Remember the evidence is overwhelming, and deniers deny the evidence. But in Oct 2012, two atmospheric scientists were reporting, yet again, the models are wrong. Twenty years after we started looking for the fingerprint of the amplification required to make the CO2 theory of global warming work, it still isn’t there. Forgive me for harping on. It’s still The Most Major Flaw in climate models.
Never heard of “the Hot Spot”? See the first post on the hot spot argument. The models are wrong (but only by 400%!) See how climate scientists admit it’s important and missing. See how they stoop to changing color scales on graphs to pretend they’ve found it and ignore 28 million weather balloons. Or just read the summary with scientific references I wrote in May.
Background: The assumption that was wrong
Researchers made an assumption that water vapor would amplify the direct warming of extra CO2 from a small harmless amount to a large catastrophe. They started with the theory that relative humidity would stay constant in a warmer world and the thicker layer of water vapor would warm the world even more. Greenhouses gases in this instance means mainly water vapor; the assumption is that extra water vapor is heating up the upper troposphere (both by displacing colder drier air, and by condensing and releasing the latent heat absorbed in evaporation). It was predicted by James Hansen in 1984, is repeated by all the climate models and by the IPCC in AR4.
The graphs from this recent paper show once again that the models are wrong, the observations lie far outside most of the models. No matter how many ways they reassess the same data and rejig the models, they aren’t getting a match.
The problem in a nutshell: If they drop the assumptions about amplification by upper tropospheric water vapor, the models will match reality but they won’t predict a crisis.
The weather balloons produced the dramatic images showing just how “missing” the hot spot is. But people have been searching with satellites too. The satellites don’t have the vertical resolution of the weather balloons, because they measure large thick bands of sky. So while researchers won’t find the “hot spot” exactly with a satellite, they hope to find the right ratio of trends in the upper atmosphere compared to trends in lower bands. (More cynically, one might say they hope to get a vague fit to the models by using the less precise and more fuzzy satellite data rather than the higher resolution data from the weather balloons.)
Does this topic matter? These climate researchers think so:
Given the importance of both models and observations, it will be important to continue to investigate this discrepancy between models and observations.The representation of upper tropospheric warming in models is important to climate sensitivity and thus future projections of anthropogenic global warming.
In other words, the models can’t calculate climate sensitivity and future temperatures without getting this right. This is central.
In the words of the researchers: “… most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper tropospheric warming”.
In this graph, the vertical line up from 1.05 and 1.1 are the satellite measured ratios, show where the yellow bars (the model predictions) ought to be if they matched the satellites.
Figure 3. Histogram of the ratio of the T24 trend to the TLT trend over 1981–2008 from AMIP ensemble members in the tropics (20S–20N). The T24 to TLT trend ratios for RSS and UAH are
shown for comparison. The T24/TLT trend ratios under the histogram bins represent the bin center values.
The black circles and crosses (below) are supposed to fall around the blue square and the red square. This is what 90% likely looks like if you are the UN, and you want more money.
…
Figure 4. Decadal versus interannual amplification of T24 to TLT from both AMIP and coupled GCM simulations and MSU observations in the tropics (20S–20N) between 1981 and 2005.
The decadal amplification is defined as the T24 trend divided by the TLT trend. The interannual amplification is defined as the standard deviation of the de-trended monthly T24 anomaly time series divided by the standard deviation of the de-trended monthly TLT anomaly values. Each cross or circle represents the ensemble mean for each model. The mean of all models is given by the bold
symbols. Note that the MIROC-ESM-CHEM model is not contained in this plot as it has a relatively large decadal amplification value (table 1), likely related to biases after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 (Watanabe et al 2011).
Curiously, these same authors had a run-in with Roy Spencer and John Christy earlier in 2012, when they published a paper suggesting that UAH ought be adjusted up to fit better with the models. See Spencer’s response at his site, (repeated on WUWT). This later paper came out in October. Hmm.
Again, those empty circles are supposed to be close to the red and blue squares.
Figure 5. Decadal amplification (as in figure 4) versus the annual mean T24 temperature over 1981–2008 for AMIP models. The relationship is statistically significant (95% confidence) and the r-value is 0.56. The annual mean T24 temperatures are also presented for RSS and UAH for reference. Note that much of the focus for MSU groups has been on relative changes and not on
absolute temperature calibration (e.g. Mears et al 2011).
—————————————————————————
AMIP models are better than GCM’s, but they are still wrong
The AMIP models use sea ice and sea surface temperature (SST) observations to constrain the workings of the models, so the evaporation off the oceans should at least be about right in those simulations, so naturally they are better than the GCMs — see the top band here, where the AMIP ones get it mostly right, and the bottom band where GCM’s get it wrong even though they have a wide “error band”.
Figure 1. Times series of TLT monthly temperature anomalies in the tropics (20S–20N) for AMIP GCM (top) and coupled GCM (bottom) simulations (black) and the average of RSS and UAH (red). The model spread is shaded. Many coupled GCM simulations only extended to 2005, while AMIP runs included here extended to 2008.
Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP).
Page 2 AMIP model simulations use observational records of sea ice and SST evolution (e.g. Hurrell et al 2008) as boundary conditions for atmospheric GCMs. Thus the AMIP model’s SSTs have the same variability and trends as observations. Previous studies have demonstrated that AMIP style runs can closely reproduce the observed tropical tropospheric temperature variations (Hurrell and Trenberth 1997). The use of AMIP models allows us to closely examine simulated changes of the vertical temperature structure in the tropical troposphere in GCMs using the observed SST evolution.
