I want to discuss the recent Kaufman study which purports to reconcile flat temperatures over the last 10-12 years with high-sensitivity warming forecasts. First, let me set the table for this post, and to save time (things are really busy this week in my real job) I will quote from a previous post on this topic
Nearly a decade ago, when I first started looking into climate science, I began to suspect the modelers were using what I call a “plug” variable. I have decades of experience in market and economic modeling, and so I am all too familiar with the temptation to use one variable to “tune” a model, to make it match history more precisely by plugging in whatever number is necessary to make the model arrive at the expected answer.
When I looked at historic temperature and CO2 levels, it was impossible for me to see how they could be in any way consistent with the high climate sensitivities that were coming out of the IPCC models. Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10 (I show this analysis in more depth in this video).
My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).
The answer to this paradox came in a 2007 study by climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl. To understand his findings, we need to understand a bit of background on aerosols. Aerosols are man-made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth’s climate.
What Kiehl demonstrated was that these aerosols are likely the answer to my old question about how models with high sensitivities are able to accurately model historic temperatures. When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.
Specifically, when he looked at the climate models used by the IPCC, Kiehl found they all used very different assumptions for aerosol cooling and, most significantly, he found that each of these varying assumptions were exactly what was required to combine with that model’s unique sensitivity assumptions to reproduce historical temperatures. In my terminology, aerosol cooling was the plug variable.
So now we can turn to Kaufman, summarized in this article and with full text here. In the context of the Kiehl study discussed above, Kaufman is absolutely nothing new.
Kaufmann et al declare that aerosol cooling is “consistent with” warming from manmade greenhouse gases.
In other words, there is some value that can be assigned to aerosol cooling that offsets high temperature sensitives to rising CO2 concentrations enough to mathematically spit out temperatures sortof kindof similar to those over the last decade. But so what? All Kaufman did is, like every other climate modeler, find some value for aerosols that plugged temperatures to the right values.
Let’s consider an analogy. A big Juan Uribe fan (plays 3B for the SF Giants baseball team) might argue that the 2010 Giants World Series run could largely be explained by Uribe’s performance. They could build a model, and find out that the Giants 2010 win totals were entirely consistent with Uribe batting .650 for the season.
What’s the problem with this logic? After all, if Uribe hit .650, he really would likely have been the main driver of the team’s success. The problem is that we know what Uribe hit, and he batted under .250 last year. When real facts exist, you can’t just plug in whatever numbers you want to make your argument work.
But in climate, we are not sure what exactly the cooling effect of aerosols are. For related coal particulate emissions, scientists are so unsure of their effects they don’t even know the sign (ie are they net warming or cooling). And even if they had a good handle on the effects of aerosol concentrations, no one agrees on the actual numbers for aerosol concentrations or production.
And for all the light and noise around Kaufman, the researchers did just about nothing to advance the ball on any of these topics. All they did was find a number that worked, that made the models spit out the answer they wanted, and then argue in retrospect that the number was reasonable, though without any evidence.
Beyond this, their conclusions make almost no sense. First, unlike CO2, aerosols are very short lived in the atmosphere – a matter of days rather than decades. Because of this, they are poorly mixed, and so aerosol concentrations are spotty and generally can be found to the east (downwind) of large industrial complexes (see sample map here).
Which leads to a couple of questions. First, if significant aerosol concentrations only cover, say, 10% of the globe, doesn’t that mean that to get a 0.5 degree cooling effect for the whole Earth, there must be a 5 degree cooling effect in the affected area. Second, if this is so (and it seems unreasonably large), why have we never observed this cooling effect in the regions with high concentrations of manmade aerosols. I understand the effect can be complicated by changes in cloud formation and such, but that is just further reasons we should be studying the natural phenomenon and not generating computer models to spit out arbitrary results with no basis in observational data.
Judith Currey does not find the study very convincing, and points to this study by Remer et al in 2008 that showed no change in atmospheric aerosol depths through the heart of the period of supposed increases in aerosol cooling.
