If even one climate model was accurate we wouldn’t need another

On the Helix Facebook page yesterday, Richard Betts writes about High-End Climate Impacts and Extremes.

He claims “the chances are that global warming will exceed the 2°C “guardrail” that the EU and UN aim to stay below,” and doesn’t disagree with alarmist interpretations of the scale and effects of man-made global warming, such as the possibility of 6°C warming. But “science” says little about our future climate. Why?

Because the future climate depends, not on nature, surprisingly, but on future human emissions of CO2. The IPCC makes up “scenarios” and imagines what might occur under each of them. The imagined scenarios, called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), are ranked according to their future levels of atmospheric CO2, with the most extreme of them called RCP8.5, which stands for a global level of radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m2 by 2100.

It is highly contentious when, or even whether, we will achieve such a high level. Despite Betts’s naively confident reference to “the various computer climate model simulations of how the climate responds to these GHG changes” (as though it’s all based on known rules of physics and chemistry), the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and warming is programmed into the models. The warming is most emphatically not based entirely on known physical laws and it’s not an output from the models. If it was, we wouldn’t see such huge error margins in the graphs of future temperature, sea level, rainfall, drought, storminess, humidity and so on. If we thought the models were accurate, we’d only need one of them, don’t you think? Instead, we have between 7.5 and 9, or about 24, or 50, or 60, or over 90—depending on who’s counting.

But the most significant aspect of the scenarios is their huge range of possibilities, and nobody knows which one represents our future. RCP8.5 assumes we will make no change at all to our emissions but carry on burning hydrocarbons freely. This will mean our emissions will rise as efficient production methods powered by energy from hydrocarbons spread to developing countries and as the population increases.

You might think that dooms us to the worst possible fate and will destroy the environment, but there’s no sign of it so far. There is every reason to expect life to continue as usual. Why?

Because for the last 20 years, our emissions have gone on increasing merrily to record levels. But all that time the global average surface temperature has been so flat it’s impossible to say whether the globe has been warming or cooling. There is no cause for concern. The temperature is not rising dangerously and the world is not about to end.

In addition, there is as yet no evidence of a mechanism by which our minute contribution to the atmospheric concentration of CO2 manages BY RADIATION to warm the oceans (imagine holding a lit cigarette above the cold water in a bath; the water is unlikely to warm). This is not widely acknowledged. If there really is no such mechanism, it is axiomatic that strident demands to eliminate our emissions to stop the seas rising dangerously are unnecessary.

57 Thoughts on “If even one climate model was accurate we wouldn’t need another

  1. Actress Emma Thompson thinks Richard Betts is insane.
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/09/06/emma-thinks-richard-betts-is-insane/

    Actually, Richard Betts is fairly sane, and one of the more approachable climate scientists

  2. Richard C (NZ) on September 7, 2015 at 10:59 am said:

    >”….the most extreme of them called RCP8.5, which stands for a global level of radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m2 by 2100. It is highly contentious when, or even whether, we will achieve such a high level”

    Never mind reaching a level of 8.5 W/m2 by 2100, it’s the 1.9 W.m-2 of theoretical CO2 forcing that has already been reached at 2015 that’s the first hurdle. Problematic because the AGW hypothesis falls at the first hurdle – the theory is having no effect on reality.

    AGW is a hypothesis that can be inferred and falsified. Inferred from the IPCC the hypothesis is:

    “The theory of AGW posits that the energy balance at TOA moves synchronous with and commensurate with CO2 forcing”

    TOA energy imbalance: 0.6 W.m-2, trendless
    CO2 “forcing” to 2015: 1.9 W.m-2, increasing

    Hypothesis falsified.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on September 7, 2015 at 11:13 am said:

    >[Betts] – “the various computer climate model simulations of how the climate responds to these GHG changes” (as though it’s all based on known rules of physics and chemistry), the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and warming is programmed into the models.

    Yes, the models are hard-wired to CO2 by theoretical assumption via the RCPs and then rather than being based on known rules of physics the models are violations of two different statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Clausius and Kelvin-Planck) i.e. they are perpetuum mobile machines of the second kind (PMM2).

    Consequently, except for maybe 3, they are all wrong now of course. This is what happens when you violate the laws of physics.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on September 7, 2015 at 11:33 am said:

    >”…..for the last 20 years, our emissions have gone on increasing merrily to record levels. But all that time the global average surface temperature has been so flat it’s impossible to say whether the globe has been warming or cooling.”

    The IPCC tacitly admit their models are wrong this century in regard to the 21st century “hiatus” (see AR5 Chapter 9 Box 2). They even offer 3 reasons as to why they are wrong, first one being that the response to GHGs is too great (duh), the second being natural variability otherwise known as multidecadal variation (MDV) is neglected (duh).

    The global climate models are MDV-neutral i.e. the model mean SHOULD be a spline through MDV-neutral dates in GMST observations. And it is up to 1955 but then it all goes horribly wrong when CO2 “forcing” kicks in and instead of the model mean going through MDV-neutral 2015 GMST the model mean is WELL ABOVE i.e. wrong.

    More on this with visible graphs at Climate Etc here:

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/28/week-in-review-science-edition-19/#comment-727991

    Main points:

    The MDV-neutral spline is central to this sequence:

    1895 – neutral
    1910 – MDV maximum negative (-ve)
    1925 – neutral
    1940 – MDV maximum positive (+ve)
    1955 – neutral
    1970 – MDV maximum negative (-ve)
    1985 – neutral
    2000 – MDV maximum positive (+ve)
    2015 – neutral
    2030 – MDV maximum negative (-ve)

    This is in respect to HadCRUT4: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl

    Model mean trajectory:

    1895 – from below (Yes, valid)
    1925 – from above (Yes, valid)
    1955 – from below (Yes, valid)
    1985 – from above (No, invalid)
    2015 – from below (No, invalid)

  5. Richard Treadgold on September 7, 2015 at 11:33 am said:

    RC,

    Never mind reaching a level of 8.5 W/m2 by 2100, it’s the 1.9 W.m-2 of theoretical CO2 forcing that has already been reached at 2015 that’s the first hurdle. Problematic because the AGW hypothesis falls at the first hurdle – the theory is having no effect on reality.

