “output” as “exactly right” without question! David doesn’t know me personally, nor do you, so neither one of you has the required ability or evidence to go around making proclamations about me with such pretentious hubris. So let me INFORM you both. I actually have no expectations, good or bad, at all from models, so what they produce is always going to be questionable to me. Even if I agree with what one produces, I’m still skeptical of that end result, and I’m going to do my due diligence to investigate to see if the “data”, codes, methods used to run it are biased or flawed or inaccurate. That’s a rational, logical reaction don’t you think?
“Otherwise it is dismissed of “we don’t want models we want data!”
Data, to me, is something measured as accurately as possible (with error margins made perfectly clear) in nature, and verifiable by other sources. Independent, actual, empirical measurements. Facts. Models do not produce data. They don’t produce facts. They USE data and facts. WHAT data is used, and HOW it is used, is ALWAYS the question.
+1, from an Engineer Aphan.
I see the old seaice1 is back. Too bad.
GCMs are garbage.
The models being talked about here are not GCMs.
Should be simple enough for even a warmista to understand.
David’s original comment was not aimed at Aphan in particular, but at the audience here generally. We have enough comments in this little thread to indicate that David was substantially correct, such as “You nailed it. Climate models are complete waste of time and money. Nothing useful comes out of them.” and “That is why models cannot produce useful data. “
Seems like there are a lot of “tools” in the Climate fraternity.
David certainly is a tool. Not a sharp one, or a particularly useful or handy one….but he’s in the drawer for sure.
There’s a Cloverdale, WA (Washington State) as well. But, which came first?
The models don’t produce the results the Warmunists are looking for… Never have… Never will… Until the climate sensitivity is lowered to an innocuous level.
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png
http://www.remss.com/research/climate
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/the-good-the-bad-and-the-null-hypothesis/
Nice graphic Dave, but it’s kinda hard to tell what the yellow means and what the blue means.
Yes “Dave”, the other “Dave” is either too stupid or too lazy to actually click on your links, which makes it “kinda hard” for him to tell what the yellow and blue areas mean. Don’t label the graph for him. He’s only going to learn and grow if he tries different and difficult things.
Gee Davie just click on the first link and learn before you attack
“Nice graphic Dave, but it’s kinda hard to tell what the yellow means and what the blue means.”
Blue is the actual surface temperature of the earth. Yellow are ALL of the IPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) computer models. The two have never matched.
There is that cheat again! … The yellow is the model output. Notice the drop in the forecast and observed in 1993. That’s Pinatubo. The models have it in there.
How did the models know that Pinatubo would erupt? They didn’t! These graphs show how the models WOULD HAVE DONE. They are run after-the-fact. That, my friends, is blatant cheating.
Note that one of the biggest verification cheats on Hansen’s famous 1988 forecasts is that “Scenario B” is what verified. Balderdash. Scenario A assumed “business as usual” and emissions exceeded that scenario meaning that “Scenario A+” is what actually happened. But, turns out the atmosphere is much better at shedding CO2 than thought so the observed CO2 was between A and B. So, Hansen apologists claim Scenario B in their verification.
So, we add in volcanoes after the fact and claim false emission scenarios based on mitigation errors and the climate models are still too hot by a factor of multiple X.
I design forecast models for a living. I wish I could verify them with such doctored schemes.
Cool, Mary. How would one go about validating the IPCC climate models?
Anyone who has spent much time actually looking at the graphs used in debating CAGW issues knows what those colors are just from the shapes and the divergence.
IOW, if you look at that blue and yellow graph and do not recognize it, that is a dead giveaway of someone who is pretending to be climate science literate.
Hmmm…deliberately obtuse or an ignoramus?
I am going to go with a 50-50 split…plenty of both.
Mary,
It is all hand waving from start to finish, without some way of knowing what would have happened if there were no CO2 emissions.
The climate modelers aren’t even good liars, Menicholas. They can’t even make their hindcasts reflect actual data.
One of the big reasons for all of the “adjustments” to the historical data.
How can you make a model in which CO2 is the temperature control knob of the atmosphere, which will verify when back-tested against an historical record in which CO2 and temperature are not correlated?
So when all of the adjustments are graphed out, lo and behold, the adjustments are a dead on match for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over time!
The fingerprint of purposeful deception all over the alterations to the historical data.
As is the fingerprint of collusion between the various warmista sectors.
“Cool, Mary. How would one go about validating the IPCC climate models?”
There are experts in verification scores. I used to be pretty sharp at this but I am very rusty now in atmospheric models.. You would be amazed at the complexity listening to verification score debates. There are lots of ways to do it wrong.
That said, here are a few thoughts….
… First… Hindcasts are hindcasts, not forecasts. Duh. It’s nice to tune your model on past data but the only thing that counts is the future. Pesky things happen like volcanoes and unexplained CO2 and methane mitigation, not to mention and bunch of unknown unknowns which seem unknown to climate modelers.
…Second… verification in climate forecasting is severely limited by lack of sample size. With weather forecasting, there are millions of cases. Temperature forecast errors with lead time in Duluth, MN can be estimated with precise certainty. With climate models, the sample size for verification is essentially one. That is a major problem for making claims of skill worth betting a couple of trillion dollars on. There are some work-arounds to this, but none of them very satisfying.
…Third… never hurts to simply compute forecast minus observed of the global temperature. The famous Hansen 1988 forecasts had a warming trend from 1988-2017 of 3.1 deg/ century. Hadcrut and GISS, adjusted data, averaged 2.0 deg warming rate. Satellites measured a 1.3 deg warming rate.
Sample size = 1
Thank you very much, Mary.
Do you happen to have the HadCurt/GISS trends from 1988 through 2014?
That would get rid of most of the Blob/2015-16 El Nino end effects.
Actually, BOTH areas-blue and yellow-are modeled ensemble outputs. The blue band is the 5% to 95% envelope for the RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperature uncertainty ensemble. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.
Mary, the site linked to actually states-“For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output. After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band.”
So of COURSE Pinatubo is in there, it happened in 1993. CIMP5 can be used forward or backward, so any assumption that any graph using it is a forecast or a hindcast (or pretending to be one while being the other) is a flawed reader assumption.
Aphan,
My point is that future quantities of aerosols, volcanic activity, CO2 levels and solar variables are unknown and add considerable error to the forecast. Yet the model output is often presented as if it was a forecast when it fact it is a hindcast.
Examples of errors in anticipated forcings since 1988…
Pinatubo eruption
CO2 emissions much higher than projected
CO2 leaves atmosphere much quicker than expected
others
Hansen actually got lucky in that emissions were higher than projected but co2 mitigation was also higher.
Modeling the atmosphere to match the forcings is just one part of the problem. Forecasting the forcings is also part of the problem which climate modelers like to ignore or take for granted.
And then there are those pesky unknown unknowns which have a nasty habit of ruining the best of forecasts.
Misapprehension/misapplication of “known unknowns” seems to be a problem with the IPCC CMIP5 climate models.
