Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; In climate science, when your model predictions are wrong, you wait for the world to correct itself.
New climate models predict a warming surge
By Paul VoosenApr. 16, 2019 , 3:55 PMFor nearly 40 years, the massive computer models used to simulate global climate have delivered a fairly consistent picture of how fast human carbon emissions might warm the world. But a host of global climate models developed for the United Nations’s next major assessment of global warming, due in 2021, are now showing a puzzling but undeniable trend. They are running hotter than they have in the past. Soon the world could be, too.
In earlier models, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over preindustrial levels led models to predict somewhere between 2°C and 4.5°C of warming once the planet came into balance. But in at least eight of the next-generation models, produced by leading centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” has come in at 5°C or warmer. Modelers are struggling to identify which of their refinements explain this heightened sensitivity before the next assessment from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the trend “is definitely real. There’s no question,” says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “Is that realistic or not? At this point, we don’t know.”
…
Many scientists are skeptical, pointing out that past climate changes recorded in ice cores and elsewhere don’t support the high climate sensitivity —nor does the pace of modern warming. The results so far are “not sufficient to convince me,” says Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. In the effort to account for atmospheric components that are too small to directly simulate, like clouds, the new models could easily have strayed from reality, she says. “That’s always going to be a bumpy road.”
…In assessing how fast climate may change, the next IPCC report probably won’t lean as heavily on models as past reports did, says Thorsten Mauritsen, a climate scientist at Stockholm University and an IPCC author. It will look to other evidence as well, in particular a large study in preparation that will use ancient climates and observations of recent climate change to constrain sensitivity. IPCC is also not likely to give projections from all the models equal weight, Fyfe adds, instead weighing results by each model’s credibility.
…
Read more: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge
It’s nice to learn that the IPCC is considering using observations to constrain model projections.
“Climate Modellers Waiting for Observations to Catch Up with Their Predictions”
You sure as hell could have fooled me! I can’t see where they have waited even a nanosecond to pump out the results of their models as if they are reality. Alarmists live in a computer generated climate world as far as I can see. GIGO means nothing to them.
” … instead weighing results by each model’s credibility. …”
—
If the IPCC knows which model is the mist credible, there us no need for any models. Simply use the credibility range as your forecast and throw out all the models.
My point is that by assigning credibility you have made a prediction. Which in itself establishes that there is no need for models. Simply use whatever criteria you use to establish “credible” as your forecast.
Thus, the IPCC, by using credibility as a selection criteria, are in effect saying models are not necessary. We could as well use wild added guesses and then select the most credible.
All these IPCC confidence levels should be multiplied by our confidence in the IPCC itself. 95% times zero is … ?
That pic on top is way out of date , somebody is not keeping up
You and Bob Hoye, at 8 am, should find the data and produce a new chart.
I’m busy, so it is up to you. Or someone else.
It is a fact that CAGW has been falsified by the observations.
The observations in fact do not support AGW.
Rather than solve the problems:
What caused the temperature change in the last 30 years and what caused the atmospheric CO2 change, the cult just dug in deeper, moving to fake climate models.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/
The 22 Inconvenient Truths
1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)
2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?
[Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays] (discussion: p. 7)
3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)
4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10)
6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14)
‘The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997’
Lovely. What about if you take a climatic 30 year trend? Do you see warming or not?
PS. Please don’t start telling me it’s El Nino. There’s warming which you just said doesn’t exist. How serious is 1.8 Kelvin degrees per century, that’s the question.
The observations do not support AGW. The models only make sense if the temperature rise correlates continuously to the CO2 rise. i.e. If AGW has real temperature would have increased as a wiggly line.
CAGW is dangerous, as it does not scientifically exist and the lying required to create CAGW and force us to spend money on green stuff that does not working is leading to left chaos.
CAGW is a fake problem, with a very, very expensive fake solution that does not work at a basic engineering level.
Six independent analysis results in peer reviewed papers supports the assertion that the increase in atmospheric CO2 was not cause by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
There is an allowance to variation like ENSO, so the correlation is not expected yo be yearly.
If you want to ignore El Nino then we have been cooling at a rate of 1.2 C / decade over the past 3 years. That should get us into the next glaciation period quite quickly.
I think ignoring what is clearly noise in a trend is silly.