    I know you’ve given explanations of it before, but thanks for this one—it’s somehow easier to understand.

  6. Is this the Loeb et al paper RC refers to?
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/abs/ngeo1375.html

    , Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.

    So the possibility the energy accumulation is close to zero cannot be discounted

  7. Richard Treadgold on September 7, 2015 at 11:43 am said:

    RC,

    they are perpetuum mobile machines

    This is strong criticism. So the theory of DAGW is wrong, then? 😉

  8. Richard C (NZ) on September 7, 2015 at 12:04 pm said:

    >”Is this the Loeb et al paper RC refers to?”

    Yes Andy, Loeb et al (2012) is the paper IPCC AR5 Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere cites in regard to the TOA energy budget.

    Stephens et al (2012) is the other:

    ‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html

    0.6 +/- 0.4 W.m-2 imbalance at TOA.

    >”So the possibility the energy accumulation is close to zero cannot be discounted” [re Loeb et al]

    Yes but remember that this is a fluctuating metric and that the annual data is heavily smoothed. Over the 2000 – 2010 decade the best available estimate does indicate an accumulation as per Stephens et al. Problem is we don’t know how much “adjustment” there is in CERES data, Bob Tisdale touched on this.

    Thing is, in respect to the models as per this post, there is no agreement as Bob Tisdale details here:

    Climate Models Fail: Global Ocean Heat Content (Based on TOA Energy Imbalance)’

    Bob Tisdale / August 26, 2015

    “Obviously [see Figure 7], based on the energy imbalances in the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report, there is no agreement on how much heat the oceans should be accumulating, or even if the oceans are accumulating heat. And the differences in the simulated ocean heat accumulation are so great that using the model mean to represent the models is very misleading, because the model mean gives the impression of a consensus when there is none.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/26/climate-models-fail-global-ocean-heat-content-based-on-toa-energy-imbalance/

    That post was referenced in page 2 of comments in the ‘Fatal deficiencies’ post here (and again further down):

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2015/08/fatal-deficiencies-destroy-scientific-case-for-climate-catastrophe/comment-page-2/#comment-1356466

    Much more on the above has already been raked over in that thread.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on September 7, 2015 at 12:24 pm said:

    >”This [climate models are PMM2 machines] is strong criticism.”

    I’m certainly not the first to zero in on this RT. I think you will find it will be a growing realization too as more and more people familiar with thermodynamics discover this. In the last post I reproduced a comment from Bishop Hill that says exactly the same:

    >”CO2-forced Global Climate Models then, are perpetual‐motion machines of the second kind (PMM2).”

    Been noted at Bishop Hill too:

    Sep 5, 2015 at 8:50 AM | Unregistered Commenter NCC 1701E

    The world is cooling as we enter the new little Ice Age, and is accelerating. It’s to do with the end of SC 24: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/re-evaluating-the-role-of-solar-variability-on-the-norhern-hemisphere-temperature-trends-since-the-19th-century/

    CO2-AGW is very near zero; you can easily show why. The problem with IPCC pseudoscience is that researchers have, apparently for over 50 years, been taught subtly incorrect physics, including claiming the S-B equation predicts a real energy flux, when it is the exitance of the emitter, potential EM energy flux in a vacuum to a radiation sink at absolute zero. In reality, the atmosphere radiates back, offsetting all self-absorbed GHG band surface IR emission.They also transpose emittance, an old term for the SI unit exitance, for emissivity. See units 19.1 and 19.2 in this MIT Thermodynamics course:

    http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/notes.html

    They cannot communicate with standard physics’-based disciplines in this key area.

    This leads to IPCC researchers being convinced they are right in creating a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd kind in the modelling, originally GISS claiming non existent ‘negative convection’ to offset 140% increase in input energy over reality, swapped apparently by the Met. Office to manipulating cloud physics and Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation to make more plausible, but still wrong physics. They then bleed off a bit of the imaginary energy as the non-existent EGHE. I don’t know when this bad science will be dumped, but dumped it must be because you cannot teach false physics.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/9/5/temperature-questions.html

    >”This leads to IPCC researchers being convinced they are right in creating a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd kind in the modelling”

    Or in other words, climate scientists are convinced they are right to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as detailed upthtread.

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2015/09/sea-level-lunacy-slammed-by-sir-tipene/comment-page-1/#comment-1358298

    If you follow that last link you can see how both the Kelvin-Planck and Clausius statements of the 2nd Law are violated.

    So the theory of DAGW is wrong, then?”

    Yes, but even the basic AGW/MMCC theory is wrong, let alone dangerous as per wild RCP scenarios.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on September 7, 2015 at 12:32 pm said:

    >”Yes Andy, Loeb et al (2012) is the paper IPCC AR5 Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere cites in regard to the TOA energy budget.” [plus Stephens et al]

    The glaring issue to my mind is that the Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution authors failed to address all this.

    The TOA energy budget is the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria but Chapter 10 did not even touch on it let alone make it front-and-centre of focus.

    I keep saying, was it because:

    a) they were sloppy and incompetent, or
    b) they willfully neglected it?

  11. Richard C (NZ) on September 7, 2015 at 12:49 pm said:

    >”The IPCC tacitly admit their models are wrong this century in regard to the 21st century “hiatus” (see AR5 Chapter 9 Box 2).”

    Tim Groser can make whatever politically preferable commitments he likes at Paris if he adds the proviso:

    “These commitments are conditional on the global climate models being reconciled with reality.”