David,
WOW……so models are no good unless the produce the results you are looking for,/i>
To some that is probably the precise truth in a way. While it seems to be frequently forgotten, a model – say one for “climate” – really is nothing more than a tool for evaluating one’s understanding of a natural system. The model states in quantitative fashion the understanding we hope we have of the system we study. We include in it all the key components we have hypothesized as “driving” the system. So, if the modeler has constructed the model to reveal his or her brilliant understanding of nature, and the researcher has a sociopathic confidence in their “knowledge,” then their model will yield the results they are looking for. If it diverges from empirical observations, so much the worse for reality.
This is the primary reason why Trenberth’s plaint in the Climategate emails, that “the data must be wrong” is so utterly pathetic. Given a chance to conclude that there is more to learn, his choice was to “blame the data” instead. The model was good because it behaved as he expected it to. But reality was not so compliant.
David writes
There’s a difference between using a model to project into the future and looking at the model’s output to compare and understand how observational constraints impact on its possible results. This paper is an analysis of the models, it isn’t producing model results that any biased skeptics might “like”.
Budgeting with existing observations cannot constrain the origin of the recent hiatus, because the uncertainty in observations dwarfs the small flux deviations that could cause a hiatus. The sensitivity of these flux deviations to the observational dataset and to energy budget choices helps explain why previous studies conflict, and suggests that the origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified.
Any model with adjustable parameters will return the results the model builder expects. Otherwise the parameters will be adjusted. Without double blind controls models cannot be trusted.
You did a wonderful job of hijacking the thread, and shifting the whole discussion away from the article. Congratulations! Give yourself a pat on the back!
He’s earned his pay today.
Once again, David strikes, and completely misses the target.
Attacking an argument that nobody made is the hallmark of the modern troll. It’s also the only rhetorical skill David and Griff have ever mastered.
It’s called a strawman.
What David is trying to say is that if one model is good, then all models are gospel.
All models are good until proven otherwise.
All models are useful whilst their methods and results are openly debated.
When someone tries to say “the science is settled” using any particular model as “evidence” and we no longer need to debate further then this is where it all goes wrong and this what the warmists are doing.
Nik
April 18, 2017 at 8:26 am
Exactly…….so…completely in agreement with you..:)
“David Dirkse is more right than you are.”
I should have said — David Dirkse is less wrong than you are.
One thing cannot be “more right” than another when no rightness is present in either thing.
To circle this back to climate — the statement that “the oceans are growing more acidic” is the same type of error as the one I made. A functional supposition would be — “the oceans are growing less alkaline” — since all oceans are alkaline. No part of any ocean is acidic.
Oh, well, i guess neither of us is perfect.
Eugene WR Gallun
PS — Aphan, the joke i was striving for was that your implied statement in your poor simile that climate models have “quality” is so wrong that all the wrongness of David Dirkse’s comments are less wrong in comparison.
Eugene WR Gallun
Eugene,
Yes, I know what your joke was. But I think your joke was based on your interpretation of what I said, rather than what I was actually saying.
The models MIGHT, or might not, be quality models, but my point had nothing to do with the models themselves. My point was that the “skill” of its operator is what matters, because if a “monkey” is using it, and putting in absurd parameters, the end result will also be absurd. Any tool is only as good/usefull as its user is skilled. I can give a monkey an expensive and quality chisel and one from the dollar store, and logically expect the end results to be similar, but I’d think the quality one at least gave him a better chance with the actual stone.
It’s entirely possible that if the flawed expectations/calculations of the CIMP modelers were corrected, they might actually come close to matching and replicating reality…and suddenly models previously viewed as inferior would become viewed as superior, quality models. In a perfect world, actually being able to mimic nature would be the desired outcome of any and all climate scientists. Sadly, this world is far from perfect.
It’s the oceans stupid
With an assist from the Sun and the stars.
Poor old Sol having his normal tea break not only will the TOA cool but the oceans too , we are blessed that sun follows his normal habits this time just in time to make the warmanista scientists look like fools. Personally I am stocking up on more fire wood.
Stars?
Are you referring to cosmic rays?
Thingadonta
April 17, 2017 at 4:55 pm
Some day we may just find that to be correct and right…the oceans…the main body of H2O….the main buffer of the Earth’s energy fluctuation and energy budged equilibrium……\
A ” blue” world concept versus the “green” one…;)
cheers
Oceans frozen solid absent the Sun. I accept PayPal.
The authors came up with a very polite way of stating the records are so bad no one can draw conclusions from them. Either that, or a way of stating the change was within the inherent noise of the climate.
Both are true Tom.
Indeed, both ARE true!
The authors do not claim the infallibility of their modeling. They show that modeling can confirm observation measured by accepted means.
In other words it isn’t all based on things happening on a silicon chip unobserved in nature.
An important paper because Christopher Hedemann and friends are willing to admit…….”We have no idea how it all works..”
No doubt the CIMP-5 model is soon to be replaced by CHIMP, a new improved model designed to make a monkey out of everyone.
mike — wicked — Eugene WR Gallun
Take a thousand chimpanzees and have them throw darts at a board of numbers. Adjust the parameters of the model for a temperature rise of 3.5 deg/Century and calibrate the standard deviation parameters. Now, let the CHIMPS fire away. The results would look shockingly like CMIP5. Predetermined results from the control knob with random variations. Correlations to actual climate would be roughly the same.
Climate models have a great deal solid science built into them, unlike chimps. However, at that time scale, in a chaotic, non-linear system, skill scores are roughly the same.
“Do not be deceived
You don’t have to wait for more instructions
No one makes a monkey out of me
We lie on our backs, feet in the air
Rest and relaxation, rocket to my brain”
https://youtu.be/Qa98AhEVAZQ
Hallelujah. I am so tired of people relying on measurements that are at best +/- 10% and then insisting that their calculated results are +/- 1%. It’s refreshing to see real scientists at work.
According to some, if you take one temperature measurement in Antarctica and and another temperature measurement in the Sahara, then you have doubled the accuracy of both measurements.
Not only that, we can calculate a global temp, because we can slice and dice the data, and use latitude and altitude and figure it all out, “cause I built aerplains with models, and aerplains fly!”
+10! Wiping screen off now.
micro6500
April 18, 2017 at 8:51 am
“cause I built aerplains with models, and aerplains fly!”
———————
Some of the data for the airplane models come from models that deal with data from wind-tunnel experiments where the aircraft designs are tested in structural models that do not have even engines working….or mostly have only mock ones….but never the less the data and the processed data as such is very vital and helpful………for further modeling and assessments…..
cheers
damn, hate reading the funnies when drinking tea . some people are on form tonight 🙂
“The role of the TOA and the ocean in each hiatus (……)”
WR: The oceans seem to play a role. An important one too. Unfortunately we are still depending on “observational estimates” for the oceans, instead of being able to use ‘data’. In fact this article is a plea for [much] more research on the [role of the] oceans and also for the collecting of much more ocean data. Perhaps this will finally lead to the discovery of the mechanisms that are determining the future developments of climate. This article seems to be the first one that gives the oceans the role they have in giving shape to the Earth’s climate: a dominant one.