” … instead weighing results by each model’s credibility. …”
—
This is a very big deal. This is actually the death rattle of climate models, they just haven’t realized the implications:
Consider that the IPCC for example, establishes that the model predictions of sensitivity between 2C and 4C, centered on 3C are the most credible. In that case, there is no need for any models. The IPCC by establishing a credibility criteria has made a prediction that there will be most likely 3C of warming for a doubling of CO2, with a warming between 2C and 4 possible.
As soon as you select the models for credibility, your credibility function is making a prediction about the future. And regardless of what the models say, it will be the credibility function that delivers your predicted value for future temperatures, not the models.
At the point the IPCC produces a credibility function to select the models, the models become redundant to the credibility function. You can simply replace all the models with the credibility function and the results would remain the same. Thus, the credibility function signals the death of climate models.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
Summary for Policymakers
by Vincent Gray
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/GrayCritique.pdf
When one resorts to weasel wording such as the IPCC does, this should have been a big red flag!
IPCC doesn’t make “Predictions”; they only make “Projections”
Models are not “Validated”; They are only “Evaluated”
When the usual suspects are challenged wrt lack of “Predictions”, they blame uncertainty in emissions scenarios, completely evading the crux of the matter that the core models themselves have not been shown to have skill at prediction.
Historical revisionism takes time to catch up.
NOAA analysis determined Hurricane Michael was a Category 5 hurricane at landfall last October.
https://twitter.com/NOAAComms/status/1119238984423682051
Max wind gust recorded on land was 119 mph.
Well, if Dr. Curry is correct, then the system response follows a stadium wave, which will produce periodic samples coincident with their hypotheses. Then with the leverage of the government, press, academia, and empathetic corporations, the convenient conclusion will be repeated ad infinitum until the narrative becomes obligatory as a matter of consensus.
As we humans modify our definition of disastrous fiery floods I’m sure our models will adapt, also.
History already has.
I feel a new round of temperature homogeneizations coming on. Prepare for an even colder past.
in particular a large study in preparation that will use ancient climates and observations of recent climate change to constrain sensitivity.
===============
Mathematical nonsense due to bandwidth mismatch. Ancient proxies are low frequency signals, with as much as 800 years lag between temperature and CO2. Recent climate change is high frequency signals, with human effects going back at most 75 years according to the IPCC.
The very basis of climate science, establishing climate as the average of weather over 30 years is a nonsense. Earth is mostly covered in oceans, and most of the surface energy is stored in the oceans. The deep oceans have cycles on the order of millenia.
Trying to make sense of climate in terms of 30 year averages is the story of the blind men and the elephant. Depending upon where you take your 30 year sample, you are going to get a different answer as to the nature of climate.
My model of all past climate models predicts that they will be completely wrong again.
My personal experience with climate modellers:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257
One of the things I noticed recently (thanks to a troll no less) that GCMs are not climate models. They are global weather models. The climate part comes from averaging GCM weather for many years. The old standard was that climate is weather averaged for thirty years. However, if GCMs can only track actual weather for about two weeks (typical of chaotic systems), then this averaging of future weather beyond two weeks is just nonsense.
I’d like to see an actual climate model working. I doubt that anyone knows what those climate differential equations are–they barely know what some of the weather differential equations are.
Jim
Jim Masterson
More accurately, they began as “Global Circulation Models” created to simulate local aerosols and dust particles in local regions (LA Basin for example), then they were “extrapolated from local air masses” to regional air masses to “analyze” the acid rain downwind of the the assumed smokestacks emitting sulfate particles.
When that worked to eliminate the smokestacks, the same Finite Element cubes were multiplied and extrapolated across the globe to “analyze” the “Hole” over the Antarctic to establish the theory needed to eliminate CFC’s from air conditioners and HVAC systems.
When that worked, the same Global Circulation Models were extrapolated using the same equations ( and more elaborate finite element boundary assumptions) to begin the “climate” models that are being used to destroy the economy and kill people.
The models are run for many “years” in model space to stabilize at some condition, then a single parameter is changed (usually CO2 concentration) then allowed to run again with the results printed (displayed) for each following year from the assumed start condition.
“Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.”
–sometimes attributed to Mark Twain (or Robert Heinlein or . . . .)
Jim
The irony in that would be that the climate models do a much better job extrapolated globally than they can do locally and regionally.
You need to update your graph to 2018. It was OK when it was 2 or maybe 3 years old but not now at 7 years.
You need to update your graph to 2018.
===================
that simply allows the modeller’s to change their predictions and adjustments by making use of 5 more years of data. They will immediately turn around and using these new numbers say: “See we got it right all along”.
It is really easy to get predictions right when you update them every year. It makes it look like you were doing a great job all along. We see this with solar predictions. They simply overwrite the predictions with actuals and shift the predictions to match. It makes it look like they were batting a thousand when in actual fact the only bats were in the belfry.
I meant just update the observations to 2018 and leave the models. Since this is a post about comparing model projections with reality that would be fair i.e. how are model projections made in 2005 holding up today? Not very well. And so we can’t trust model projections, even when they do update them.
But my comment also calls out the use of this graph because the observations show increased temps after this time (2011). Although those temps are overwhelmingly still below the modelled projections, the extent to which they are is less than in 2011. That means this outdated graph is misleading. If they have a case (and they do) then present it with all the up-to-date data. Just because it’s less spectacular in recent years doesn’t mean they should hide it.
As the models continue to fail completely, will the data sources continue to be “adjusted” (a.k.a. fudged) so they can all pretend the warming predicted is real? What does the graph look like if you replace the Observations line with the actual observations as opposed to the adjusted ones? About 1/2 a degree C lower?
“What does the graph look like if you replace the Observations line with the actual observations as opposed to the adjusted ones?”
Here’s a comparison:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
The actual observations is the chart on the left, the Hansen 1999 US temperature chart, and the chart on the right is a bogus, bastardized modern-era, ETCW (Early Twentieth Century Warming) Hockey Stick chart, which artificially cools the 1930’s into insignificance (and 1998, for that matter). The Climategate conspirators said they had to do somethinng about the 1940s heat “blip”, their word for warming equal to today’s warming. And they did do something about the blip, they created the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts in order to make it disappear.
Hansen 1999 is the real temperature profile of the globe, which shows the 1930’s as being as warm as today. That means there is no unprecedented warming today, which puts the lie to the CAGW speculation.
The bogus Hockey Stick charts were created out of thin air to mimic the CO2 chart. This way NASA and NOAA can scream “Hottest Year Evah!” and “Hotter and Hotter” and pretend that temperatures are rising in concert with CO2 levels. They are a bunch of liars. The only “evidence” they have for this is their bastardized temperature charts.
Note, the Hansen 1999 chart only goes to 1999, with 1998 being 0.5C cooler than 1934. Combine the Hansen 1999 chart with the UAH satellite chart and we see that 2016 was only 0.1C warmer than 1998, which makes 2016 0.4C cooler than 1934. We have been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s. Quite a different story than the one NASA and NOAA are telling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2019_v6.jpg
And it should also be noted that unmodified charts from all around the world resemble the Hansen 1999 chart profile with the 1930’s showing to be as warm as today. Again, no unprecedented warming in 2016 or today. The temperatures have actually dropped about 0.6C over the last three years, even as CO2 levels climb.
No unmodified temperature charts from around the world resemble the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart. The Hockey Stick chart is the creation of the Climategate Data Manipulators and perpetrates an expensive, criminal lie on the world.
in particular a large study in preparation that will use ancient climates and observations of recent climate change to constrain sensitivity.
===============
In the past 1 million years, every ice age ended when CO2 was low. In the past 1 million years, every ice age began when CO2 was high.
According to GHG theory this should be impossible. Especially when going back 1 million years. Ice ages should end when CO2 is high, because high CO2 causes warming according to GHG theory. Ice ages should begin when CO2 is low, because low CO2 causes cooling according to GHG theory.
Our evidence of climate change going back at least 1 million years directly contradicts the GHG theory of climate change.
We know the changes in average insolation due to orbital irregularities are too small to trigger an ice age. Especially given CO2 levels and prevailing GHG theory.
The only logical conclusion is that the GHG theory of climate change is wrong. In every other branch of climate science, this contradiction would have long ago led to a reevaluation. However, due to political pressure from the IPCC this is not possible in climate science. There are too many jobs at risk.