But even the AMIP models are still unable to get the results that match UAH especially. The dots in the first graph below should center around zero (which means ‘no difference’ with UAH). They are so far away that the error bars too, often end far from zero.
In this graph, the vertical line up from zero is where the dots (which are the model predictions) ought to be if they matched the satellites. The broad horizontal lines are the error margins.
REFERENCES:
Po-Chedley S. and Fu Q. (2012) Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites, Environ. Res. Lett. 7 044018 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018) [Full text PDF (323 KB]
All Jo’s harping posts about the Hot Spot. 🙂
H/t to The HockeySchtick
Thanks to Richard Courtney.
These models are getting a bit long in the tooth. Think Joan Rivers. Or Grandma Moses.
41
Gradma Moses was at least good. These models are long in the tooth and bad from the start!
41
The researchers say:
Why do you think the data is absolutely correct and the models are totally wrong, when the authors say that the data may be wrong?
124
Two independent satellite sets and most of the radiosondes show the models key predictions are wrong. 3000 oceans buoys show the quadrillions of joules of energy are missing. Thousands of surface thermometers show the models fail on a regional, continental, and global scales. [Did you miss this post?] The modelers themselves admit they don’t do clouds or rain well.
I think the models are based on a guess about relative humidity that there is no observational support for.
And you think all the data is wrong.
283
The data is uncertain – only “skeptics” seem to believe the radiosonde data is perfect.
As for satellite data, the Thorne in your side disagrees.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20101115_warming.html
And yes, I do note you have a post on Thorne, but you haven’t been able to refute the science in Thorne’s paper. Instead you resort to rehashing your previous hotspot posts.
217
That seems a silly question to ask given that I have posted within it.
Did you see itsnotnova’s rebuttal of your post?
14
Refute Thorne’s science? What science. His paper is a historical rehash of debunked papers.
It’s called a “satire”. 😉 You’re a pro at ignoring the evidence: like you missed the post completely.
No. Why would I?
93
Oh the irony.
14
Nice One, in reply to Joanne Nova:
Well, the last time I looked at itsnotnova it contained no evidence of anything at all.
Hang on. It’s not your site is it? The lack of evidence is certainly a correlation, are you prepared to admit that there is some causation as well?
60
Nice One says at #1.1.1.1.1
If alarmists dealt properly with uncertainty then they would have nothing to defend. This data is far more certain than the measurements of heat changes sub-700m down in the oceans. There is less uncertainty than measures of surface temperature changes over the oceans, which comprise 70% of the planet. There is far less uncertainty than that of the influence of aerosols in the 2007 IPCC report.
Then there are exaggerated claims of certainty in the future global warming projections. If the models do not produce the results as predicted, then there can be less confidence in their outputs. There are at least two areas where this has happened. The missing hotspot is one. The other is the failure of global average surface temperatures to rise for the last 16 years. I have seen claims to have found the hotspot, but that evidence appears much weaker that the evidence claiming it has not.
Like with other alarmists, “Nice One” uses the tactics of casting doubt on evidence he/she does not like along with distracting attention away from the main point of a the blog postings (Maxine’s favorite). It shows to me that they cannot get a sense of perspective, nor evaluate the evidence.
30
So manic, you’re telling me the heat of the ocean could possibly be worse that measurements find.
Uncertainty works both ways.
11
Desperate times require desperate measures eh Nice One?
I’ll give you a hint with a few of quotes.
Alarmist pooffo pinko rent seeking pseudo scientist: “If the data doesn’t match the theory, question the data.”
Real scientist: “If the data doesn’t match the theory, question the theory.”
Panicking pooffo pinko rent seeking pseudo scientist: “It is not clear whether we should question the theory or the data. Send more grant money so that I can stretch out this scam until at least I retire.”
182
Baa Humbug While I agree with your sentiments perhaps the “Alarmist, poofo, pinko, rent seeking pseudo-scientist could be considerably modified as this type of adjectival hyperbole gives the alarmists ammunition to discredit those who don’t share their views
23
Why not continually question both?
38
CAGW collaborators don’t just question the data…….
they torture it, until it complies !!
80
While agreeing with you Ian, the thing is the standout leaders for each line got me in to read the comment.
It was a very important view of the problem that needs a solution.
The highlighted leaders do emphasize the power source that is driving the CAGW scam and it is Not Normal Science or community based politics; it is an external force ( Banksters plus Green Mafia plus the higher powers guiding it) plus non mainstream academia and shifty non community based politics.
KK 🙂
20
Indeed nice one, you’d imagine any self respecting scientist whose data overturned established science would check the data 1st. I imagine that archamedes at least checked he’d not left the tap on:)
04
Well Mattew,
If you could spell Archimedes I might agree with you.
But you can’t , so I’m off the hook.
KK 🙂
10
lol… Matthew is a lot easier to spell than Archimedes you know.
11
Matti
I was just thinking of you and the difficulty you must have in pronouncing the “th’.
Mattew is much easier for people with limited education.
KK.
10
“I was just thinking of you and the difficulty you must have in pronouncing the “th’.”
yes either that or you screwed up while trying to me a smart ass? hmm methinks the latter.
(Let’s get back on topic please) CTS
00
Mattew
I agree with your statement:
“me a smart ass”
KK 🙂
And me Tarzan!