So the whole basis for the study is flawed – its based on the affect of increasing aerosol concentrations that actually are not increasing. Just because China is producing more does not apparently mean there is more in the atmosphere – it may be reductions in other areas like the US and Europe are offsetting Chinese emissions or that nature has mechanisms for absorbing and eliminating the increased emissions.
By the way, here was Curry’s response, in part:
This paper points out that global coal consumption (primarily from China) has increased significantly, although the dataset referred to shows an increase only since 2004-2007 (the period 1985-2003 was pretty stable). The authors argue that the sulfates associated with this coal consumption have been sufficient to counter the greenhouse gas warming during the period 1998-2008, which is similar to the mechanism that has been invoked to explain the cooling during the period 1940-1970.
I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference). Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance.
Curry offers the alternative explanation of natural variability offsetting Co2 warming, which I think is partly true. Though Occam’s Razor has to force folks at some point to finally question whether high (3+) temperature sensitivities to CO2 make any sense. Seriously, isn’t all this work on aerosols roughly equivalent to trying to plug in yet more epicycles to make the Ptolemaic model of the universe continue to work?
Postscript: I will agree that there is one very important affect of the ramp-up of Chinese coal-burning that began around 2004 — the melting of Arctic Ice. I strongly believe that the increased summer melts of Arctic ice are in part a result of black carbon from Asia coal burning landing on the ice and reducing its albedo (and greatly accelerating melt rates). Look here when Arctic sea ice extent really dropped off, it was after 2003. Northern Polar temperatures have been fairly stable in the 2000’s (the real run-up happened in the 1990’s). The delays could be just inertia in the ocean heating system, but Arctic ice melting sure seems to correlate better with black carbon from China than it does with temperature.
I don’t think there is anything we could do with a bigger bang for the buck than to reduce particulate emissions from Asian coal. This is FAR easier than CO2 emissions reductions — its something we have done in the US for nearly 40 years.
The aerosol theory is just a pretty lame excuse for the lack of warming. It doesn’t stand up sto scrutiny and appears more to be a sort of hit and hope.
The IPCC claimed that it could not explain the late 20th century warming without CO2. Now they can’t explain the lack of warming with it.
Climate Nonconformist:
The aerosol theory is just a pretty lame excuse for the lack of warming. It doesn’t stand up sto scrutiny and appears more to be a sort of hit and hope.
The IPCC claimed that it could not explain the late 20th century warming without CO2. Now they can’t explain the lack of warming with it.
###################################
If you read the link provided by Warren Meyer, the whole paper is explaining the reflection of the aerosols.
So the whole basis for the study is flawed – its based on the affect of increasing aerosol concentrations that actually are not increasing.
((((((Just because China is producing more does not apparently mean there is more in the atmosphere))))))) –
it may be reductions in other areas like the US and Europe are offsetting Chinese emissions or that nature has mechanisms for absorbing and eliminating the increased emissions.
#######################################
That statement is pretty weak in itself. It would be a rare situation that if you burned more sulpher laden coal and get the same or less aerosols.
The delays could be just inertia in the ocean heating system, but Arctic ice melting sure seems to correlate better with black carbon from China than it does with temperature.
############################################
Black carbon absorbs energy rather than reflect it back out off of the snow.
Trying to avoid calling co2 a pollutant?
A lot of the balck carbon comes from people cooking with dung. Trying to put this on the poor rather than the industrialists?
I understand the effect can be complicated by changes in cloud formation and such, but that is just further reasons we should be studying the natural phenomenon and not generating computer models to
((((((spit out arbitrary results with no basis in observational data.))))))
#######################################################
Interesting statement. We have talked about models before. I would venture to say that the models give us a lot of good information about the trends of climate starting with Hansen’s 1988 model. And the models have improved since then.
And for all the light and noise around Kaufman, the esearchers did just about nothing to advance the ball on any of these topics. All they did was find a number that worked, that made the models spit out the answer they wanted, and then argue in retrospect that the number was reasonable, though without any evidence.
##########################################
I’ve yet to see Warren prove this true. I suppose if you repeat it often enough maybe, just maybe you can even override the science of climate.