  12. Richard C (NZ) on September 7, 2015 at 1:35 pm said:

    >”This [climate models are PMM2 machines] is strong criticism.” I’m certainly not the first to zero in on this RT.

    Case in point:

    The following is a summary of the conclusions of Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner – “Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics” (2007):

    7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind [perpetual motion machine].

    http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/3888651/Summary_of_Gerhard_Gerlich_Criticism_Greenhouse_Effect/

    # # #

    I think this was the first instance that I saw once I’d got into some of the science of AGW.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on September 7, 2015 at 2:34 pm said:

    [G&T] – “7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind”

    What G&T are referring to is the rise that shoots off to 2100 and beyond once the model training period ends around the turn of the century i.e. heat is accumulating in the atmosphere instead of being rejected to space in accordance with the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law.

    In other words, the system efficiency of energy in => process => energy out is far greater in the models than what it actually is in the atmosphere because the models retain energy that the atmosphere rejects to space (the zero temperature sink at the end of the surface – TOA energy gradient).

    Then the next phase of Second Law violation is implemented. The direction of heat flow of the retained energy is reversed i.e. heat does not just accumulate in the model atmosphere (actually the troposphere), it is directed back down to the surface in violation of the Clausius statement of the Second Law:

    “Heat does not of itself move from a cold object [atm] to a hot object [sfc].”

    Yes a flux of radiative energy can be measured moving from cold to hot (DLR) but the net HEAT flux is from surface to space (OLR).

    Finally, the fictitious radiative energy erroneously retained and reversed, is erroneously assumed to be a heating agent at the surface, the ocean in particular (as per original post above). So the Second Law violations then become a miss-attribution.

    This is where the Surface energy imbalance comes in (0.6 W.m-2, Loeb et al, Stephens et al, same as TOA). This is the global average but in the tropics the imbalance is around 24 W.m-2 and in the Southern Ocean around -11 W.m-2. In other words the sun heats the ocean in the tropics and the excess is dissipated towards the poles.

    Thus the TOA energy balance forcing has already occurred in the lagged sun-ocean segment at the surface midway through the process. It is impossible for the theoretical, and erroneous, GHG forcing to play any further part between surface and TOA and it doesn’t – Sfc imbalance (0.6) = TOA imbalance (0.6).

  14. Richard C (NZ) on September 7, 2015 at 7:20 pm said:

    >”The MDV-neutral spline is central to this sequence:” [in respect to HadCRUT4 GMST]

    This is the MDV-neutral spline:

    1895 – from below
    1925 – from above
    1955 – from below
    1985 – from above
    2015 – from below

    This spline is what the MDV-neutral model mean SHOULD mimic.

    OK now look at how Skeptical Science dot com distorts the picture in this post:

    ‘Tracking the 2C Limit – July 2015’
    Posted on 26 August 2015 by Rob Honeycutt
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2015-07.html

    The diagram in question is this (note Honeycutt is using GISTemp):

    Tracking the 2C Limit
    http://skepticalscience.com//pics/2c-2015-07.png

    Sure, Honeycutt has CO2 (green line) crossing MDV-neutral 2015 from below as the model mean SHOULD if it was valid but the green CO2 line is NOT the model mean. The green CO2 line does not cross any of the other dates of the spline other than 2015. And the model mean does NOT cross 2015 from below, it is WELL ABOVE.

    But the model mean DOES cross the first 3 MDV-neutral dates as it SHOULD i.e. the model mean is valid up until 1955 (this is probably counter-intuitive – see below):

    1895 – from below (yes, valid)
    1925 – from above (yes, valid)
    1955 – from below (yes, valid)

    Honeycutt’s green CO2 line does NOT track this valid model mean on the MDV-neutral GMST spline i.e. the green CO2 line is NOT a valid comparison with GMST.

    Then when Honeycutt’s green CO2 line converges with observed GMST and passes through 2015 from below, the CO2-forced MDV-neutral model mean has been shooting off on a much steeper trajectory from about 1998 and WELL ABOVE 2015 GMST because CO2 is not the driver of the MDV-neutral GMST spline.

    Honeycutt is tracking the wrong metric. And if he was on the right track he would still be tracking a loser.

    The relevant model mean vs observations comparisons:

    IPCC AR5 WGI Figure 10.1 (a)
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig10-1.jpg

    Model mean vs GMST (HadCRUT4)
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.png

    The model validity before 1955 and invalidity after 1955 is probably counter-intuitive. Sceptics complain that the models do not mimic the 1940s. I did too before applying signal analysis to GMST and following the literature on this. Having done that the realization set in that sceptics, including myself, were getting it all wrong – the model mean SHOULD NOT mimic 1940.

    It actually goes like this:

    The model mean should NOT mimic 1940 GMST – it doesn’t
    The model mean should NOT mimic 1970 GMST – it does
    The model mean should NOT mimic 2000 GMST – it does

    This is because those dates are MDV maxima and minima:

    1940 – MDV maximum positive (+ve)
    1970 – MDV maximum negative (-ve) [model cross but the model mean is MDV-neutral]
    2000 – MDV maximum positive (+ve) [model cross but the model mean is MDV-neutral]

    I think the counter-intuitive nature of this explains why sceptics have not attacked IPCC climate modeling from the correct basis (GCMs are MDV-neutral).

  15. Richard C (NZ) on September 7, 2015 at 8:46 pm said:

    Emma Thompson global temperature trend:

    http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/temp/global/alarmist/bbc-global-temperatures.gif

    From ‘The new Emma Thompson (BBC approved) apocalyptic global temperature trend’
    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/the-new-emma-thompson-bbc-approved-apocalyptic-global-temperature-trend/

    “Obviously, we’ve reached a tipping point — in journalistic standards. If a Nobel Prize winning physicist said that “warming may be natural”, BBC journalists are trained to point out he is not a climate scientist. But if an actress predicts Armageddon, the nation needs to know.”