Is 70% dominant? And that’s not even considering the mass of the oceans.
Most of the oceans are deep enough that they have very little interaction with the atmosphere.
If we are going the mass route, the continents have a lot of mass as well.
Therefore, unless the uncertainty of observational estimates can be considerably reduced, the true origin of the recent hiatus may never be determined…..
…pick me up off the floor
Don’t feel bad for him. Either his management style prevents subordinates from correcting him, he is too ignorant to recognize what he doesn’t know, or he had nefarious purposes in mind. He is a perfect definition of a government employee who knows less than he thinks.
Sorry wrong place! Your point +10
Mr Watts (Willard) …Models and observations don’t even begin to match…This line from this article reminded me of a recent project by British Antarctic Survey.
‘Poles apart: why has Antarctic sea ice increased, and why can’t coupled climate models reproduce observations?’
Start date. 1 April, 2014. End date. 31 March, 2017.
My initial thought about the project was that they gave themselves 3 years to come up with a Plausible…Implausable…reason to explain the inability to reproduce observations but I may be too cynical.
A request to you, Eric or any readers to let us know if these results have been finalised and published as The Antarctic is proving to be the biggest and best Denier of their Climate Global Warming Hype. The recent Oliva (2017) paper published in Total Environment (Jo Nova has an article) is further evidence that shows a cooling within the Antarctic Peninsula in recent times.
As distinct from the projections of every Computer Model Toy.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this paper doesn’t “bust Karl”, does it? The paper doesn’t even mention Karl. It’s more like he was working on this before Karl, but needed to get published anyway.
Citation #18, specifically references Karl et al 2015.
What is the statement from the paper that uses citation 18?
Never mind. I found it. the “18” wasn’t blued like the other citations.
It sounds like he’s waffling — This paper is not “busting” nor agreeing with Karl.
The paper doesn’t have to “mention Karl” for one to conclude that Karl’s conclusions are inaccurate.
Karl’s paper concluded that there had not really been a hiatus at all, that it was merely biased sea surface temperature readings, and that removing those biases, removed the hiatus.
This paper demonstrates that even taking the “biased sea surface temperatures” into consideration, there is STILL a major gap between what the models are producing and what we observe in reality. There is too much observational uncertainty to conclude anything about the origin of the hiatus.
I’m not disputing that. From the beginning, I thought the Karl paper used selective statistics to change the measures.
My question was more along the lines of whether this paper really “busted” Karl or did its premise just assume the pre-Karl temperature trends? If it “busts” Karl, then there are opportunities to have a real debate about Karl. If it simply ignores Karl, then the authors will toe the party line on the Karl adjustments. (We know the quotes — “This paper in no way impugns the courageous work conducted by Karl. And, I’m not stupid. I still need to get published in the future.”
Karl was busted by his own methodology.
When looked at objectively, about as clear cut of a case as we have seen of just making stuff up.
First, decide what ought to be the case, then fiddle with the numbers until they say what you had started out deciding they should say.
This has long been a strong suit for the warmistas…willingness to just make up some entirely new load of crap, even if it contradicts the previous 63 batches of crap that they had spent years defending.
This shamelessness is enabled by the near complete refusal of any of them to call out even the most obscenely obvious malarkey by any other members of the cabal or by the support staff of MSM lickspittles, toadies and sycophants.
Of course, the terms “hiatus” or “pause”, while widely used by both sides in the debate, assume that warming will soon resume at some previously observed rate. No one can possibly know this. It may be that what’s been observed and labeled as a hiatus is really the tailing off of a natural warming cycle and may be the beginning of a cooling period. We should know in as little as 20-30 years. I’ll be dead by then so sadly I’ll never know how this movie ends.
Which is why “plateau” is a better description of observations.
Could go either way, on to sunny uplands of beneficial warmth, or plunging back down into the depths of the 1945-77 cooling so worrisome to scientists in the ’70s, who feared the return of the ice sheets, with truly catastrophic consequences for humanity, unlike the imagined lunacies of the Carbonari mafia.
“Which is why “plateau” is a better description of observations.”
_____________________________________
We know it’s a plateau when we know it’s a plateau.
Until then it’s a hiatus.
Geologically speaking, hiatus is the preferred term.
David M. Very much respect your knowledge and very informative posts. Would it be correct to say that an interglacial is a “hiatus” in glacial periods during an ice age? I can buy that. But if the current warming hiatus is followed by a few decades of cooling, should it still be called a hiatus?
I have heard people talk about a projectile rising, appearing to pause, then plummeting to earth.
A pause can just mean a period in which nothing happens.
Suppose, a psychiatrist diagnoses your mother with a beginning dementia. From now on she will show more and more symptoms of that terrible disease. After twenty years your mother is still the same woman as she was before. No, no, says the psychiatrist, she only got arrested in a pause. What caused that pause? Let a neurologist make a complete brain scan of your mother. If he cannot find anything in her brain, causing the miracle, he may publish a pompous article concluding that we will probably never know what caused that pause. You may also conclude that your mother is as healthy as can be and became the victim of a diagnostic error.
ME,
A psychiatrist might diagnose your mother with dementia, but he would also require medical testing to confirm or reject that diagnosis. She tests positive for some of it’s symptoms, and exhibits a few signs, but after twenty years, tests show that she has yet to succumb to full blown dementia. You mention this to the doctors, and some of them say that she was misdiagnosed in the beginning, some say that it was a correct diagnosis, but that for some unknown reason the progression of the disease has “paused” and others say that she still has dementia and that it hasn’t really paused at all, it’s just that the tools they’ve been using to measure the degree of her dementia with weren’t calibrated correctly.
You don’t get to insinuate that the authors of this paper belong to any of the above categories and make insinuations in a “pompous” and flawed analogy without evidence to support your claims.
It may happen like you say, Aphan, in your fancy world but my example is based on a real case, a man who had to live year after year with a wrong diagnosis not showing any symptoms of dementia. His doctors refused to admit an error and told him time and again that his dementia would become apparent somewhere in the future. We do not know the future. AGW is a promissory theory making claims about the future with simulated models. The article was about the cause of a pause, whereas there is no evidence for a pause. So we begin with a simulation telling that the moon will turn into cheese. When it doesn’t, we want to know the cause why it did not (yet) turn into cheese. Finally, we will probably never know that cause. This is fake science at its top. The obvious reason (not the cause) is that the simulation is nonsense.
Indeed, Mindert, I agree. My wife’s uncle was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease 30 years ago. Five years ago, doctors stated that he never had Parkinson’s Disease, and ALL the drugs he had taken to combat the disease had, instead, worked against his health. He’s still alive, but now has ‘dementia’. Or does he?
We should be getting some indication within about 5 years.