(Let’s get back on topic please) CTS
00
Nice One Have you been able to confirm the data in Thorne’s paper? Why is it more reliable than the more recently published paper by Po-Chedley and Fu? Po-Chedley and Fu recently published a paper claiming the UAH data underestimated the tropospheric warming, a claim rebutted in detail by Roy Spencer. As their most recent paper is somewhat more sceptical of models their conclusions seem based on more extensive studies than those of Thorn et al
41
Can you supply a link to Spencer’s rebuttal? It’s not a web blogger site is it?
27
No? Didn’t think so.
Perhaps Jo can help you out. Perhaps not. Doubt is the tool here, possibly.
13
There’s only one tool here.
And it’s not doubt.
KK
30
Isn’t it interesting that Nice One is starting to demand references to skeptical rebuttals of scientific papers, when he/she/it is totally bereft of any empirical evidence whatsoever.
He/she/it has absolutely no understanding of how science is done in the real world, by real scientists.
KK you are correct, Nice One is a tool, in more ways than one.
60
And still we wait for Ian to back up his claim. Something tells me we’ll be waiting a long long time.
02
Yes Rereke,
A tool of the well paid Executive core of G$$npiece, WWF (that Globetrotting bunch of nature lovers?),
the IPCC, the Australian Greens and Laba Parti (sorry I just can’t get the pidgin out of my system)
and all the other assorted spongers slicing in to the Australian tax income ( sorry, that’s all gone
so now they have to BORROW the operating fees for the bruvvers).
But in the main sense, that too.
KK
10
Oh, while you are at it, can you explain why Roy won’t release his methodology for producing his temperture record?
22
Never mind reality, our models are more real than the real world.
This nonsense would be long dead if it had ever been about science, empirical evidence and climate.
But this is the UN at work, a bunch of bureaucrats, from with in our governments, who teamed up with their activist friends to improve the world.
Their use of science is identical with a traitor wrapping themselves in the flag to throw off suspicion.
The irony of these wannabes is that they, the voluntarily non-productive, believe they are most fit to control production.
The dogooder is always ready to spend your resources on solving non problems.
This CAGW scam with all its multiple name changes, is propaganda at an international scale, this is the scam of the centuries.
Created by government, promoted by govt and protected from exposure by government.
Hotspots missing?? Must be high winds that make them undetectable, plasmiods? Hidden by sceptics?
212
Wrapping themselves in the cloak of science I could tolerate, but it is the way they wrap themselves in the cloak of self-righteous morality that turns my stomach.
The secular theocracy that is AGW is run (as are all theocracies) for the benefit of the anointed, and they sure aren’t going to give that up easily.
90
I’m reading here and get a link to Roy S’s site and so go read that. It is dated May 9th, 2012. There I see the term NOAA-9 and search for an explanation of that but, instead, I find a link to the UW press release pointed at in the John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer. report. That UW press release is dated May 7, 2012, by Nancy Gohring of the News and Information office. John C. and Roy S. say:
“Some of you have been waiting for our response, but this was delayed by the fact that one of us (J. Christy) was out of the country when the UW press release was issued and just returned on Tuesday the 8th.”
As mentioned, I was not looking for this Press Release from the University of Washington but having found it, I was surprised by four things. First, there ought to be a link to the Christy/Spencer rebuttal, or even a retraction. Maybe there is something in the journal where the UW article is published. Maybe? The second thing about the Press Release that caught my attention is the “more information” links that include Kevin Trenberth @ UCAR – University Corporation for Atmospheric Research – in Boulder, CO.
The third thing: The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and NOAA.
The fourth thing is this quote:
““It will be interesting to see how these differences are resolved in the coming years,” Po-Chedley said.”” [lead author of the faulty report]
What a hoot! These folks are shameless — — Po-Chedley, Trenberth, NSF, NOAA, Nancy Gohring & The University of Washington (Seattle) — — I should mention I live in the State of Washington.
Now, back to the current report.
42
IPCC: I’m looking for the hotspot!
Earth: warmer, cooler,…colder…
Al Gore: The globe will warm!
Scott Armstrong: I bet it won’t!
IPCC: “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”
Hawkins and Sutton, AGU: “for many regions and variables the signal of anthropogenic change has yet to clearly emerge from the ‘noise’ of natural climate variability.”
IPCC: We’ve got a scientific consensus showing climate is highly sensitive to CO2.
James Annan: “Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”
Et cetera. Et cetera.
At this rate the Gillard government might even outlive CAGW, though they’re both falling apart and abandoning ship so rapidly that at this stage it’s anyone’s guess.
___________________
Also, Fig 5. “The broad horizontal lines are the error margins.”
There do not seem to be any broad horizontal lines on that figure.
Also, Firefox tip from yesterday.
22
Now this is an interesting statement:
They ought to be saying something like,
I certainly would. Wouldn’t you?
When I write some code that clearly doesn’t work (all too often) I can’t say, “The wrong result doesn’t prove that my code is wrong.” I have to figure out where my mistake is. My paycheck depends on it. What’s with these “researchers” that they don’t have to do the same? 🙁
242
Did I get that red click for forgetting a question mark or was it for actually fixing my mistakes? 😉
30
It happens frequently. It’s the handiwork of the mystical downvote fairy. You can tell you’re directly over the target, etc.
Perhaps they thought the real mistake is less severe than flawed basic assumptions, but now we’ll never know.
The Green/Left are yellow to write red marks bereft a Red Marx remark which precludes the Right from having a blue on rights.