  16. If I may refer to the Emma Thompson Conjecture, of 4 degrees by 2030 , in respectable terms as the ETC, one wonders what physical and economic conditions would have to be enacted for the ETC to happen.

    How many coal fired power stations per day, how much TOA imbalance, what value for climate sensitivity, etc.

    Maybe we could fund PhD programmes to research the ETC? At least some of us might live long enough to see it proven or falsified.

    Assuming, that is, that society hasn’t completely collapsed into a black hole of stupidity by 2030, a conjecture that seems more plausible to me than the ETC.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on September 8, 2015 at 8:03 am said:

    >”the Emma Thompson Conjecture, of 4 degrees by 2030″

    Will probably turn up as the basis for council sea level regulations any day now somewhere around the world. RPC8.5 being too conservative.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on September 8, 2015 at 8:26 am said:

    >”Honeycutt is tracking the wrong metric”

    The model mean is the right metric to track GMST. Even the IPCC does this in Figure 10.1 (a) above.

    If Honeycutt wants to show CO2 is driving GMST then he needs to track CO2 with the secular (underlying) trend in GMST. Except that becomes problematic. I did this a few years ago using Scafetta’s quadratic which at that time represented GMST reasonably well:

    CO2 vs GAT (normalised)
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/CO2%20vs%20GAT%20R2.xls

    Clear even then that CO2 does not drive the secular trend in GMST. If anything the reverse is true.

    That GMST quadratic is no longer valid because new data has produced a negative inflexion in the underlying trend recently i.e. the GMST secular trend is diverging down and away from CO2. The GMST data could still be represented by a quadratic but not by Scafetta’s quadratic, a new quadratic would be flatter and even less like the CO2 curve than Scafetta’s.

  19. From IPCC Ar5 Chapter 10 (Detection and Attribution)

    More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface
    temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is very likely1 due to the
    observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

    (Executive Summary)

    The “more than half” is a bit of a weaker statement than “most” we see earlier in the report.

    I think the warming post 1950 was around 0.6 degrees, and a similar amount pre-1950s interspersed with a cooling period, giving a net warming of 0.8 degrees or so.

    So “more than half” of 0.6 is 0.3+ degrees C.

    So we can say that at least 0.3 out of 0.8 degrees is “very likely” due to anthropogenic forcing, according to Chapter 10.

    So we could invert that and say that at most 0.5 out of 0.8 degrees is possibly due to natural warming.
    i.e 62% of the 20th C warming is possibly due to natural warming, according to my interpretation of Chapter 10 of AR5.

    Maybe someone can check those numbers for me.

  20. The 0.3 degrees defines the “anthropocene”, by the way

  21. Richard C (NZ) on September 8, 2015 at 9:22 am said:

    >”I think the warming post 1950 was around 0.6 degrees, and a similar amount pre-1950s interspersed with a cooling period, giving a net warming of 0.8 degrees or so………..Maybe someone can check those numbers for me.”

    About right Andy. Easiest to go to AR5 SPM Figure 1:

    http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/AR5_temp_obs.png

    In Chapter 10 somewhere I think they attribute pre 1951 to solar change so that’s your 0.6 degrees already.

    Thing is, unless you use the new and improved GISTemp or NCDC, only 2 of the post 1950 decades actually exhibited “the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010” (see Fig 1).

  22. Alexander K on September 8, 2015 at 9:30 am said:

    Anyone who regards Emma Thomson as their go-to authority on the mechanisms controlling the Earth’s climate is not rowing with both oars in the water.
    I have been following this affair on various blogs, notably ‘Bishop Hill’, and the general impression that I have gained from various sources is that the Luvvies take her seriously while sensible people think that that she is a bit simple. Richard Betts, a well-known scientist with the Brit Met Office, attempted to take issue with her but her response was to ask
    ‘Is he mad?’

  23. Richard C – thanks, thought I might have done a “schoolboy howler”

    The question is, if one can do these back of envelope calculations that shows the “settled science” is so suspect, why has no one noticed?

    Or are we all too busy listening to luvvies from the BBC?

  24. Richard C (NZ) on September 8, 2015 at 9:36 am said:

    >”The 0.3 degrees defines the “anthropocene”, by the way”

    Except the models tell a different story up to 2010 i.e. you have to add another 0.2:

    Model mean vs GMST (HadCRUT4)
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.png

    This is what is conveniently overlooked by the anthropocene crowd.

  25. I’m just wondering if there is any other geological epoch defined by a 0.3 temperature shift.

    I’m not wondering very hard by the way. The BS meter is redlined.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on September 8, 2015 at 10:04 am said:

    Given the IPCC only discovered natural variability in their 2013 AR5 report after 25 years and 4 previous reports, I don’t know how anyone can attach any credibility to their attribution statement.

    And the IPCC still haven’t discovered the actual nature of natural variability i.e. that it is cyclical multidecadal variability (MDV).

    Perhaps next report their discovery awaits us.

  27. This graph shows the temperature anomalies as we left the last ice age (during the Holocene Transgression) and entered the relatively stable Holocene
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

    The Holocene contains all the written history of mankind.

    During the Holocene Transgression, sea level rise rates were 10mm per year. This is the rate the government advise us to plan for post 2100

  28. Richard C (NZ) on September 8, 2015 at 10:43 am said:

    >”During the Holocene Transgression, sea level rise rates were 10mm per year. This is the rate the government advise us to plan for post 2100″

    It’s all that ice melting, somewhere, now Andy. Easy see where the water came from back then (among other things):

    Laurentide ice sheet

    “The ultimate collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet is also suspected to have influenced European agriculture indirectly through the rise of global sea levels.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet

    3.2 km thick in Nunavik, Quebec, apparently. Great Lakes are puddles left behind.

    There must be a comparable ice sheet that is melting, rapidly, somewhere, now. I don’t know where it is though.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on September 8, 2015 at 1:07 pm said:

    >”The ultimate collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet is also suspected to have influenced European agriculture indirectly through the rise of global sea levels.”