A lady just died, age = 117. (Last person born in the 1800s.)
If I beat that, I will know.
I’m in the process of cellaring decent wine.
My dog just died. Last dog I know from the 1990s. Just sayin’
If you use the standard set by John Cook to “prove” a consensus opinion on climate change, then I bet you could prove a consensus on the “hiatus” or “pause”.
In other words, all you have to do is find all of the papers that mention “hiatus” or “pause” in the abstract and count the ones that assume it exists. That would be “proof” that the hiatus is real.
That is literally how Cook conducted his study.
But one thing for sure, we need to spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$ in order to make the weather nice.
Ha – hidden in Hedemann . . is Mann. Speaking of Michael Mann, didn’t his paper, et al., also question Karl, confirm the validity of the satellite measurements and confirm that there was at least some slow-down, or hiatus, in the warming trend?
Feb 1, 2016
At Nature.com, Making sense of the early-2000’s warming slowdown.
http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?referrer_access_token=0EzrpIPapygRJ8wbsq0CT9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OqExA1EwYluYLwiaayT9bldKYisAn–P5Djex2GxwUVaxHJvGZA6CV3RoVsacjc4Bn86sGs2o0Cf_t7bvmgVnexAsZGl_sj5cl968-0rn3-TKKTiKqC_s3Q09j3pThfDPycXe8LzueeRscl4CKDNi58tDKzjk6Fo1kd_kiv-sXePQULXJKqbaBW3mwQCOJRZ0zTsXiJoOiCZRHrvkxPZVJcuTcY6hxbXXpeVnHNR20oSaxKg36S15x3L6v_ag5Tho%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com\
Also . . http://www.cfact.org/2016/02/26/hiatus-confirmed-as-scientists-finally-admit-climate-model-fail/#sthash.tFNQQeKY.dpuf
Forrest – are you in San Antonio?
Moreover, the dreaded Pause caused a new clinical depression type nicknamed the Climate Blues that was eating up mainstream climate scientists in droves. Ironically they claimed that their depression was because their work showed the terrible plight of the planet’s future and no one would listen. This ironically this is one of the earliest symptoms recognized in such depression episodes and it is called, of all things, D*иi@l !
Update Ocean Heat Content and the actually measured Energy Imbalance figures up to the the fourth quarter of 2016 (the latest available).
OHC accumulation has dropped over the past year (let’s call it a negative as more energy was leaving the Earth than was coming in in the last 18 months) but since the Argo floats became widely distributed in 2005, the 0-2000 metre ocean is absorbing a net 0.64 W/m2/year. (Another 0.035 W/m2/year is estimated for land surface, atmosphere warming and ice-melt).
This is the TOA imbalance –> 0.675 W/m2 (technically a low number compared to that expected of 1.4 W/m2/year in the original theory).
And compared to the direct forcing of 2.29 W/m2/year in 2016 (and add another 2.8 W/m2/year expected from water vapor and albedo feedback), a YUGE amount of the Energy from CO2/GHGs (74%) has simply gone back to space and done nothing (and/or 100% of the extra feedback energy has done nothing either).
It is weird that the surface temperature record spiked by so much in 2016 with the Super-El Nino but the Ocean Heat Content and the Ocean temperatures down to 700 metres and down to 2000 metres actually fell.
The paper is right that there is great internal variability.
“It is weird that the surface temperature record spiked by so much in 2016 with the Super-El Nino but the Ocean Heat Content and the Ocean temperatures down to 700 metres and down to 2000 metres actually fell.”
WR: As easterlies stop blowing in the Pacific, less/no upwelling is cooling the surface. In the same time the West Pacific warm pool can spread to the North and South / roll back to the East Pacific. And can start releasing heat over a big surface. The surface warms double / resp. is warmed and not cooled, and the colder subsurface layers are NOT mixed with the warm layer above because of lack of winds on essential places (which I can not check because I don’t have the local and regional wind data). This might be the mechanism that combines surface warming with the cooling of the deeper layers of the ocean: wind / no wind, cold upwelling / no cold upwelling, mixing of the surface layer with the deeper surface layers / no mixing.
Not weird at all, El Nino’s are heat pumps, that push warm water towards both polar regions to cool.
Min temp follows dew point (for the 10 thousandth time), dew point follows the ocean cycles.
All that ocean heat is expressed in a massive amount of Joules. Water has a lot of mass. That is a lot of added heat.
I have no good feel for these values so I have asked…
“How much warmer is the ocean than when the ARGO floats were launched circa 2004”
The answer I get is roughly 0.01 deg C
Questions for y’all…
(1) Is this 0.01 deg C figure correct?
(2) What is the error of measurement… realistically?
Mary, I think I love you. Technical, with a bit of Wimsey.
The climate blog gunslingers are now boring.
Mary,
Error?
What error?
They take enough readings to eliminate any errors, silly!
Wait…what?
Resolution of the ARGO thermometers?
Pish posh!
Error bars?
We aint got no error bars.
We don’t need no error bars!
I don’t have to show you any stinking error bars!
I thought it was closer to 0.001C.
This should be mandatory reading for climate policy wonks and their masters. I don’t have much confidence that there are very open minds on this in Canada, and we are all going to be taken to the economic gallows due to the orthodoxy operating in a “climate” of ignorance amongst the happily ignorant masses. Really tragic…
The WW2 Nuremberg Trials testimony and verdicts should compulsory readings for the climate groups at NOAA.
Fast forward:
The Raleigh-Durham Climate Fraud Trials of 2025:
“Because my boss told me to do such-and-such thing”. That won’t be an excuse when you knew what you were doing broke scientific rules of conduct on temp data and stats methods.
– Karl’s underlings testifying before the science integrity investigation committee.
I am intrigued by the notion that a ‘hiatus’ = essentially no change: the null hypothesis – needs an ‘origin’.
It betrays an implicit assumption that AGW is correct, and that AGW is the new null hypothesis.
Leo
As I understand it, there isn’t (or shouldn’t be) much scientific argument about there having been some warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (1850-ish) – that’s why it’s called THE END of the little ice age.
The argument regards increasing CO2 and it’s effect (if any) on the warming.
It is quite possible to have a pause/hiatus in (even 100%) natural warming. Recognizing a hiatus in no way implies AGW is the new null hypothesis.
I wish I could could remember the details, but, before the pause, wasn’t a prominent climate scientist who said something to the effect that it would take ten years of no significant warming to show that the hypothesis of caGW was wrong?
What followed were all kinds of explanations that for it while still preserving the hypothesis. Karl was welcomed because it (seemed to) remove the pause.
What effect does this have on the Hausfeather (sp?) paper?
None. It has none on the Karl paper.
The requested URL http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs01cll/flux was not found on this server.
Hey, it is the UK, @. 7 hours ahead… and 20 years behind.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/weatherdata/images/2FLX2.png
Be kind Leif, they are working on catching up, post-Brexit.
“Therefore, unless the uncertainty of observational estimates can be considerably reduced, the true origin of the recent hiatus may never be determined.”