Be happy with your red thumb down, they’d remove your comment from the Internet entirely if they could.
I mean, we must not have “climate deniers” going around spreading Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt to steer the public in a particular tax policy direction, that’s the government’s job. 😉
21
Fairy, gremlin, troll, whatever they are, anonymity certainly offers a steep discount on the price of courage. I wonder how many would click the thumb down if it required a name and email address like any other comment.
Then you never know who’s who on the Internet anyway. Are you sure my real name is Roy Hogue? And if it’s not, how would you know?
I think yellow isn’t a strong enough word. Let’s call it what it is, cowardice.
20
I’m Roy Hogue.
10
No, no you’re not.
10
Mark you’re meant to say “NO, I’M ROY HOGUE”
10
No matter how many ways they reassess the same data and rejig the models, they aren’t getting a match.
Very true. There is a stage left out though. This rejigging is done by
scientistsclimatologists. This will be proclaimed as being the only possible interpretation, as this is the conclusionscientistsclimatologists. What is more Skepticalscience will state it and the comments will be full of people loudly applauding.It is analogous to a judicial system where the prosecution packs the court and jury with stooges, cheering the prosecution and shouting down any attempt at cross-examination or defense.
111
Yeah…and the world lives in the economic prison they have sentenced Humanity to.
31
An intuitive thing I know, but I can’t help but get the feeling that this is the year when the skeptic climate scients really reclaim the science, and perhaps by validating alternative conjectures rather than just pointing out the flaws in the Carbon caper.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/on-climate-science-and-all-those-leaks/
Pointman
101
I’m getting the same impression, Pointman.
31
Let’s hope….
41
Excellent article by the way Pointman. Like you, I am an optimist with same work ethic, I really connect with how you think.
31
🙂
00
I’m with you on that, too.
21
I believe the paragraph just before the “AMIP models are better…” headline should reference Figure 2.
11
Those who have training or practical, real world expertise in modelling know straight up that the so called “Climate Models” are not Models.
Every time I hear the word Model I cringe, because it reminds me of the true purpose of present day models which is to muddy the waters and overpower sensible analysis.
Powerful computers are not necessary to have good model, at least to start with.
If the basics are correct and meaningful they are probably also simple.
By definition, a model has certain requirements that must be met:
First a model has one or more input factors which are variable (eg atmospheric CO2 level)
and when this variable changes the model must register changes in another factor (eg
atmospheric temperature) which shows conclusively that the two factors, input and output,
are linked.
The most important requirement of any Model however is that it must duplicate reality.
By definition a model successfully duplicates reality in some range of operation and allows extension, and
prediction, outside the measured limits used to verify the model.
A model which does not duplicate reality is by definition NOT A MODEL.
Global Climate models have NEVER duplicated reality in any way and by definition cannot be claimed to be
models.
KK 🙂
143
KK, I totally agree.
And it must continue to duplicate reality over time.
121
It doesn’t have to duplicate reality, but the differences must be a known quantity.
I’m familiar with hydraulic models, and there are several different types.
There is the real scale model of the terrain and site type of model. These do not duplicate reality because grass, trees, viscosity of water, and the vortices caused by turbulence do not scale with the model. But the differences can be calculated and/or calibrated.
Then there are the computer models. These give much greater detail of what’s going on inside the model at any given time and location. But MUST be calibrated and logic-checked with known flow rates.
One must keep in mind at all times when using modelling software; the computer is blind and stupid. It doesn’t know when it’s made a mistake.
31
“It doesn’t know when it’s made a mistake.”
The only ‘error’ computers regularly make is because of digital decimal approximation.
In every other case, computers do not make mistakes.
They do however, do exactly as they have been programmed to do,
and that can be where major problems start to occur.!!
53
I guess, though, that they want people to THINK that their “models” duplicate reality. The word itself is used to pull the wool over the eyes.
31
KK the number 1 law for computer models is
SHIT IN = SHIT OUT.
In The case of Climate Science, the input of these models has been mountain loads of UN Agenda 21 style SHIT.
113
Sonny
I’ll remind you of something you wrote last March:
“My thermodynamics and fluid dynamics lecturer used to say about the power of computer modeling that we cannot even model accurately stirring a cup of tea for more than a fraction of a second. Why? Because we have not solved the fundamental equations of fluid dynamics.
Long term climate prediction based on underlying theory (eg radiative forcing of CO2) is utter bullshit.
The best climate predictions simply observe past climatic cycles and project them forward”.
——————————-
A very good illustration. If you cant model the movement of the stirring in a cup of tea how are you going to model the atmospheric movement created by hundreds of thousands of heat sources and sinks and quantify the resultant so that you can isolate the CO2 Heating signal?
There are some things that are so difficult to measure and quantify that you might as well say it’s impossible.
Also you have probably quoted the best definition of the perfect model for this problem in your last line:
” The best climate predictions simply observe past climatic cycles and project them forward. ”
In this all factors are visible , the only problem is the time scale of 140,000 years per cycle which is too long for Climate Scammers to get any value from.
KK
30
You don’t need to completely solve fluid dynamics to know that a quick stir mixes the milk, and a bit more of a stir the sugar too.
02
Brilliant Mattew
Now, the spoon’s path and energy input is very quantifiable.
The forces and chemistry involved in the movement of air and heat in the World’s Atmosphere are Not Quantifiable.
Unfortunately the CO2 : Atmospheric Dynamics thing is an unsolvable problem.