    ‘Noah’s Flood’ Kick-started European Farming?

    Date: November 19, 2007
    Source: University of Exeter
    Summary: The flood believed to be behind the Noah’s Ark myth kick-started European agriculture. This research paper assesses the impact of the collapse of the North American (Laurentide) Ice Sheet, 8,000 years ago. The results indicate a catastrophic rise in global sea level led to the flooding of the Black Sea and drove dramatic social change across Europe. The research team argues that, in the face of rising sea levels driven by contemporary climate change, we can learn important lessons from the past.

    FULL STORY
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071118213213.htm

    Professor Chris Turney of the University of Exeter, lead author of the paper, said: “People living in what is now southeast Europe must have felt as though the whole world had flooded. This could well have been the origin of the Noah’s Ark story. Entire coastal communities must have been displaced, forcing people to migrate in their thousands. As these agricultural communities moved west, they would have taken farming with them across Europe. It was a revolutionary time.”

    The rise in global sea levels 8000 years ago is in-line with current estimates for the end of the 21st century. Professor Chris Turney continued: “This research shows how rising sea levels can cause massive social change. 8,000 years on, are we any better placed to deal with rising sea levels? The latest estimates suggest that by AD 2050, millions of people will be displaced each year by rising sea levels. For those people living in coastal communities, the omen isn’t good.”

    # # #

    Professor Chris Turney of ‘Ship of Fools’ infamy. Forgive me if I don’t hang on his every word.

  30. ” For those people living in coastal communities, the omen isn’t good.”

    tell me about it

  31. Richard C (NZ) on September 8, 2015 at 1:47 pm said:

    Too funny.

    andyS September 5, 2015 at 11:34 am
    http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-age-of-resilience-starts-tonight/#comment-46737

    Thomas might like to elucidate as to why a linear trend of 1.7mm per year at Lyttelton for the entire 20th C has anything to do with CO2 emissions.

    Thomas September 5, 2015 at 6:56 pm

    I don’t need to Andy, the literature on SLR is speaking for itself.
    For a comprehensive analysis of SLR data for NZ, as posted before, this is a good link:
    Linz SLR review..

    andyS September 5, 2015 at 6:58 pm

    Your link merely supports what I said.

    Not very helpful really

    # # #

    Page 2 of the “Linz SLR review”:

    •Globally distributed tide gauge data
    •Average since 1880 : +1.7 ± 0.3mm/yr

    Although on page 7

    Relative Sea Level trends – New Zealand
    Average: +1.7 mm/yr
    Lyttelton Vel: +1.9 +-0.1mm/yr

  32. Richard C (NZ) on September 8, 2015 at 3:37 pm said:

    Willie Soon has not been required to change employer-employee name and status for this latest paper despite all the recent hoo ha:

    ‘Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century’

    Willie Soona, ,
    Ronan Connollyb,
    Michael Connollyb

    a Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
    b Independent research scientists, Dublin, Ireland

    Received 23 June 2015, Revised 12 August 2015, Accepted 22 August 2015, Available online 1 September 2015

    Abstract

    Debate over what influence (if any) solar variability has had on surface air temperature trends since the 19th century has been controversial. In this paper, we consider two factors which may have contributed to this controversy:

    1. Several different solar variability datasets exist. While each of these datasets is constructed on plausible grounds, they often imply contradictory estimates for the trends in solar activity since the 19th century.

    2. Although attempts have been made to account for non-climatic biases in previous estimates of surface air temperature trends, recent research by two of the authors has shown that current estimates are likely still affected by non-climatic biases, particularly urbanization bias.

    With these points in mind, we first review the debate over solar variability. We summarize the points of general agreement between most groups and the aspects which still remain controversial. We discuss possible future research which may help resolve the controversy of these aspects. Then, in order to account for the problem of urbanization bias, we compile a new estimate of Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends since 1881, using records from predominantly rural stations in the monthly Global Historical Climatology Network dataset. Like previous weather station-based estimates, our new estimate suggests that surface air temperatures warmed during the 1880s-1940s and 1980s-2000s. However, this new estimate suggests these two warming periods were separated by a pronounced cooling period during the 1950s-1970s and that the relative warmth of the mid-20th century warm period was comparable to the recent warm period.

    We then compare our weather station-based temperature trend estimate to several other independent estimates. This new record is found to be consistent with estimates of Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature (SST) trends, as well as temperature proxy-based estimates derived from glacier length records and from tree ring widths. However, the multi-model means of the recent Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) climate model hindcasts were unable to adequately reproduce the new estimate – although the modelling of certain volcanic eruptions did seem to be reasonably well reproduced.

    Finally, we compare our new composite to one of the solar variability datasets not considered by the CMIP5 climate models, i.e., Scafetta and Willson, 2014’s update to the Hoyt and Schatten, 1993 dataset. A strong correlation is found between these two datasets, implying that solar variability has been the dominant influence on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since at least 1881. We discuss the significance of this apparent correlation, and its implications for previous studies which have instead suggested that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has been the dominant influence.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825215300349

    Here’s the kicker:

    Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) vs. N. Hemisphere composite
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COUfFyiWEAAfhCy.png

    # # #

    More land in the NH so the atmospheric response is fast. I don’t think they would get that in the SH.

  33. Interesting correlations there.

    In a real science, this would be news

  34. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2015 at 12:14 pm said:

    ‘Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century’

    Soon, Connolly, and Connolly (2015)

    http://globalwarmingsolved.com/data_files/SCC2015_preprint.pdf

    A 49 page tour de force

    5.1. Fitting of Northern Hemisphere temperatures to changes in solar activity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) [page 40/41]

    It follows that it is important to establish which of our fitted models is the most reliable. In Figure 31, we compare our Northern Hemisphere composite to our four different models, i.e.,

    1. Fitting our Northern Hemisphere temperature composite only using atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations

    2. First fitting our Northern Hemisphere temperature composite using atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, and then fitting the residuals to changes in Total Solar Irradiance

    3. Fitting our Northern Hemisphere temperature composite only using changes in Total Solar Irradiance

    4. First fitting our Northern Hemisphere temperature composite using changes in Total Solar Irradiance, and then fitting the residuals to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations

    Figure 31. Comparison of the four different models to our Northern Hemisphere composite (land & ocean rescaled version).