So much working time, so much words to say
‘We know Nothing, We never will know.’
Ah! But now we know what we don’t know, and that is always a step forward. Second thoughts, that is a bit ambiguous. We now have some idea of the limits of our ignorance, may be better.
Still, having some idea of the limits is better than the alarmist version – of knowing things with certainty that are not so.
The Slow walk-back begins.
When NOAA finally reverses the Karl fraudulent ship-to-buoy temp data correction, the Pause will be even stronger in the ERSST dataset.
Then as the global cooling trend over the next 5 years strengthens, the 35 year climate scam nararive collapse will be complete.
Then as the global cooling trend over the next 5 years strengthens
Except there is no ‘cooling trend’.
Except in the stratosphere. Can we define the stratosphere as part of the planet? I do. Current warming is two dimensional (ocean and atmospheric boundary layers). The planet is at least three dimensional. Gradients occur in all dimensions (fields) of space/time.
Whenever the vertical (z axis) gradient is sufficient, the entropy will come home.
Can we define the stratosphere as part of the planet? I do.
The stratosphere is but a TINY part of the atmosphere [about one thousandth] so hardly determines the cooling trend of the air you breathe and live in.
We are not talking about the air we live and breathe in. We are talking about the energy balance. Not mass balance. The planet radiates to space according primarily to the spectral properties of water and CO2. Water radiates from the troposphere. CO2 from the stratosphere.
We are talking about the energy balance. Not mass balance.
Very little mass has very little energy…
Photons have no mass. The atmosphere does. CO2 and water do, and they radiate to space with an intensity disproportionate to their contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.
next = future.
seems clear to me that the ‘**next**’ 5 yrs is *cooling* irregardless of GHE models dueto state od SC 24/25 transition.
Additionally, internal cycles analysis suggest Earth is cooling for ~25 yrs to come.
As SC 25 will be ~SC24 or less.
Beyond that is pure guess.
There is no evidence for any cooling, only wishful guesses…
Laughing out loud.
SC24 is a smoking crater on predictions going into SC25 transition.
With AMO declining, climate cannot “*not*” cool next 5 years,
With a weak SC 25 and maybe a weaker SC26, the next 25 yrs looks cool. After 2040, who cares.
GC models are junk science.
SC24 is a smoking crater on predictions going into SC25 transition.
All evidence is that SC25 will be as least as strong a SC@$, perhaps a bit stronger.
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-Solar-Cycles.pdf
lsvalgaard states
Like the anthropogenic CO2 fraction of the atmospheric mass? I agree. Pink noice at best
@lsvalgaard
Forgive me if I don’t understand the following statements, I’m not a scientist.
“Can we define the stratosphere as part of the planet? I do.
The stratosphere is but a TINY part of the atmosphere [about one thousandth] so hardly determines the cooling trend of the air you breathe and live in.”
“We are talking about the energy balance. Not mass balance.
Very little mass has very little energy…”
My understanding is that CO2 exists in our atmosphere at around 400 parts per million. Isn’t that less than the stratosphere’s one thousandths part of the atmosphere? In which case, judging by that, the stratosphere should have more of an influence than CO2 on our climate.
If very little mass has very little energy, why does atmospheric CO2 have such a profound effect on the planets weather/climate when atmospheric water vapour is many times it’s mass?
why does atmospheric CO2 have such a profound effect on the planets weather/climate when atmospheric water vapour is many times it’s mass?
Both gases have an effect, and the water vapor is the larger. The effects occur because molecules with more than two atoms absorb strongly in the infrared.
Here is more on this: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/649
The ocean accounts for about 0.022% weight of earth and the atmosphere about 0.00001%. Anthropogenic part would be what? 0.0000002%?
According to Einstein energy = mass x speed of light squared. Not much the biosphere can do about it.
There is no evidence for any cooling, only wishful guesses…
They have adjusted it out….
I don’t think we are discussing the mass, the tropospheric GHG’s are acting like a conduit, accepting radiation energy and then radiating it to space (more likely than transferring to other molecules in such a rare atmosphere). Its energy is small, but constantly being replenished – and expelled, causing cooling.
SteveT
There appear to have been more or less equal length “pauses” starting in the early 1880’s and early 1940’s each followed by periods of warming of similar length as the “pauses.” Would conditions in the TOA cause such a seeming pattern of temperature activity
More likely what we see is a linear rebound from the LIA minimum with the 60-65 year Ocean cycle imposed on it. The minimum phase of the ocean cycle (AMO) cancels the linear increase over a ~10-15 yr period, but on the ocean cycle increasing node, the two trends add to appear as and accleration i(such as 1980-1998).
Is ToA a synonym for solar variation in a society where ‘solar’ is an excommunication offence?
[???? .mod]
WUWT catch up with Tony Heller time from way way back
Good to see that not every scientist is [toeing] the party line! Sometimes I wonder if real scientific inquiry is still possible in the field of climate studies; this helps restore my faith that the battle hasn’t been lost yet.
Mention is made that 0.082 W/sqm can be a significant magnitude at TOA.
Here is an old jpg that I made years ago, showing 0.08 W/sqm. Note how thin it is compared to the range of raw observations.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/toa_problem.jpg
These raw obs were then “adjusted” to derive a preferred value. You can see how fraught with danger that could be.
The main problem, as I keep repeating, is inadequate use of formal error estimates. If these were put on this diagram, you would see that once again, the alleged effect cannot be distinguished from noise. The effect floats around in a large error space, to be fitted into such an interpretation as authors wish for.
Geoff.
+1
@ Dr. Svalgaard
I noticed one or two minor changes to the most recent PF data, with the last entry more or less in line. Is the problem fixed, or are you still working on it? Tanks.
No, the problem is still with us. We are waiting for a series of good observing days with a clear sky. There has been a lot of rain and clouds so far this winter. We are not sure that the KDP is the problem, so the fault must lie elsewhere. The electronics is 40+ years old…
It would seem to me that the title of this post is completely inaccurate. There is no way
one can claim that climate models fails using a paper based on climate models. All this
paper claims is that natural variablilty is larger than previously thought. Which makes it harder
to determine the causes of any particular temperature trend over a short period of time than
was previously thought.
What they are actually saying is that the measurements that most reflect the Pause is the southern, ocean, top of atmosphere.
From which you can pretty easily guess, that the places that are not showing the Pause – in other words the places showing warming – are the northern, land, bottom of atmosphere.
Since I’ve been extensively discussing this on my blog – it’s hardly news to me.
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2017/03/31/animation-proving-link-between-so2-reducing-areas-and-warming/
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2017/04/09/the-cause-of-1970-2000-warming/
The authors claim of deviation between models and observations (1998-1912) can not be right:
:
“The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 °C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5; ref. 19) ensemble-mean projection1—a gap two to four times the observed trend.”
The average trend 1998-1912 of three global datasets (Gistemp loti, Cowtan and Way, BEST l/o) is 0.12 C/decade.