Sometimes there are NO answers and that needs to be acknowledged.
it is UNSCIENTIFIC to claim that a “models” can be produced to link CO2 levels to Weather.
That’s not rocket science it’s reality, and it bites.
KK 🙂
30
Have you asked your lecturer if he agrees, and agrees with your conclusion from his anecdote, being “it is UNSCIENTIFIC to claim that a “models” can be produced to link CO2 levels to Weather.”
01
Matt
My lecturer died long ago but he passed me and so had confidence I understood it.
He would probably say this:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/#comment-1234985
KK
10
It does seem strange that any sort of self respecting academic would state that something is “unscientific” simply because they can’t do it at a particular moment of time. I’m not at all convince that we need to completely solve the fundamentals of fluid dynamics, but even if we did need to why wuld saying it could be done be “unscientific”.
Actually I now see that it was Sonny’s lecturer, and as Sonny appears to have the intellect of a 7 (not very smart) 6 year old he is probably just making stuff up.
00
Mat
The whole point of having a “lecturer” appears to escape the comprehension of those who are graduates of the University of SkS.
Through the combined efforts of the Lecturer and the willing Student the student eventually becomes capable of Thinking for themself independently.
This process is known as “Education” and was known to have occurred in Australian schools and Universities before the advent of Man Made Global Warming.
The point being that both Sonny and myself are able to see enormous flaws in the so called CAGW scam and they are so blindingly obvious that there is no doubt of the scam.
KK
00
KK,
Reality isn’t in the lexicon of propagandists. And it angers me that there’s no reality check when the real reality check hits them square in the face.
I don’t do modeling for a living but I have built models of the behavior of several hardware devices — timers — where the time delay is a function of 3 different numbers. I can put that model in a program and use it to get the numbers for the closest match to any arbitrary delay I want. Then I send the numbers to the timer and away it goes.
My model is not validated by wishful thinking or by any theory about the hardware or by any hand calculations I did to verify the algorithm. It’s validated only by putting it into a useful program and demonstrating that the program works as specified.
If it doesn’t work there is no possible alibi for failure.
I was lucky. My first attempt at a fast algorithm worked. If I had not been able to get any arbitrary timing with a computationally tractable algorithm it would have been fatal to the project. Letting the user determine how fast or slow a process will go is a bit of a challenge.
20
Jo, is the text below referring to the last diagram in your article? It seems a bit out of place further up.
“In this graph, the vertical line up from zero is where the dots (which are the model predictions) ought to be if they matched the satellites. The broad horizontal lines are the error margins.”
—————————————————————————
11
Michael, thanks, well spotted. 🙂
Jo
00
Sniff, pout, I pointed that out earlier (comment 8).
00
Some regulars here may have noticed that I have been going after one or two of the trolls who visits this site, and demanding evidence. One of the quotes that Jo uses highlights the reason why I think this is important on several levels. I refer, of course to the quote:
Now, I presume that Jo included this quote because of its scientific relevance, and it certainly supports the rest of the article. But I am more interested in it for reasons other than the science. I am interested in it, for its propaganda value.
I have always been wary of the word “sensitivity”, in connection with climate change. The word has a valid scientific meaning (which I interpret as “instability”), but to the average lay person it means something that must be handled gently, and will quickly start to hurt if handled roughly. The underlying propaganda value is therefore in the concept that the climate is a delicate thing that must be respected and treated with extreme care. There is a fine line between pleasure and pain, and this is extended to imply a fine line between a benign climate and catastrophic disasters.
Another part of this quotation that has propaganda value is the phrase, “… future projections of anthropogenic global warming” in relation to climate sensitivity. As it stands the sentence implies that, “anthropogenic global warming”, is a given. It is actually presented as the rationale for the rest of the sentence.
Both of these phrases have become part of the general language of climate change, and so project their subliminal message every time they are used.
That is why I believe that it is important to always question pronouncements from people who just fire cliches into any debate.
282
Nicely put, Rereke. The CAGW leaders are first and foremost manipulators.
101
Re Instability and sensitivity – Flannery is a contradiction.
Richard Neville, writes –
http://adbusters.org/magazine/105/biggest-wake-call-history.html
21
“sulphur could be inserted into the atmosphere to block the sun’s rays and slow global warming”
Oh yeah! Bring on the next ice age!!!
So, what exactly are Flannery’s (or anybody’s) qualifications in geo engineering? What planet will they experiment on to make sure they do not harm us?
61
I thought Flannery was a Botanist?
KK
00
I guess that 2007 was a bad year in Aus then… 🙂
10
Yes…BUT….acknowledging human nature one must accept that opinions are not re-moulded upon the basis of reason. Cliches…memes as the fashion has it (the concept of a meme being perhaps the only true example of what it purports to refer to) are ultimately only defeated by other cliches.
Whilst the scientific debate is an important basis for judgement among those able to engage in it, the AGW regime was not created on the basis of science but cultural manipulation. The only way it will be dismantled is also by cultural manipulation.
By and large the sceptical community is composed of rational and argument oriented people. They will never succeed in influencing popular thought. To influence popular thought, and politics, it will be necessary to get semiotically dirty and launch a wave of counter-cliche and subverting counter-hysteria.
I am highly impressed by the technical knowledge displayed on this blog…as by our host. The comments illustrate engineering and statistical expertiose way over my head. I agree with those who say “social science” is an oxymoron…largely used by morons too, but no amount of “real”science will free us from the stranglehold of these AGW bar-stewards.