    The first two models describe our Northern Hemisphere composite rather poorly, while the latter two models describe the composite surprisingly well. The better fits of the latter models can be confirmed by comparing the R2 correlation coefficients for the fits which are shown for each of the models in Figure 31, where R2 is a statistic which varies from 0 (no correlation) to 1 (perfect correlation).

    This suggests that, since at least 1881, Northern Hemisphere temperature trends have been primarily influenced by changes in Total Solar Irradiance, as opposed to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Note, however, that this result does not rule out a secondary contribution from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indeed, the correlation coefficient for Model 4 is slightly better than Model 3 (i.e., ~0.50 vs. ~0.48). However, as we discussed above, this model (Model 4) suggests that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for a warming of at most ~0.12°C over the 1881-2014 period, i.e., it has so far only had at most a modest influence on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends.

    From the above discussion, it appears that there is a quite strong correlation between the Hoyt & Schatten Total Solar Irradiance reconstruction and Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends once urbanization bias has been accounted for. However, as we discussed in Section 1.1, correlation does not imply causation. Therefore, it is important to consider which of our four types of correlations apply.

    As we discussed in Section 1.1, if the correlation is either causal or commensal, then it should not make too much difference to our conclusions which of the two types it is. That is, if the changes in Total Solar Irradiance are caused by some other aspect of solar variability which commensally also has a strong influence on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends, then we can still conclude that Northern Hemisphere temperature trends are strongly influenced by “solar variability”, even if we do not know the exact form of solar variability that is involved.

    They draw together all the solar material with all the temperature data material. There is a lot going on in this paper (CMIP5 model simulations are compared too), it is a MUST READ.

    This is a seminal work – the warmies will hate it (and its authors) with a vengeance.

  35. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2015 at 12:23 pm said:

    >”A 49 page tour de force” “This is a seminal work”

    There’s four and a half pages of double column references!

  36. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2015 at 12:32 pm said:

    Page 44 Soon et al (2015):

    “All of the research in this collaborative paper was carried out during the authors’ free time and at their own expense, and none of the authors received any funding for this research.”

  37. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm said:

    Note that Soon et al’s CO2-only Model 1 in respect to the NH is similar to Honeycutt’s CO2-only ‘Tracking the 2C Limit’ model in respect to GMST upthread.

    Of Model 1 Soon et al say in respect to NH:

    “The first two models describe our Northern Hemisphere composite rather poorly, while the latter two models describe the composite surprisingly well. The better fits of the latter models can be confirmed by comparing the R2 correlation coefficients for the fits which are shown for each of the models in Figure 31, where R2 is a statistic which varies from 0 (no correlation) to 1 (perfect correlation).

    Model 4 [TSI then CO2] is slightly better than Model 3 [TSI-only] (i.e., ~0.50 vs. ~0.48)”

    Model 1 (CO2-only) is ~0.31. Model 2 (CO2 then TSI) is ~0.44 (from Fig 31).

    I don’t think we will be seeing many updates, if any, to Honeycutt’s ‘Tracking the 2C Limit’ model.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on September 9, 2015 at 3:01 pm said:

    ‘Week in review – science edition’

    Posted on September 4, 2015 | by Judith Curry

    A few things that caught my eye this past week.

    New papers: New article by Willie Soon: Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century [link]

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/04/week-in-review-science-edition-20/

    Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on the Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century

    Posted: September 4, 2015 by Andrew in climate, Tallblokes Talkshop

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/re-evaluating-the-role-of-solar-variability-on-the-norhern-hemisphere-temperature-trends-since-the-19th-century/

    Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #195

    Anthony Watts / 1 day ago September 7, 2015

    THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

    The Sun: Willie Soon, a target of those in Congress who organized a witch hunt, was a co-author of another article evaluating the role of solar variability on temperature trends in the Northern Hemisphere.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/07/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-195/

  39. Greeting Evil Deniers,

    The University of Queensland is offering a self-paced course in Making sense of Climate Science Denial.
    https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-0

    There are some familiar faces there too.

    You can even get a certificate for $100 on course completion

    So we can make sense of our mental affliction and convert others to The Cause

  40. Richard C (NZ) on September 10, 2015 at 1:52 pm said:

    >”Making sense of Climate Science Denial.” 101x

    Tom Nelson found a candidate in desperate need of an intro:

    https://twitter.com/navin_ryan/status/641680850518700032/photo/1

    But I don’t think he’s ready for 101 yet.

  41. Gareth Morgan’s Facebook page is good for a laugh too

    I posted a link to Hannah and Bell (2012) on NZ SLR and was hit with a barrage of abuse from the activists that seem to gate-keep GM’s page.

    Not sure how this is effective science communication

  42. Richard C (NZ) on September 11, 2015 at 9:39 am said:

    A warmy vision of grandeur:

    “….let’s begin by acknowledging a single fact that’s rarely discussed in the media: Climate science is a triumph of human civilization.”

    ‘The Climate Story Nobody Talks About’ – Adam Frank, September 10, 2015

    http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/09/10/438913284/the-climate-story-nobody-talks-about

    Apparently Hansen et al (1981) nailed it:

    More than anything, however, the real triumph of climate science comes in its ability to understand what’s happening to the Earth now. Del Genio describes it in the simplest of scientific terms:

    “The major achievement of terrestrial climate science is that 34 years ago, Jim Hansen and colleagues published a paper in Science [hotlink] making the first prediction of the rate of climate change over the next few decades as a result of CO2 increases [see Figure]. Looking at how much the Earth’s surface temperature has actually changed in that time, they came remarkably close. That was a true prediction of the future, and sufficiently long ago that we have the chance to see how good it was.”