The mistake was likely caused by the lack of resolution in the early ice cores. Only recently, just 20 years ago, was it discovered that temperature leads CO2. Before that it was assumed that CO2 was leading temperature, because that is what GHG theory required.
And in science, 20 years is nothing. Like ulcers. 80% of all doctors still believe that stress causes ulcers, because that is what they were taught. Even though the true cause was discovered 40 years ago to be due to bacteria.
The same is true of climate science. The vast majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 causes warming, because that is what they were taught. And since everyone says it is true, it must be true. Because if it is not true, a whole lot of people stand to lose their jobs. So they have a vested interest in shouting down anyone that says otherwise.
Until the current crop of climate scientists die off, and the lag time between temperature and CO2 is widely published in textbooks, there will be little progress made in climate science, because the ice cores show that climate science has at its foundation an incorrect assumption.
Climate science believes the GHG theory is correct, and there is not any serious attempt by leading climate scientists to test this theory because of entrenched interests. The failure of climate science and the IPCC to narrow the range of climate sensitivity after spending in excess of 100 billion dollars is strong evidence that climate science is based on a wrong assumption.
“Science advances one funeral at a time.” Max Planck
Can somebody please point me to the original post where the figure by Roy Spencer/H. Hayden at the tip of this post is presented and explained?
Or better any update of it?
Thanks
“..In the effort to account for atmospheric components that are too small to directly simulate, like clouds..”
worth repeating…
“..In the effort to account for atmospheric components that are too small to directly simulate, like clouds..”
So let me get this right, by implication, they are telling us they can’t model clouds??? If so that in itself should invalidate every one of the models…
Reality is much more sinister than all of you have realized. Each generation of computer climate models has core code that translates the results of their radiative transfer equations to a warming projection. This code is highly guarded and only released to trusted modellers who agreed to use the basic code that has been produced for that generation. Climate modelling is on its 6th generation. Think of it. Why would you have to have any generation number in the 1st place? Why isnt each modeller free to run their own code without having to follow what is in each generation? Of course they get to tinker by adding in their own code but that just tinkers at the edges and doesn’t do anything to change the core code. Notice that all the modellers don”t know why the 6th generation models are running way hotter. If there wasn’t core code supplied to them with each generation then each modeller would know exactly why his code was running hotter because he is constantly testing his code after every tinkering change. So each modeller always knows why his model is doing what it is doing relative to each 2 successive changes in the code. You don’t make more than 1 change in the code without testing. Every computer programmer in the world ,(and I have been one who has owned his own software company and part owner in another company ) knows that not testing after each change is disastrous. Initially the 6th generation was supposed to have solar forcing code with cosmic rays…..etc except that when they ran the tests, the models were not showing any warming. Thus they cancelled the 1st release of the core 6th generation code and went back to the drawing board. That is why the release of the 6th generation has been delayed. It now seems that whatever changes they came up with, is making the models run even hotter, but don’t ask each individual modeller at a particular university or institution that runs these super computer GCMs because they were simply given the 6th generation of core code. This whole concept of Climate modeller generation is to make sure they speak with the same voice. The Russian model is the only rogue system and the others pay no attention to it, because the Russsian modellers have refused to adhere to this generation concept.
I think the satellite data shows about 0.7 C of warming since 1980. I don’t understand the chart. Please explain.
The chart is only for the Tropics and only the mid Troposphere. The reason this data is often examined is because this is where the tropical hot spot is supposed to appear.
Yes, and the tropical hotspot is “missing in action”. So much for the CAGW speculation. When a scientific speculation doesn’t pan out, like a prediction of a tropical hotspot that doesn’t appear, it’s time to question the speculation.
“IPCC is also not likely to give projections from all the models equal weight, Fyfe adds, instead weighing results by each model’s credibility.”
Their credibility is already zero. Why bother? Just continue to publish the continually wrong stuff and pretend it is data. Business as usual. Scary stuff. Send money.
Gee, this isn’t like ‘1984’ at all, where they constantly rewrote history to prove how accurate their predictions were. Frauds.
Maybe they should call themselves The Ministry of Truth in Climate Science.
“Maybe they should call themselves The Ministry of Truth in Climate Science.”
I think you are on to something there, Mikey! 🙂
The graph needs to be updated. 2013 was a long time ago!
I wonder how the IPCC feels equipped to assess the credibility of anything? That reads like something from The Onion.