To fight back requires using the skills that the social-oxymorons have in plenty. Their graduates fill the ranks of advertising, marketing and campaigning organisations. I draw the line at military psy-ops however, which as far as I can see is an antiquated joke. The young who arethe foot-soldiers of AGW fascism adopt these tactics with ease.
This is “my” arena and in that context I can tell you no amount of reasoned debate or factual evidence will ever succeed by itself.
30
Hi Ace.
A comment that is worth reading a few times to let it sink in.
The chain of events you have drawn is very useful in seeing how to fix things.
The chain:
1. The neeed for spare cash.
2. The target: Australian Tax Dollars.
3. Control of Treasury can only be gained via the ballot box so a lot of votes are needed.
4. Create the “Just Cause” that will attract voters and turn them into Soldiers.
Yes the young and those with electronic social mobility are the new FOOTSOLDIERS; an ideal group with
just enough education to be manipulated but not quite enough to know they are being used.
Then away you go marching down the new yellow brick road to social equality, justice and unfortunately a
huge expenditure of effort and resources to create nothing more than
A GIGANTIC SCIENTIFIC, SOCIAL AND HUMANITARIAN DEAD END.
Save the planet; Control the cash.
The answer to the problem lies in understanding how it was put together.
Can we wish ourselves good fortune in our attempts to dismantle the cultural shibboleth of CAGW.
KK 🙂
20
““sulphur could be inserted into the atmosphere ”
sulphur + water can lead to sulphuric acid…
what could possibly go wrong. !!
Flannery is a total moron and an idiot !
61
If you WANTED to “acidify” the oceans, pumping sulphur into the atmosphere would seem to be a very good way to start !!
Flannery is a total moron and an idiot !
20
No complaints from me, Rereke.
I’ll summarise my (rant) views in two points:
1)
Someone who predicts “OOoo.. it’ll be hotter for a few years, then, maybe, colder for a year” is no better than someone who predicts “Australia might regain The Ashes soon, then perhaps loose them again in England.” Not many ways to be wrong with those kind of predictions. On that basis, no one should be taken seriously as a pundit, whatever the outcome. If I confidently predict a England win, and they get spanked 5-0 then I ought to realise I don’t understand it and have been spouting BS. (Unfortunately, I wasn’t surprised when it did happen).
By analogy, the “tropospheric-hotspot” is one of the very few climate-predictions that pushes the boat out a little bit further. And, every time, it comes up with ‘Fail-Ville Arizona’. Ignoring all the trivial predictions that seem to be wrong as often as not, what other serious predictions have the models made? I’m all ears.
2)
You are right to be leery of the term “Climate Sensitivity”. Not only is it attempting to be linguistically seductive in a touchy-feely, save-the-penguins sort of way, it is also scientifically pernicious. Pernicious in that it pre-supposes, and reinforces, the preconception that there exists some kind of number which may be usefully near enough to constant to be worth bandying back and forth in an argument which runs thus: “It’s big…..No, it’s small…..No, it’s big, I tell you…..No, it’s definitely precisely in the middle….”.
There is no good reason to think why it should be any of these over some ill-defined range of CO2 or temperature. It could be up and down like the Assyrian Empire. It is an abstraction from the models. I’ve heard of no realistic way it can be measured. It merely extends the false credibility of the models.
If someone tried to persuade me about, say, the fingerprint-region of atmospheric IR absorption in the same fashion, I could at least point to the physical measurements and say “It looks like a picket-fence to me. How are you going to describe that with one, two, or even twenty-two numbers. What the hell, lets call it big, no, small, no…”
20
Subtlety is lost on the average catastrophe enthusiast. And I don’t mean any sarcasm or humor. If they could distinguish between shades of gray they would never believe the BS. The realization that there is overwhelming evidence that climate is long-term stable is what finally kicked the last bit of doubt about global warming right out of me.
10
Excellent.
Definitely too good and factual to be included in AR5.
Another case of: Alarmists like models (mostly ones with per-determined conclusions), while sceptics prefer observations and facts.
I had not seen before the charts with zero change coloured red – classic alarmism!
121
I recall somebody important getting confused between model runs and experimental data.
*Tweeking values in a model is not an experiment*
70
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 and more 🙂 can’t do enough thumbs up 🙂
10
And I could think of some nasty objects and a fairly sensitive insertion point whenever Flummery is mentioned.
Mind you, it’s not as if ‘battery’ acid would rain down on us but it shows the extent these clowns will go to in order to stay on message.
10
Peter Miller It’s true that sceptics prefer observations and facts but where are sceptics to get their facts from? I would think that with a few exceptions, most who post here are really dismayed about the continual manipulation of land based temperature records. I’m so so sick of reading that all of a sudden the data are (are is correct as data is the plural form of datum) changed. These changes are nearly always down in the case of older records and up in the case of more recent records, thus showing a more marked rise in temperature increase in recent years. The Climategate emails showed climate scientists put the hard word on editors not to publish results that question AGW. Any such results that are published immediately attract the ire of those such as the odious Grant Foster and his ludicrously inappropriately named blog site “Open Mind” and the sneering Gavin Schmidt from RealClimate. And of course the MSM scrupulously ignore anything that disagrees the concept of CAGW. So where are we to get facts from? For example is the UHI effect taken into account or not? The alarmists say it is and is negligible while the sceptics say it isn’t and is significant. Where are the proper comparisons? There’s so much spin on climate change, particularly now it is so heavily politicised
10
That makes Jo a Hot Spot Harpy!