    Climate Theory Ca. 1981 Vs. Climate Reality Now
    http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2015/09/gr-climate-report-137-300.png

    # # #

    Climate science appears to set themselves very low standards of achievement if that prediction is a “real triumph” and “remarkably close”.

    Looks to me more like falsification.

  43. Richard C (NZ) on September 11, 2015 at 6:38 pm said:

    Ralph Kramden September 10, 2015 at 11:40 am

    “Climate science is a triumph of human civilization”

    I think this statement pushes the limits of stupidity to heights never before achieved in human civilization.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/10/quote-of-the-week-22/#comment-2024821

  44. You can see why James Hansen is so concerned. The rate of warming has actually been faster than what he predicted. Welcome to the Eemian.

  45. Richard C (NZ) on September 12, 2015 at 9:32 pm said:

    >”The rate of warming has actually been faster than what he [Hansen et al 1981] predicted.”

    Except MDV was unknown at the time (only “discovered” in AR5 2013) so they didn’t know about a looming positive MDV maximum that produced the uptick i.e. their prognosis was blindsided and premature.

    And now the trajectory of warming is flat as opposed to Hansen et al’s exponential curves i.e. their prognosis is inapplicable to GMST and obviously the drivers of GMST components, ST + MDV, are nothing like Hansen et al’s theoretical signals.

    Welcome to global cooling by 2030 when both ST and MDV are in negative phase (ST yet to peak according to signal analysis).

  46. Richard C (NZ) on September 13, 2015 at 6:51 am said:

    Cloud cover correlates with solar radiation in NH and SH:

    “Looking at 1000hPa level (near surface), the average temperature of the southern hemisphere 14.4C and for the northern hemisphere 16.5C. After millions of years of energy storage in the oceans of the southern hemisphere, then the temperature is still much lower. One can not interpret it otherwise than that the oceans hold temperature. A major reason for this must be that the clouds in the southern hemisphere allows the sun’s rays do not reach the earth’s surface.”

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/strong-evidence-that-svensmarks-solar.html

    Which also eliminates CO2 as the temperature driver at the surface. As Soon et al (2915) show, temperature just tracks solar change in the NH:

    Soon, Connolly, and Connolly (2015)
    http://globalwarmingsolved.com/data_files/SCC2015_preprint.pdf

    But in the SH the ocean is a solar integrator i.e. sun-ocean-atmosphere lag and again, CO2 has no effect (Sfc energy imbalance Southern Oceans -11 W.m-2).

  47. GIven that GMST is tracking below most of the models, I’m interested to know how the warming is worse than Hansen predicted.

    We are referring to the post-1950s warming of which the IPCC attribute “at least 50%” to anthropogenic forcing, I presume? i.e 0.2 – 0.3 degrees C

  48. Richard C (NZ) on September 15, 2015 at 7:11 am said:

    >”Except MDV was unknown at the time (only “discovered” in AR5 2013) so they [Hansen et al] didn’t know about a looming positive MDV maximum that produced the uptick”

    Well, AR5 “discovered” natural variation, but not the cyclic nature. Now the Met Office has “discovered” that too:

    Met Office Discover Natural Climate Cycles!!

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/met-office-discover-natural-climate-cycles/

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/14/2015-and-2016-set-to-break-global-heat-records-says-met-office

    Still got a lot to learn apparently.

  49. I still don’t understand Simon’s comment, or what context it was made in.

    Oh well…

  50. Andy,
    My comment was on this chart which Richard C referenced:
    http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2015/09/gr-climate-report-137-300.png

    If the Met Office is right and the positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) outweighs a negative Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), the next few years will break a few more records.

  51. Oh I see, thanks Simon

  52. Richard C (NZ) on September 15, 2015 at 6:34 pm said:

    >”If the Met Office is right and the positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) outweighs a negative Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), the next few years will break a few more records.”

    Big IF in regard to the PDO index spike staying positive (yes its just an index):

    Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo/

    Plenty of other positive spikes have gone straight back negative when the predominance is negative. Wishful thinking at the Met Office more than anything.

    But what all the “experts” like UK Met Office don’t seem to realize is that the combined effect of PDO+AMO is the 60 year climate cycle (green line):

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/jrc-graph-global-temperature-anomalies-640.jpg

    Glaring problem of course is that the temperature “records” are not CO2-forced i.e. the red secular trend line does not conform to the model mean or CO2 (it’s now diverging down and away from CO2). In other words, the CO2 conjecture is busted – it’s not the driver of the “underlying” trend.

    And PDO+AMO+sunspot integral models temperature far better than CO2:

    Climate Modeling: Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html

  53. Richard C (NZ) on September 15, 2015 at 6:52 pm said:

    >”But what all the “experts” like UK Met Office don’t seem to realize is that the combined effect of PDO+AMO is the 60 year climate cycle”

    This is the “natural variation” (MDV) that is conspicuous by its absence from the GCMs. AGW sceptics have been onto this since just after the turn of the century but the IPCC climate scientists have only just conceded and even offer it as one of 3 excuses for why the GCMs are wrong in AR5 2013 (Chapter 9 Box 2).

    Climate science thought they’d got it right by 2000 TAR i.e. Hansen et al (1981) was way wrong, but they were just fooled by MDV. Now it’s fooling them again.

    Some people never learn.