Nearly a decade ago, when I first started looking into climate science, I began to suspect the modelers were using what I call a “plug” variable.
#####################################
I guess when you are a blogger, you don’t have to be accountable to reality. I’ve yet to see one example of this fudging to make the computer get the right answer.
This is a timely post for me, for which I think you. I knew that aerosols were their explanation for the level temperatures since 1998, but I have been wondering how aerosols could possibly have appeared in just precisely the amounts necessary to counteract warming, which, when you stop to think about it, is quite a coincidence. Now I know — they just assume it. Very satisfactory.
Wow renewable you comment allot ..Since solar and wind is both being developed what is the problem ? not quick enough ?
I think one of your lines should read …
I suppose if you repeat it often enough maybe, just maybe the science of climate can even override reality.
Since there are contributing factors the scientists admit are not fully understood I view their worst case scenarios are not established fact and you can quote anything under the sun and it will not change the difference between a real truth and a convenient truth to keep the funding floodgates open.
If you think the science is settled why not halve the funding on climate and put it towards renewable energy ?
The point that interests me is that since aerosols are short lived in order to achieve the incredible amount of cooling globally that they are assigned the effect would have to be 5 ° C cooling effect locally downwind of China and other major polluters.
This has never been observed. [Enough said?]
The climate scientists want to ignore the obvious documented effect of El Nino’s and La Nina’s.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Renewable says: “I guess when you are a blogger, you don’t have to be accountable to reality. I’ve yet to see one example of this fudging to make the computer get the right answer.”
See: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007)
Stephen E. Schwartz, Robert J. Charlson and Henning Rodhe, Quantifying Climate Change – Too Rosy a Picture?, 2 Nature Reports: Climate Change 23 (2007)
.
Reto Knutti, Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well?, 35 Geo. Res. Lett. L18704 (2008).
All these articles can be found in full on the internet through Google.
The “fudge factor” strikes again! In my pre-retiring computer modelling days, if I had used fudge factors rather than rigorous models, I would have been fired, and rightly so! For God’s sake, you can fit any data, real or fudged, with a computer model. So what? If the model doesn’t work next year, dream up a new fudge factor. Chinese aerosols this year, camel dung next year, little green men from Mars the year after. A model that is not based on well understood first principles is not only worthless, it is dangerous. These fudge-filled models are being used to argue for the end of our industrial civilization.
Renewable says: “I guess when you are a blogger, you don’t have to be accountable to reality. I’ve yet to see one example of this fudging to make the computer get the right answer.”
***********
Do you really think that a climate modeller would go to the window and shout “I am about to tweak my aerosol values to make my climate model match historical values more closely “?
.
The fact that different models with different sensitivities back cast the same is proof enough that they have done so. [They also may have tweaked more than one variable .]
.
How else can you explain it ?
.
Only one [at most] can be correct, so the others are obviously incorrect. Since all models have failed miserably when attempting to predict the future possibly all values so far proposed are incorrect.
“Which leads to a couple of questions. First, if significant aerosol concentrations only cover, say, 10% of the globe, doesn’t that mean that to get a 0.5 degree cooling effect for the whole Earth, there must be a 5 degree cooling effect in the affected area”
Wow! Yes! Those numbers that you just pulled out of your arse can be combined to give a third number! But in your woeful state of truly disgusting ignorance, you are completely unaware that the numbers that come out of your arse mean absolutely nothing at all.
Yes, netdr, you are quite right. He obviously hasn’t even heard of Mount Pinatubo, and the effect of the volcanic aerosols on the climate. These effects were accurately predicted by climate models.
PaulD:
See: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007)
#####################
This one does not talk about fudging the computer to get the right answer. Do you see a form of cheating here?
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/knutti2008.pdf
The
figure shows that the combined natural and anthropogenic
radiative forcings are a consistent explanation for the
observed changes in these models, whereas natural forcings
alone cannot explain the observations. The natural forcings
fail to explain the observed spatio-temporal patterns even if
their response is inflated. Projections over the next few
decades and their uncertainties are not sensitive to the
magnitude of the aerosol forcing (see Figures 1l and 1o)
as long as the sulphate to greenhouse forcing ratio remains
similar [Allen et al., 2000].