.
[… climbs back in his box and closes the lid really tightly …]
40
The sooner everyone accepts that, because the atmosphere is regulated by the atmospheric pressure gradient, changes in CO2 will not have any warming effect whatsoever, the sooner this CAGW crap can buried deep in the rubbish ip where it belongs !!
63
we’ll know if we’ve turned a corner when the Coalition announces that David Evans will be their top scientific adviser!
92
Here is another science paper that also says there is no clear evidence of the Hot Spot:
New paper shows no “hot spot” as predicted by climate models, invalidates AGW
LINK
11
Here is one more worth a look:
Paper finds the Sun controls climate & ‘gives no support to theory of anthropogenic climate change’
Excerpt:
Abstract: Statistical analysis is carried out for satellite-based global daily tropospheric and stratospheric temperature anomaly and solar irradiance data sets. Behavior of the series appears to be nonstationary with stationary daily increments. Estimating long-range dependence between the increments reveals a remarkable difference between the two temperature series. Global average tropospheric temperature anomaly behaves similarly to the solar irradiance anomaly. Their daily increments show antipersistency for scales longer than 2 months. The property points at a cumulative negative feedback in the Earth climate system governing the tropospheric variability during the last 22 years. The result emphasizes a dominating role of the solar irradiance variability in variations of the tropospheric temperature and gives no support to the theory of anthropogenic climate change. The global average stratospheric temperature anomaly proceeds like a 1-dim random walk at least up to 11 years, allowing good presentation by means of the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models for monthly series.
LINK
20
My apologies for being very OT here.
One for the Malthusians to ponder.
Where is Paul Ehrlich when you need him…
00
Birth rates are falling in most of the world. World population is expected to peak at 9 billion on the basis of falling fertility rates.
41
And fertility rates would almost certainly fall faster if the deep greens in the UN, World Bank etc actually tried to improve the living standards of the poorer countries in the world by allowing them access to affordable energy from fossil fuels rather than insisting that they use expensive and unreliable solar and wind power, which they can’t afford.
It should be obvious that, (immigration aside), the population of most countries with a high standard of living is falling, in some cases dangerously so. The answer to population pressure is not the ‘Green’ solution of ‘Back to Nature’ (might work but unfortunately most of the world’s population would probably starve to death as a result), rather is it to improve the education and living standards of the poorer countries (particularly of their women) to the point where the average family has fewer children.
40
John Brookes
I would say that the 4% is made up of the Global Warming fraternity, their financiers and politicans who deem it their right to control every one elses life and opinions.
60
The NASA water vapour project (NVAP) uses multiple satellite sensors to create a standard climate dataset to measure long-term variability of global water vapour. The Heritage NVAP data from 1988 to 2001 on a 1 degree by 1 degree grid, by three vertical layers was recently released on a NASA website. Water vapour content of an atmospheric layer is represented by the height in millimeters (mm) that would result from precipitating all the water vapour in a vertical column to liquid water.
The global annual average precipitable water vapour by atmospheric layer and by hemisphere is shown in this graph. The image did not preview.
The graph is presented on a logarithmic scale so the vertical change of the curves approximately represents the forcing effect of the change. The water content of the L1 layer, surface to 700 mb, is about 20 times greater than in the L3 layer, 500 to 300 mb, whereas the forcing effect of a change in the L3 is approximately 20 times the same change in the L1. From 1990 to 2001, the water vapour changed by: L3 -0.55 mm, L2 -0.57 mm, L1 +1.73 mm. The decrease in L3 is equivalent to an 11 mm reduction in L1. The water vapor decline in the L2 and L3 layers overwhelms the forcing effect of the water vapor increase in the L1 layer, so the water vapor feedback is negative.
The precipitable water vapour by layer versus latitude by one degree bands for 1988 is here and 1991 is here. Interesting that in the Arctic, going to higher latitudes, the water vapor in 1991 in the 500 to 300 mb layer goes to a minimum of 0.53 mm at 58.5 degrees North, then increases to 0.94 mm near the North Pole.
Here is an animation that shows the amount of water vapor over the earth in the 500 to 300 mbar pressure layer.
The NVAP-M project extends the analysis to 2009 and reprocesses the Heritage NVAP data. This layered data is not publicly available but is expected to be released about March 2013. The total precipitable data is shown in this graph. There is no evidence of increasing water vapor to enhance the small warming effect from CO2.
The projected “hot spot” above the tropics is due to the theory that water vapor increases in the upper atmosphere with warming. Radiosonde humidity data shows that water vapor declines in the upper atmosphere. Here is a graph from NOAA radiosonde data showing the specific humidity declining at the 400 mbar level. Climate models assume that relative humidity in the upper atmosphere remains constant, but the NOAA radiosonde data here shows relative humidity strongly declining.
Both the satellite and radiosonde data shows declining upper atmosphere humidity, so there is no reason to dismiss the radiosonde data. The declining humidity is consistent with the lack of a tropical tropospheric hot spot. For further info, see here.
70
Your “further info” link is a monumental summary of all the observations, it could take hours to understand that page, but thanks for writing it.
Which is what my intuition would tell me would happen too. So it is amazing that this is not what happens during warming.
Amazing also that the climate models we were supposed to trust for decades were based on intuition and not on observed relationships!
So… Lindzen’s Iris Effect was vaguely on the right track with thunderstorms, but Misckolski’s constant optical depth greenhouse was right in the end?