  54. Richard C (NZ) on September 15, 2015 at 7:22 pm said:

    60-year climate cycle recorded in many ancient calendars (i.e. it’s not as if this is just a recent phenomenon once investigated):

    Scafetta, Nicola (May 15, 2010). “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

    1. Introduction, page 952 pdf.

    The IPCC (2007) claims that the climate oscillations are
    induced by some still poorly understood and modeled internal
    dynamics of the climate system, such as the ocean dynamics.
    However, the oscillations of the atmosphere and of the ocean,
    such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic
    Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), may be induced by complex
    extra terrestrial periodic forcings that are acting on the climate
    system in multiple ways. Indeed, the climate system is character-
    ized by interesting cyclical patterns that remind astronomical
    cycles.

    OK, so why did AR5 still refuse to factor this cycle in to climate “modeling” even if the driver(s) are not all that clear?

    They CANNOT be modeling climate if they don’t. And as it turns out, they’re not.

  55. Richard C (NZ) on September 15, 2015 at 8:00 pm said:

    >”Climate science thought they’d got it right by 2000″

    They had their simulations tracking GMST around 2000 (still have in AR5 2013). Only problem was, 2000 was maximum positive MDV (green line)::

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/jrc-graph-global-temperature-anomalies-640.jpg

    MDV will be maximum negative in 2030 (near enough). So the climate modelers haven’t a hope in the wide world of modeling climate to 2030 if they continue to neglect this cycle.

    And they’ve got the underlying driver wrong too which is just another combination of cycles.

  56. Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2015 at 6:14 pm said:

    ‘VANISHED GLOBAL WARMING may NOT RETURN – UK Met Office’
    But it might. Hey, we don’t know, we’re the Met Office

    14 Sep 2015, Lewis Page

    There hasn’t actually been any global warming for the last fifteen years or so – this much is well known. But is this just a temporary hiccup set to end soon? A new report from the UK’s weather bureau says it just might not be.

    The Met Office boffins believe that, yes, a long-expected El Nino is at last starting up in the Pacific. This will probably mean warming. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), another hefty Pacific mechanism, also looks set to bring some heat.

    But, no doubt upsettingly for some, there’s a third and very powerful factor to consider: the mighty Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

    The AMO has actually been heating the world up since the mid-1990s – though not strongly enough to raise temperatures – but now it looks set to swing into a negative phase and cool the planet off, probably for a long time, as AMO phases typically last several decades. The Met Office’s new report (pdf), just out today, has this to say about the AMO:

    The current warm phase is now 20 years long and historical precedent suggests a return to relatively cool conditions could occur within a few years … Observational and model estimates further suggest AMO shifts have an effect on global mean near-surface temperatures of about 0.1°C. A rapid AMO decline could therefore maintain the current slowdown in global warming …

    Continues>>>>>>
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/14/absence_of_global_warming_may_be_set_to_continue_uk_met_office/

  57. Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2015 at 6:41 pm said:

    MODEL-DATA COMPARISON & DIFFERENCE

    August 2015 Update by Bob Tisdale

    Note: The HADCRUT4 reconstruction is now used in this section. [End note.]

    Considering the uptick in surface temperatures in 2014 (see the posts here and here), government agencies that supply global surface temperature products have been touting record high combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. Alarmists happily ignore the fact that it is easy to have record high global temperatures in the midst of a hiatus or slowdown in global warming, and they have been using the recent record highs to draw attention away from the growing difference between observed global surface temperatures and the IPCC climate model-based projections of them.

    There are a number of ways to present how poorly climate models simulate global surface temperatures. Normally they are compared in a time-series graph. See the example in Figure 10. In that example, the UKMO HadCRUT4 land+ocean surface temperature reconstruction is compared to the multi-model mean of the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive, which was used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. The reconstruction and model outputs have been smoothed with 61-month filters to reduce the monthly variations. Also, the anomalies for the reconstruction and model outputs have been referenced to the period of 1880 to 2013 so not to bias the results.

    10 – Model-HADCRUT4 Comparison Figure 10
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/10-model-hadcrut4-comparison.png

    It’s very hard to overlook the fact that, over the past decade, climate models are simulating way too much warming and are diverging rapidly from reality.

    Another way to show how poorly climate models perform is to subtract the observations-based reconstruction from the average of the model outputs (model mean). We first presented and discussed this method using global surface temperatures in absolute form. (See the post On the Elusive Absolute Global Mean Surface Temperature – A Model-Data Comparison.) The graph below shows a model-data difference using anomalies, where the data are represented by the UKMO HadCRUT4 land+ocean surface temperature product and the model simulations of global surface temperature are represented by the multi-model mean of the models stored in the CMIP5 archive. Like Figure 10, to assure that the base years used for anomalies did not bias the graph, the full term of the graph (1880 to 2013) was used as the reference period.

    In this example, we’re illustrating the model-data differences in the monthly surface temperature anomalies. Also included in red is the difference smoothed with a 61-month running mean filter.

    11 – Model-HADCRUT4 Difference Figure 11
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/11-model-hadcrut4-difference.png

    Based on the red curve of the smoothed difference, the greatest difference between models and reconstruction occurs now.

    There was also a major difference, but of the opposite sign, in the late 1880s. That difference decreases drastically from the 1880s and switches signs by the 1910s. The reason: the models do not properly simulate the observed cooling that takes place at that time. Because the models failed to properly simulate the cooling from the 1880s to the 1910s, they also failed to properly simulate the warming that took place from the 1910s until 1940. That explains the long-term decrease in the difference during that period and the switching of signs in the difference once again. The difference cycles back and forth, nearing a zero difference in the 1980s and 90s, indicating the models are tracking observations better (relatively) during that period. And from the 1990s to present, because of the slowdown in warming, the difference has increased to greatest value ever…where the difference indicates the models are showing too much warming.

    It’s very easy to see the recent record-high global surface temperatures have had a tiny impact on the difference between models and observations.

    See the post On the Use of the Multi-Model Mean for a discussion of its use in model-data comparisons.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/14/august-2015-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-model-data-difference-update/

    # # #

    Re 11, Bob Tisdale obviously doesn’t realize that the model mean is MDV-neutral.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation