Bishop Hill Von Storch: models are falsified
Roddy Campbell points us to this discussion paper by Hans von Storch et al, which looks at the divergence between climate models and observations:
In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained by contemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales is a plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenic climate change, but the second and particularly the third would.
That seems quite important to me. Note also that "the heat's all in the deep oceans" doesn't seem to be on the table as an explanation.
Reader Comments (71)
The shift of terms from Global Warming to Climate Change to Increased Intensity of Severe Events has a bright side to it.
Given a fixed energy ration, increased intensity of weather events must mean that there are longer periods of calm between them.
So I propose to call the present state of development "The Period of Longer Interpeaces". Bless you all.
OK von Storch. Can we all have our money back now please?
@Allan M
our dear, glorious DFID are funding talks between Kenyan rain makers and meteorologists
Those meeting must be hilarious. They must look at each other and think, What a stupid, superstitious bunch of charlatans!
entropic: "Both of these changes would counteract the forecast warming trend, as observed. The problem would not be with the models, but with changes in the behaviour of the system which were not predictable at the time of the forecast."
Glad that's settled, and you agree there are (or maybe only were?) things in the future that are not predictable at present. Now you just need to give us the number of not predictable system behavior changes, along with their magnitude and sign, between now and lets say... 2100.
That blindingly obvious contradiction is exactly why these models are crap, and I thank you very much for pointing it out.
There is insufficient discussion of just how damning von Storch's three points are to the narrative. If any of the three are true, the Catastrophe in CAGW may well be averted. But it seems to me that it is likely that all three are true.
==============
Also, point 3, the most damning, the overestimation of climate sensitivity, seems demonstrated. von Storch understands.
============
Well, it depends what you mean by "non-model based", how long into the future you want the predictions and what accuracy (in a statistical sense) you require.
I can suggest several methods that predict the trends of the 21st century from 2001 to 2012 with quite good accuracy but that is probably not what you had in mind.
For predicting climate trends beyond, say 2023 up to 2099 with meaningful accuracy (say ± 0.2K standard deviation for global average temperature) than the answer is that obviously I cannot suggest non model based methods that will work.
But that does not somehow mean that model-based methods (GCM's, I presume) give results that have positive value. In fact, their value is negative if you are deluded into thinking they work.
I have spent a good part of my career constructing and testing models of physical systems of one sort or another. I have always been at pains to caution customers and sponsors for such work that, until the models have be validated and the limits of their accuracy established, then using results from the model is putting you in a worse position than having no model and simply saying "we don't know".
The Met Office's statements that their climate models have been validated by:
- Their ability to predict past climate
- Their being used to produce the weather forecasts
is simply laughable. It is insulting of them to say such rubbish.
@ Martin
It's a stupid question to begin with because it presupposes that the question matters, that a provably reliable answer is possible and that such an answer is useful for something.
In reality, all three premises are in fact wholly stupid.
You might just as well have asked Pliny when Vesuvius was going to erupt.
"the warmest ever year, 1998"
Mike Jackson
Actually hadcrut4, NCDC and GISS agree that the warmest year on record is 2010.
1998 is currently third, behind 2005.
Martin A and others
Thank you, gentlemen. Clearly you heve no idea what is going to happen to the climate, having nothing except wishful thinking as a forecasting tool.
EM has nailed climate science in one sentence.
=====
kim
My sentence describes the sceptic position even better.
Sceptics criticise global climate models as approximations of actual climate change. They then put forward their own expectations based on no evidence at all.
Their credibility is not helped by comments such as the last one by Mike Jackson, which demonstrates that he cannot even read the temperature record.
EM,
You seem to be of the opinion that one doesn't have one's own climate model, one can't opine that a model has failed.
I don't own an airplane, but I can see when one has crashed.
Another analogy for those familiar with baseball. I freely admit that I can't forecast who will win the American League pennant this year. I can be certain that the Houston Astros will not win it.
Aug 13, 2013 at 7:31 AM | Allan M
////////////////
Animal instinct is likely to be a more accurate method of forecast than computer models. of course, the response time is often rather short rendering the information not that usueful for say a weekly, as opposed to a daily forecast.
Early migration of species can indicate earlier/harsher winter conditions than the norm.
I think that the Met Office could learn a lot from the exercise.
Entropic Man
"My sentence describes the sceptic position even better.
Sceptics criticise global climate models as approximations of actual climate change. They then put forward their own expectations based on no evidence at all."
Most of the models disagree with each others, producing wild spaghetti graphs. Only one or none can be correct. IPCC use the average of the model results. So what IPCC is doing is basing their forecast on models that are proven wrong, they can't all be right.
Reality and time now shows all models to be wrong. None models are able to forecast weather and climate all the way up to the year 2099.
The real problem is not only that all models are wrong but also that IPCC are using models they know are wrong?
Models and their basis the UN climate treaty, UNFCCC , have all been proven wrong by reality?
EM, the scene is set for cooling. It's the sun and solar cycle frequency (or any other similar parameter). Higher frequencies (shorter cycles) warm, lower frequencies (longer cycles) cool. SC 23 was already long (weak), SC 24 seems to be even longer (weaker). It's a very good correlation considering there must be other factors influencing global climate. The real downhill starts after ~2014/15 (SC 24 smoothed maximum) and we will have 30 years of no warming by ~2020.
The continuous fiddling with the temperature record, as amply demonstrated on the 'NASA rewrites the past' thread and the numerous links from there, make the figures so untrustworthy as to be meaningless.
Even assuming they could be made to mean something or that the global average temperature was in some way accurate or meaningful the numbers are so small that they are lost in the noise. I can generate a bigger temperature difference than their monthly anomaly by moving the sensor half-a-metre along the bathroom window sill.
The models are equally meaningless since as the IPCC itself admitted it is impossible to model a chaotic system.
John M
If you need a double for a bet I can confidently predict that StJohnstone FC are not going to win the Scottish Premier League this decade. I say this as a lifetime supporter.
Mike Jackson
EM is in the BB mold he knows the facts and doesn't need to follow your stupid links
Mike Jackson
I read Steve Goddard's post on temperature records, but found it unconvincing. Do you have anything more solid?