According to KNMI climate explorer the CMIP rcp4.5 model average global SAT trend 1998-2012 is 0.22 C/decade.
However, the observational datasets are blended SST/land SAT. If models are blended the trend goes down to 0.19 C/decade.
Thats only 0.07 C/ decade difference between models and obs, NOT 0.17
Have the authors slept recent years and completely missed that model-obs comparisons should be made made apples-to-apples??
Also, if one starts the period with the strongest el Nino since 1878 and ends it with a strong la Nina (1998-2012), isn’t quite natural that the observed trend is lower than the model average?
As a contrast the observed GMST trend from 2012 til now is 0.9 C/decade, four times larger than the model average.
Hence, a possible “natural” slowdown between 1998 and 2012 has been more than compensated by a “natural” speed up between 2012 2017
Tke paper is indeed striking. In the beginning they write:
“The surface temperature of the Earth warmed more slowly over the period 1998–2012 than could be expected by examining either most model projections or the long-term warming trend. Even though some studies now attribute the deviation from the long-term trend to observational biases17,18, the gap between observations and models persists. The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 ◦C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5;ref.19) ensemble-mean projection1—a gap two to four times the observed trend. The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.”
Ref. 18 is Karl et. al (2015) with the title: “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface
warming hiatus” IMO it’s a clear contradicition when they write in the new paper:”the gap between obs. and midels persist.”
And the result of the paper? The last sentence summs it up:
“Therefore, unless the uncertainty of observational estimates can be considerably reduced, the true origin of the recent hiatus may never be determined”
At first they describe the importance to find the origins of the hiatus, they describe the gap to the models and in the end they conclude: No, we can’t!
Isn’t it a declaration of bankruptcy of the climate research as we know it?
Just wondering if a higher lapse rate (cooler upper atmosphere) causes clouds to build higher? How much more energy does a thunderstorm radiate to outer space if it goes to 50K feet instead of 40K feet?
Has Dana Nutty issued a ‘rebuttal’ yet? It’ll come, don’t you worry.
Top down solar effects interact with bottom up oceanic effects.
Who’d have guessed it ?
“Karl-buster paper”
I love it.
Water vapor is the regulator.
You can see it operating on outgoing radiation in this graph of measurements.
Min temps, follow dew point temps, the result of the above chart.
Oh, 97% correlation between min temp and dew point. Didn’t I just see Co2 to temps was around 30%?
One more point. I know some here think I’m a “sky dragon”, far from it, I just have spent 40 years working with EM waves, and a decade studying temperature data, and the temperature series show there is no way a small forcing is raising minimum temperature. It’s not in the temp series as I show above, and it’s not in the actual measured surface radiation, also shown above.
There is no way Co2 is the cause of the modern warm period, I’ve been saying that for 4 or 5 years now, and with my discovery of why in the radiation data last December, there is proof. It’s just sad no one seems to understand how dynamic nonlinear systems work, even when you show it to them, even when they call it a dynamic nonlinear system.
It’s almost like, everyone is having so much fun arguing, they don’t want a final answer on the subject.
CO2 absorbs energy from the surface and so bends the lapse rate to the warm side.
Since the air then cools less quickly with height the rate of convection slows.
Slower convection allows higher humidity to develop at lower levels and higher humidity allows water vapour to condense out at a higher temperature i.e. at a lower height.
Clouds forming at a lower height and higher temperature allows those clouds to reflect and radiate more energy out to space than would otherwise have been the case.
Thus, in a water world, the thermal effects of non condensing gases are countered by the fact that water vapour condenses out at a lower height.
Measurements do show that humidity has increased and so it must follow that clouds are indeed condensing out at lower heights and radiating more to space.
David Evans has a concept of multiple ‘pipes’ whereby radiation can escape to space by other means if one ‘pipe’ is blocked or partially blocked.
I suggested that the above mechanism would be the way it works when an atmosphere has both CO2 and water vapour.
And that’s what I have been showing nonstop for almost 6 months. They operate independently, and water vapor is the regulator. It’s just clouds (well visible ones anyways) are not involved, it’s all clear sky, I’m taking pictures of galaxies while it’s happening.
Oh, and rel humidity is falling.
Like this
Okay, not like that, but like this 🙂 M31, the other is the Horse head Nebula.
The stage is reset for the long-term cycles of AMO and solar to combine for a show. I predict energy demand for heating will rise accordingly.
And because of all of this green nonsense, much of the world is going to be screwed.
….Or at least hold less reliable generating assets and lower grid stability for meeting demand. The greens always blame someone so they can blame the grid operators and call it outdated infrastructure leading to the S-word for stimulus. So in effect we can jump ahead and conclude that climate model error+energy policy failure = excess national debt. And any leader who does not follow this path will be labeled a heartless killer of the frozen masses.
Pretty brilliant strategy, all based on nonsense. But we now have someone, immune to a lot of that kind of nonsense as President, so there is a renewed hope for sane policies at least for a while.
I don’t think the cooling will come that fast in terms of a presidential term or maybe even two terms. We might start hearing calls of a downturn off of a pause. It is more decadal in scale but there should be factual evidence of the downturn going on in the indicators at any rate.
Temps fall like a rock, once the water vapor supporting it leaves (like the end of an El Nino). It’ll depend on the Oceans.
I hope that five years of additional data post-Super El Nino will indicate if the 3 degree C of IPCC model sensitivity is valid or not, Resourceguy.
Well yes, the “brilliant execution of nonsense” is now an ex-President and probably soon to be an author, adjunct professor, advocate, lobbyist, and globalist laureate at large. He will have plenty of money for higher heating bills or beach-side living where once there was only rising seas gloom.
Everyone pushing this trash at the government level, either are collecting money from it, or are so wealthy they just don’t care. The rest fall into Luddites who don’t like modern society, or just don’t know any better than to believe “science”.
The 1960s are the analog years for the coming 2020s and the AMO going negative. There was pretty substantial cooling which continued into the late 1970s. This means the current POTUS could still be around in a 2nd term when it takes off.
In addition, with the solar minimum coming up that will add some downward pressure on temps. Finally, if we experience a La Nina then even more downward influence. It is going to get tough for the AGW backers unless they luck out and get another strong El Nino.
I certainly hope we get SOME beneficial warming (and milder storms) from all this added CO2 and don’t have to settle for just increased crop and forest yields. I’m guessing we have at least one more LIA and upturn before the interglacial ends.
As a scientist what I have never seen in the CMIP5 Climate Model Graphs is one in which the CS values for CO2 include 0.5, 0.8, and 1.0. Those values should also be used and published for model Projection runs as well for comparison purposes. Seems to me the reason they would NOT be used is because they just might fit the observed data much better and then Climate Scientists heads would explode. On the other hand, if they did a lousy job of fitting they data it would give them a bit more ammunition. My bet is the former.
Not to put too sharp a point on this, but the article is published by the Nature group. which you deprecated a few days ago.