#########################################
Its an interesting discussion of how the same results can be obtained with different parameters within the model. This ought to be so easy to understand, all you do is constrain the model to observations that are measureable.
Interesting comment on aerosols. They don’t matter that much in the long run over decades.
NetDr:
Only one [at most] can be correct, so the others are obviously incorrect. Since all models have failed miserably when attempting to predict the future possibly all values so far proposed are incorrect.
##########################
Like I said Hansen got it right enough. One of his predictions was that the artic ice would significantly melt. Anthony Watts denied that one for a long time.
Ted Rado:
I think it would easy to know the sulpher content of Chinese coal, how much they burned, how much sulpher per ton, and the time the aerosols stay in the atmosphere. Plus Indian coal and the rest of Asia.
Hmmmm the more coal burned, the more aerosols. What’s so hard about that?
Andy:
Since there are contributing factors the scientists admit are not fully understood I view their worst case scenarios are not established fact and you can quote anything under the sun and it will not change the difference between a real truth and a convenient truth to keep the funding floodgates open.
If you think the science is settled why not halve the funding on climate and put it towards renewable energy ?
############################
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/knutti2008.pdf
[2] Detection and attribution studies show that most of
the observed surface warming over the last fifty years is
‘very likely’ (>90% probability) caused by anthropogenic
forcing, and ‘very unlikely’ due to internal variability or
known natural forcings [Hegerl et al., 2007].
###############################
co2 is going to keep us warm at night.
The last post using my name was submitted by the troll named Waldo. [AKA Humpty Dumpty]
I don’t need to resort to insults and made up climate models because pointing out the inconsistencies of climate alarmism is easy.
BTW: Did you ever find a reasonably correct climate model ?
I predict that you will not respond.
Renewable Guy:
NetDr:
Only one [at most] can be correct, so the others are obviously incorrect. Since all models have failed miserably when attempting to predict the future possibly all values so far proposed are incorrect.
##########################
Like I said Hansen got it right enough. One of his predictions was that the artic [sic] ice would significantly melt. Anthony Watts denied that one for a long time.
**********
No his model was so wrong that actual temperatures were below the level of scenario “C” which was with stringent CO2 controls which didn’t happen. [It was a CONTROL not a prediction !] The 2007 defense made it look pretty good but as of 2011 it stinks. Since the rate of warming has gone flat and the predicted temperature goes up each year the prediction looks worse.
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-hansen-model-another-very-simple-disproof-of-anthropogenic-global-warming
I see that even the alarmists have finally acknowledged the lack of warming since 1998. [Trenberth 2011] They use the tried and true unknown aerosols as an excuse for the missing warming. The missing heat obviously isn’t hiding in the oceans is it? They postulate it is being radiated back into space too fast.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
When confronted with the missing warming [if sensitivity is as high as they say it is] the alarmists blame it on the missing heat. Seems like a double problem for them.
THE MORE YOU KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE THE MORE IMMUNE YOU ARE TO CLIMATE ALARMISM.
I took millions of dollars worth of energy money just so people like netdr and Ted Rado can feel like they KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE.
NetDr:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
Interesting point to be made Net. This fits right into Warren’s point about sulphates. That would help to flatten out temperature rise along with the solar minimum. Hansen wouldn’t be able to predict China using enormous amounts of coal.
Instead of a opinionated blog, try a real scientist.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
In most branches of science, when experimental results falsify the original hypothesis, scientists discard or modify the original hypothesis. In Hansen’s case, he just pitches the story with zealotry rarely seen outside of lunatic asylums…
###########
This language fits your thinking about climate change. This kind of extreme language isn’t used by scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
A 1981 Science publication by Hansen and a team of scientists at Goddard concluded that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to warming sooner than previously predicted. They used a one-dimensional radiative-convective model that calculates temperature as a function of height. They reported that the results from the 1D model are similar to the more complex 3D models, and can simulate basic mechanisms and feedbacks.[36] Hansen predicted that temperatures would rise out of the climate noise by the 1990s, much earlier than predicted by other researches. He also predicted that it would be difficult to convince politicians and the public to react.[37]
#########################
Hansen got it right about the politicians and the public.
He got it right about rising out of the climate noise also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
The first climate prediction computed from a general circulation model that was published by Hansen was in 1988, the same year as his well-known Senate testimony. It used the second generation of the GISS model to estimate the change in mean surface temperature based on a variety of scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions. Hansen concluded that global warming would be evident within the next few decades, and that it would result in temperatures at least as high as during the Eemian.
(((((((He argued that, if the temperature rises 0.4 °C above the 1950-1980 mean for a few years, it is the “smoking gun” pointing to human-caused global warming.[39]))))))
#######################
Hansen got it right.
The eemian had much higher sea level of 5 to 7 meters higher than today with only 300 ppm co2. And we are 392 ppm and climbing. The earth is quite sensitive to changes in co2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
Following the launch of spacecraft capable of determining temperatures, Roy Spencer and John Christy published the first version of their satellite temperature measurements in 1990. Contrary to climate models and surface measurements, their results showed a cooling in the troposphere.[41] In 1998, Wentz and Schabel determined that orbital decay had an effect on the derived temperatures.[42] Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it.[43]
#############################
Those were the good old days when global warming was so deniable. And now its not as bad as the scientists say it is. There’s only one problem with that scenario. The scientists are conservative about their findings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
Hansen has continued the development and diagnostics of climate models. For instance, he has helped look at the decadal trends in tropopause height, which could be a useful tool for determining the human “fingerprint” on climate.[44] As of 12 February 2009 (2009 -02-12)[update], the current version of the GISS model is Model E. This version has seen improvements in many areas, including upper-level winds, cloud height, and precipitation. This model still has problems with regions of marine stratocumulus clouds.[45] A later paper showed that the model’s main problems are having too weak of an ENSO-like variability, and poor sea ice modeling, resulting in too little ice in the Southern Hemisphere and too much in the Northern Hemisphere.[46]
#############################
And the scientists know what the weaknesses of their models are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections
Hansen stresses the uncertainties around these predictions. “It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem … An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway.”[48] He concludes that “present knowledge does not permit accurate specification of the dangerous level of human-made [greehouse gases]. However, it is much lower than has commonly been assumed. If we have not already passed the dangerous level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures that we will pass it within several decades.”[48]
#############################
I’m ready to change but you guys aren’t. If Hansen is right and the political delay is successful, we all deal with it together.
Renewable: I would suggest that instead of spewing out so many posts, that you write fewer and concentrate hard on improving their quality and relevance.
Renewable
The scientists can claim that their models are better now and will predict the future. That is what anyone would claim. The question is will they ? Only results count. Since it takes 20 years to validate a model by the time they figure out the truth it will be 2100.
The last published predictions I have been able to find did poorly. Do you or Humpty have any model outputs which didn’t “jump the shark” ?
Why are all model predictions too high? I have written computer models and know that a workman like job would have some too high and some too low bracketing the truth. I think they never publish the low ones, they are bad for the sale of mousemilk.
The purpose of a climate model isn’t to correctly predict future temperature warmer or cooler. It is to generate fear.
.
Since the models which don’t generate fear will never be published all published models will be wrong.
.
This is one of NetDr’s laws.
.
“All published climate models will seriously overestimate warming.”
.
There haven’t been any which violate that law yet.
I don’t think a model which predicts 2 or 3 times as much warming as happens is any good but some people are more charitable than I am.
Does anyone know where I can download a filter to bypass the comments by Renewable Guy? From the thought content displayed in his comments, it looks as if he is paid by the number of comments, rather than by plausible argument.
netdr:
The purpose of a climate model isn’t to correctly predict future temperature warmer or cooler. It is to generate fear.
.
Since the models which don’t generate fear will never be published all published models will be wrong.
.
This is one of NetDr’s laws.