The best work of the blogs is in popularizing the best of the peer-reviewed literature, not critiquing the worst or the mediocre..
No matter, this paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.
That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.
It is amazing to see how quickly a could also can be shifted to an is not when there is some intererest to do so…
Moreover: maybe we should underline that Hedemann et al. mention at the very beginning:
The surface temperature of the Earth warmed more slowly over the period 1998-2012 than could be expected by examining either most model projections or the long-term warming trend.
Warmed more slowly over the period 1998-2012? Let’s have a quick look at UAH6.0:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170418/kmhhauc7.png
I see no slower warming here, rather some harsh decline!
Here are the linear trends for these three UAH periods, in °C/decade with 2σ error bars:
1979-2016: 0.123 ±0.062
1998-2012: -0.070 ±0.277
1998-2016: 0.049 ±0.180
Source: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Recall: if the error bar of an estimate contains the value 0, its p-value is above 0.05, and hence the estimate is not statistically significant. Thus the only really valid estimate is that for 1979-2016.
A detail nearly nobody seems to care about nowadays: the shorter the period you analyse in a time series, the less data points you obtain, and the higher is the uncertainty.
And, as commenter OR perfectly noticed, it is a bit strange to select a period beginning with one of the three most powerful El Nonos we had since 1850, and ending with a nice La Nina:
A pause there has been, no doubt as far as I understand! But to select a harsh decline as the base for a scientific article trying to explain that a hiatus could have happened?
Did those cherries taste good? You are trying to con people who understand the only reason the trend from 1998 is upward is due to El Nino. It is beyond silly for anyone to show such nonsense and expect anything other than laughter. What did it look like before the El Nino?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2014.75/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2014.75/trend
Oh yeah, it was going down. You also appear to be completely ignorant of the fact that the 1998-2001 La Nina completely balances out the 1998 El Nino and eliminates any strong influence on the trend. I hope you enjoyed your cherries because all you managed to accomplish was to prove beyond any doubt you don’t understand either math or science.
Richard M on April 18, 2017 at 11:13 am
The more aggressive I behave, the less I manage to convince.
Seems to be valid 4u2…
I don’t try to change people’s religion. You’ve seen these facts before and here you are repeating the same lies. I know I can’t change your opinion so I have no reason to be nice to you. I can only hope to embarrass you enough that you quit with the obvious lies.
Richard M
It could equally be said that the only reason the warming trend was relatively flat (or in the case of the lower troposphere, downward) between 1998-2012 is because of the large El Nino at the start end. If you want to discount the effect of strong ENSO conditions over relatively short periods like this, then it’s necessary to remove the one at the start too, not just the one at the finish.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2014.75/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2014.75/trend
Waddda yuck, DWR54. [Department of Water Resources?]
It appears the following La Nina pretty much canceled out the effects of the 1998 El Nino on temperature trends. Additionally, the approximately 2002 to 2014 trend is essentially flat. CO2 growth was significant over that period.
It wasn’t the El Nino, or La Niña, at the end of the El Nino the amo went positive, increased dew points from the increase in water vapor in the MY, and that caused the step in temps, min temp follows dew points, and then max temp follows min.
Well, micro, except for a minor decline in the relative humidity (which climate science says shouldn’t change), every thing else is essentially flat for the last 20 years or so.
17-18 years, then the pre amo step down (going back in time).
going back to the 50’s
Go back to 1850, micro, and we can talk about temperatures and trends.
IPCC climate models are bunk. My recent mantra.
The data sucks prior to 1950. The models are wrong, their theory is wrong. Min temp is regulated by water vapor, co2 has little to no effect.
+1, micro
Micro, my simple understanding of GCMs is:
1. CO2’s radiative properties raises global temperatures by a predictable amount based on the increased CO2 concentration in a well-mixed atmosphere.
2. That increase in temperature results in an increase in water vapor in the climate.
3. Water’s radiative properties further raise global temperatures.
4. People guess as to the impacts of/on clouds (whether a feedback or primary driver of climate), land use and whatnot.
5. People guess as to the levels of and impacts of aerosols on the climate.
6. When all the interactions are done, the resulting temperatures are about 3 times the initial CO2 forcing on average across the models.
7. Different GCMs have wildly different properties and assumptions about all of the above.
8. Only the hacked Russian GCM tracks near observations, all in support of the Trump presidency.
Where should I refine my simple understanding?
The big issue with GCMs is they all parameterize the air water boundary, and have code to “correct” the water feedback. That’s why they all run warm. Then, they used aerosols to tune the runs, but as you can see by their results, they are still wrong. What’s wrong with the science, is that co2 RF does not add with water vapor RF, water vapor, as air temps drop in the middle of clear sky nights, runs into dew points, and as rel humidity goes up, out going forcing drops to almost zero. But the transition happens based on air temps. Before it slows the cooling rate or 3 or more times higher. Then drops, that is how transistors are used to turn on and off to regulate a voltage or current, in this case the transmission path from the surface to space acts as a low quality transistor, but in this case the reference is air temp to dew point.
Thanks, micro.
I’ll have to ponder awhile on your response to get the interrelationships straight.
This is what the measured data during this looks like
The flat trend started over a year prior to the 1998 El Nino.
A fact which have been informed of before.
MarkW
“The flat trend started over a year prior to the 1998 El Nino.”
You can stretch it back a couple of years pre 1998, but that’s beacause of the weighting 1998 puts on that end of the trend. Just like 2016 will put a warming influence on this end of the trend for a year or more to come. You have to remove the ENSO influences at both ends to get a better picture of the underlying trend.
In that case, DWR54, one needs remove the La Nina period following the 1998 El Nino.
Additionally, Richard, removing the 1998 El Nino means you start with the depressed La Nina years. Upward trend, anyone?
As a “modeler” of 50-yrs, results of all models produce estimates, NOT “data”. Results generated by models used to interpolate between known observations have some usefulness; results produced by models which extrapolate away from known observations must be treated with utmost caution…
and suggests that the origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified.
That’s probably the best statement to date of humility in the face of multi parameter model uncertainty.
“Well models are no good when used to predict the behavior of a real system that they are not even a crude model of. If you model the earth as a flat disk with an overhead TDC sun shining 24 -7 day and night at a mean distance of 186 million ,miles; it will not come close to emulating a very roughly pseudo spherical planet, that rotates on a tilted axis about once in 24 hours.”
George, are you suggesting they should be similar situations, or not? An object at twice the distance from a quasi-point source of radiation will receive 1/4 the radiation, not 1/2. Furthermore, models simulate a spherical Earth with a 24 hr diurnal cycle and solar radiation that varies with the local sun elevation.
There are certainly many problems with climate models, but I’m unsure what you comment has to do with any of those problems.
This is all pure nonsense. There is water at ever latitude and longitude, which is void of any urban heat island effect and does not need “adjustments.” CO2 is 400ppm everywhere so all they need to do to isolate the impact of CO2 is to measure the temperatures over the oceans and use that data. The land measurements are corrupt.
Of course the global temperature is not a fingerprint of man-made CO2 warming. According to the IPCC that comes from a combination of a tropi-tropo hot spot, which is not evident in the real data, plus stratospheric cooling which demonstrably stopped in 1995: That’s the more important ‘hiatus’!
So there is no fingerprint of man-made warming despite how much actual warming there may be.from all sources.
From the inane comment above: “I see your acceptance (or liking) of models depends on what results they produce. ”
Actually that’s true. They either agree with the observations or they don’t. When they don’t good scientists/engineers either fix them to match obs. or discard them. Of course ‘model’ is too generalist a term: The general circulation models are demonstrably inadequate. Finite Element models are often within 1% error. Economic models are universally acknowledged to be the purest guesswork. Anyone using the argument that because one model is bad/good therefore they must all be bad/good is clearly innumerate.
And electronic design models and simulators have designed the modern world. Look around you and see what good models produce. They are the reason for the accelerating pace of advanced technology.
Yes, models in which every factor involved is known, and can be accurately programmed into it, can, and do, produce dependable results. Results that can be verified and replicated over and over again.
But as the IPCC stated- “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
But, you could design exactly that type of circuit with known components, and then explore that nonlinear space. Timing verifiers are specifically designed to allow stateless verification, while you can have control signals, data path can just define a stable/changing input. Thus generates an envelope of how change propagates. Btw transistors are nonlinear, and are coupled to billions of other nonlinear transistors. If we understood the components of climate, we could run ensembles and map the chaotic bounds. But those don’t get it right either. The component functions are wrong, they have their thumbs are water feedback with their parameterization of the air water boundary.
It’s not JUST a non-linear system, it’s nonlinear AND chaotic. You can explore that nonlinear space all you want to, but you’ll never be able to determine what the future will be with any accuracy.
I understand what chaotic means, let me quote myself “we could run ensembles and map the chaotic bounds”.
“Economic models are universally acknowledged to be the purest guesswork.”
Yes, but a slight edge in financial models can yield tremendous wealth if appropriately applied. So, low skill does not necessarily mean low value.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“The gap between observations and models persists. The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 °C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5; ref. 19) ensemble-mean projection1—a gap two to four times the observed trend.
The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.”
– Nature Climate Change (PEER-REVIEWED STUDY)
“This paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.
That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.”
The “pause/hiatus” in Global Warming is now nearing 20 YEARS. This despite *record* man-made CO2 emitted over the same period.
Don’t be at all surprised if – CNN, BBC, ABC, CNBC, LATimes, NYTimes, WaPo, The Age, SMH and the rest of the “climate change” obsessed sycophant media don’t report this massively inconvenient climate news. – Too many reputations, jobs, govt grants and funding are now at stake.
Climatism
That’s not what this paper is saying. It’s referring specifically to surface data between the period 1998-2012, which it defines as a ‘hiatus’ because warming observed over that period didn’t reflect that expected by the average of the CMIP5 model ensemble. There ‘was’ warming over that period according to all the surface data sets; just not statistically significant or as strong as predicted by the multi-model average.
If you take the period 1998 to the present, then the warming is statistically significant in all surface data sets, as you can verify here: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
So the hiatus, such as it was, is no longer with us; at least not according to all the surface data producers. This latest study doesn’t attempt to claim that it is.
Hiatus theory is based upon a misleading use of language under which a straight line is fit to gtobal surface temperature data and each point along this line is called “the surface temperature” (TST).though they are not surface temperatures. At a given point in time, a surface temperature has a point value but TST has many values, the value being, dependent upon the interval containing the data to which the straight line is fit. Thus, given that it is true that the slope of the line is 0 it is also true that the slope of the line is not 0. To call TST “the surface temperature” is to create the misleading impression that TST is single valued. This phenomenon is one of many examples of application by climatologists of the equivocation fallacy.. In this application of the fallacy, the term that changes meaning in the midst of the argument is “the surface temperature.”
The hiatus is in the actual surface station records.
micro6500 on April 20, 2017 at 9:45 am
The hiatus is in the actual surface station records.
Well micro6.5K, wether or not this incredibly interesting matter called ‘hiatus’ existed is not my point today evening.
I lack the time (and the interest) to go into this Gsod data.
I’m wondering about the big discrepancy between the project’s data you display above and the GHCN V3 unadjusted data I have at home.
Here is a tmin-tmax chart for the Globe, period 1940-2016 (without the diff plot):
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170420/lg4j4pw6.jpg
This confirms btw what is known: night minima increase faster than day maxima since around 2005.
It’s hard to detect in your chart because you didn’t superpose the tmin and tmax plots.
No idea where your drop-down in 1970 came from. Did you really publish Globe data?
Yep, global.
GSoD (I figured out today), is the Air Forces daily summary of about 20K stations over time. In ~2000 you can see dew points rise, min temp just follows dew point.
Rising = Max – Min, with calculated surfacing forcing from measured TSI
Max – Min
Climate researchers analyze the annual temperature anomaly data, which is transformed data and misses monthly cycles of temperature variations.
Our empirical time series modeling approach using ARIMA seasonal model for NOAA’s monthly global temperature data from 1950 to 2015 shows high R of 0.99. The prediction of monthly temperature for 2016 and its average value differs less than 2 percent from the measured value and it is highly accurate. In comparison, both the IPCC and EPA models overestimate their predictions for 2016. Our ARIMA seasonal model results until 2050 do not show any significant increase until 2050
An ARIMA model was developed for NOAA’s monthly atmospheric CO2 data with high R value of 0.98. It shows very poor crosscorrelation of 0.08 with global monthly temperature data. This clearly shows that global warming is not caused by CO2.
(This research is a part of my PhD student at the University of Mississippi who passed his defense last week.)
Waheed, I did something similar and came to the same conclusion
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/?preview=true
A week ago, Alphan wrote, “Climate models currently do not mimic Earth’s systems. Period.” which apart form the word “currently” is spot on. My point is that they never will and that’s because climate models do not attempt to model the Earth system which is a much broader entity with fluxes of energy and materials that are fed from and feed into those of its components that are conventionally grouped into climate models.
It’s that odd word “paradigm”. Climate scientists are brought up into a paradigm where the climate is a free-standing object with its own inputs, state variables and outputs such as pressure and temperature fields and have little conception (or haven’t internalised it) of large “flywheels” involving carbon, nitrogen, water pools and fluxes etc with their own time constants that have a significant impact on what happens inside the “climate box” and in turn are affected by outputs from the box.
Some of these processes are on too long a time scale to be of interest within the time horizon of climate projections but many, especially those involving the biosphere, would be highly relevant to resetting state variables controlling land atmosphere interactions and hence boundary conditions of climate models. Issues also mentioned here such as “what causes natural variation” cannot possibly be answered without considering these excluded processes so appeals to climate scientists to divert attention to natural variation are doomed to failure as they are directed to the wrong people.