################################
Anther law that you have is that you don’t listen to facts. You just replace them with your opinions.
pauld:
Renewable: I would suggest that instead of spewing out so many posts, that you write fewer and concentrate hard on improving their quality and relevance.
###########################
I was splitting up the same article into smaller peices.
http://www.ecogeek.org/solar-power/3551-solar-plant-in-spain-generates-energy-for-24-strai?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EcoGeek+%28EcoGeek%29
24 hour generation with solar
I am normally quiet, but… Renewable Guy, you write at least as many posts as all others taken together, have been doing that for months. Yet somehow almost nothing you write is worth replying to. Think about it.
Yes Renewable, because Alex’s replies are so worth your time and effort.
So Alex, what do you think about the allegations against Willie Soon. Any opinions?
Alex:
I am normally quiet, but… Renewable Guy, you write at least as many posts as all others taken together, have been doing that for months. Yet somehow almost nothing you write is worth replying to. Think about it.
######################################
It’s back to the argument of models and Hansen.
It may not be relevant to you because it doesn’t support your point.
My point is the models are relevant and Hansen is good at it.
It is a common reaction amongst deniers to shut out the science. Science meaning observations of the reality of climate. Somehow a social movement to counter it by reducing co2 emissions is just against your point of view. That is the basis of our differences.
Alex:
I am normally quiet
######################
I’m not quiet about global warming.
Level temperatures or slightly falling global temperatures as measured by satellite (not Hansen’s fudged GISS numbers), since 1998. while CO2 continues to rise, no “hotspot” near the equator (see http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/new-paper-illustrates-another-failure-of-the-ipcc-mullti-decadal-global-model-predictions-on-the-warming-in-the-tropical-upper-troposphere-models-versus-observations-by-fu-et-al-2011/), and sea level rise of 1-2 mm per year, and new studies demonstrating that GCM’s have no skill in forecasting future climate change (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/new-paper-built-for-stability-by-paul-valdes-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-the-ipcc-models-as-skillful-multi-decadal-climate-forecasting-tools/). Tell us again about how accurate the computer models are.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/new-paper-built-for-stability-by-paul-valdes-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-the-ipcc-models-as-skillful-multi-decadal-climate-forecasting-tools/
State-of-the-art climate models are largely untested against actual occurrences of abrupt change. It is a huge leap of faith to assume that simulations of the coming century with these models will provide reliable warning of sudden, catastrophic events.”
####################
The models are not good at this, that is true. There is a difference between the sudden events and the slow moving ones. In the paleoclimatic records, the scientists are aware of the sudden oscillating events in the past. The climate will have some nasty surprises for us if we continue on with co2 emissions. Some of them the scientists aren’t able to predict because there isn’t enough information on.
TheChuckr:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/new-paper-built-for-stability-by-paul-valdes-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-the-ipcc-models-as-skillful-multi-decadal-climate-forecasting-tools/
In two cases, the models did not adequately capture the basic climate configuration before abrupt change ensued, and in the remaining two examples, to initiate abrupt change the models needed external nudging that is up to ten times stronger than reconstructed. The models seem to be too stable.”
“In the meantime, we need to be cautious. If anything, the models are underestimating change, compared with the geological record. According to the evidence from the past, the Earth’s climate is sensitive to small changes, whereas the climate models seem to require a much bigger disturbance to produce abrupt change. Simulations of the coming century with the current generation of complex models may be giving us a false sense of security.”
############################
If you choose to read the article, the scientists are quite aware of the shortcomings of the model. Fully understanding the model isn’t sensitive enough to the past paleoclimatic history. Another words the model is to conservative to reproduce the history.
I don’t know if I’ve talked to you before. If you are skeptic or denier I encourage you to read and understand the science also. This article you presented to me really wasn’t any devastating blow to models. If you read on James Hansen wikipedia page, they go over the weaknesses of the latest model he has been working on.
Models are inherantly wrong on some things. The good modeler knows the strengths and weaknesses of their models.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/09/264294/government-investment-in-innovation-is-needed-to-overcome-the-%e2%80%9cvalley-of-death%e2%80%9d/#more-264294
Some people on here are libertarians believing. that gov should stay completely out of business. I would argue that it would always put us behind every gov supported business in the world. The public private partnership started back with Abraham Lincoln if not earlier. The gov builds all the support that our businesses can be the best in the world. WIthout that we will become importers over exporting.
Renewable, I am a skeptic and have no respect whatsoever for Jim Hansen who uses his position to promote political activism on my (taxpayer) dime and fudges temperature records to further his and this administration’s agenda. As usual you bob and weave and fail to address the points made by me and other posters. So let’s try again, where is the hotspot, why are temperatures level or slightly decreasing since 1998 while C02 increases, why is the sea level rise only 1-2 MM per year, and where is Trenbarth’s missing heat in the ocean?
TheChuckr:
why are temperatures level or slightly decreasing since 1998 while C02 increases,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_yearshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
Here is the temperature record, 2010 tied 2005. 10 of the top 11 warmest years are the 2000’s. Hansen who has not spent a single dime of yours protesting AGW increase has predicted a high probability of 2012 setting a new warmest year on record.
#################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-intermediate.htm
The tropospheric hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate (Bengtsson 2009, Trenberth 2006, Ramaswamy 2006). As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it’s more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. For example, it cools at around 4°C per kilometre at the equator but a much larger 8 to 9°C per kilometre at the subtropics.
#########################################
This is just a start of the explanation of hotspots. The lapse rate is the rate at which the water vapor cools as it rises above the earth. The latent heat is when the water vapor condenses. The hot spot would be the location of the condensation in the sky.
#######################################################
When the surface warms, there’s more evaporation and more moisture in the air. This decreases the lapse rate – there’s less cooling aloft. This means warming aloft is greater than warming at the surface. This amplified trend is the hot spot. It’s all to do with changes in the lapse rate, regardless of what’s causing the warming.
((((((If the warming was caused by a brightening sun or reduced sulphate pollution, you’d still see a hot spot.)))))))
####################################################
Whether there is a hotspot or no hotspot, its just a part of meteorology whether its global warming or not. As the oceans warm, there will be an increase of latent heat into the atmosphere. That is a potent source of energy in our future storms.
why is the sea level rise only 1-2 MM per year
#######################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm
Figure 2: Observed rate of sea-level rise (red) compared with reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature (dark blue with light blue uncertainty range). Grey line is reconstructed sea level from an earlier, simpler relationship between sea level and temperature (Vermeer 2009).
################################
It appears from this graph that we are above 3 and approaching 4 mm/year.
################################
I believe that we don’t have instrumentation to truly get to the bottom of the ocean. The ocean is absorbing over 90% of the heat from the sun. Once the ocean warms up from co2, we are stuck with a warmer earth whether its good or not. We will just have to adapt.
########################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
Skeptics use Trenberth’s email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth’s opinions didn’t need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature – and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.
All right.
Waldo:
“Yes Renewable, because Alex’s replies are so worth your time and effort.” – Yes.
“So Alex, what do you think about the allegations against Willie Soon. Any opinions?” – No opinion.
Renewable Guy:
“It’s back to the argument of models and Hansen.” – OK, let’s see what your argument is.
“It may not be relevant to you because it doesn’t support your point.” – Smear. Classy.
“My point is the models are relevant and Hansen is good at it.” – Define “relevant” and “good at it”.
“It is a common reaction amongst deniers to shut out the science. Science meaning observations of the reality of climate. Somehow a social movement to counter it by reducing co2 emissions is just against your point of view. That is the basis of our differences.” – Smears and accusations.
Bla bla bla and no substance.
Alex:
Would you care to discuss anything? Make a commitment. YOu won’t die if you express an opinion.
Fine. Since the only thing related to science in your reply to me is the mention of Hansen, I state that Hansen’s 1988 predictions miss the mark, and consequently that the particular model used by Hansen to make those predictions can not be trusted to predict the future. I also state that I am currently aware of no model that can be trusted to predict the future based on similar verification tests. Do you agree with this? No talk of backcasting, please, successful backcasts do not prove the predictive power of a model.