Reader “turnedoutnice” has frequently cited experiments by some fellow called Leckner in 1970s (matched by modern day MODTRAN predictions) that showed (IIRC) that small amounts of water vapour extinguish CO2’s radiative absorbance ability. Did Leckner show experimentally on a small scale the same phenomenon Misckolski has shown on the global scale? And is the mechanism one of simple gas species displacement (ie a chemical mechanism) or is the end result on temperature due to spectral theft of energy by water (ie a radiative mechanism)? A question for science perhaps, but does the average punter really care in the end as long as there is no incremental CO2 GHE and therefore no CAGW?
So that’s it then; The Earth has a self-regulating thermostat.
Pack up everybody, tell Waffle to switch off the lights on the way out, the climate scam is over. (if only)
21
Thanks for your kind comment on my Climate Science Essay.
The turnedoutnice comment has a link to an article by John Eggert that claims that there is “NO change in emissivity at path lengths greater than 500 Bar–cm and minimal change after a path length of 100 Bar–cm” and therefore, there is no change in “radiant heat absorption or forcing” when CO2 concentration increase above 200 ppm.
This is incorrect and does not agree with line-by-line radiative code calculations which use the HITRAN database of absorption lines. My article “Out-going Longwave Radiation and the Greenhouse Effect” here utilizes the HARTCODE line-by-line code to determine the greenhouse factor, being the difference between the surface and top-of-atmosphere radiation fluxes, as a function of CO2 concentration, keeping water vapor fixed. The graph on page 4 confirms that the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations on the greenhouse effect is indeed logarithmic up to 680 ppm.
The Solomon2010 paper shows that “Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. …this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25%”
The exact reason for the decline in water vapor is not clear. It is not a chemical reaction. CO2 forcing may intensify the hydrodynamic cycle and deep convection, making thunderstorms cross-sectional area smaller, thereby increasing the area of upper atmosphere subsidence, which dries the upper atmosphere.
10
How is it that this and many similar studies, the latest being by the Hebrew University showing no AGW signal and including BEST’s data among the rest, have not been considered by the IPCC?
The only possible reason I can think of is a decision to filter studies to only include those which continue their sole purpose for existence. Otherwise the growing preponderance of new data demonstrating there is no discernible influence from added CO2 would mean their existence is superfluous.
I cannot quite believe however the entire media is paid off, despite the almost total absence of such vital studies from their pages, while BEST made world headlines before it hit the doormat for days afterwards. Surely it would be possible for a couple of newspapers and maybe a TV company to report these new studies removing the essence of the warmunist agenda almost entirely so the public would at the very least be adequately informed of the latest state of the science? The majority of people do not dig around for hours on the internet with the slim chance they will eventually discover such gems and nuggets, they need the information thrown at them with force by the media. That is why Obama had a second term and Gillard is dismantling Australian society piece by piece. The general public simply have no effective access to such information as long as it remains hidden online, the very fact the same bunch of people always comment on virtually every sceptical site bears this out in practice, we already know this information generally while new data affirms and consolidates it. But until it hits the mass media people will keep voting Green.
70
David,
They are paid off through the press gallery system.
Political news is (apart from the odd celebrity wardrobe malfunction) the hottest news around. So, without ongoing Gallery access to politicians (or their spin doctors), most senior editors would not survive for ten minutes in the job. They therefore toe the line when somebody from a political party (it matters not, which one) emphasises “the importance” of climate change.
Some people here will point to Agenda 21 as being the root cause, but I think it is simpler than that. Most Western Governments get significant income from various consumption taxes – VAT or GST – and they have realised that their tax take will be higher if they can load the cost of production of essential items, electricity generation being one example, by cross subsidising “renewable” resources, etc.; all in the name of addressing climate change – “The major challenge of our times”.
If you want to see a debate in print, look to those newspapers who do not have Press Gallery access, or to the analytical blogs such as this one.
Politicians know how to control the Press Gallery. They are now looking for ways to control the Internet as well. Coincidence … ?
40
Davos Report Calls For Additional $14 Trillion To Restrain Global Warming
January 23, 2013
The human mind is limited in what it can grasp. One million sounds very much like a billion, and a billion sounds much like a trillion. Our minds switch off. Think of it this way: One million seconds comes to about 11-and-a-half days. A billion seconds comes to about 32 years! A TRILLION seconds comes to 32,000 years!
50
And the squillion dollar question of course is: Who is making all that money that is to be spent?
30
Backslider
THE PIRATES OF FINANCE [ excerpt from a 66 page pamphlet titled “The Pirates of Finance, the story of a great conspiracy” by Stanley F. Allen. published around 1929 ]
40
As Dr Hans Jelbring explained in his peer-reviewed journal paper a thermal gradient (lapse rate) evolves (due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics maximum entropy requirements) and water vapour leads to a lower gradient due to intra-atmospheric radiation, as is well known. This means that water vapour lowers the equilibrium surface temperature by about a third, so, instead of being about 300K, it is only 288K. So, contrary to the IPCC claim that water vapour has a positive feedback, it in fact has a significant cooling effect.
Doug Cotton B.Sc.(Physics – Sydney Univ)
40
A B.Sc in Physics … ?
I do hope you didn’t, you know, actually do any, ahem, experiments or anything?
Jo gets visitors from SKS and other catastrophist websites, on occasion, and they tend to be easily offended when somebody mentions empirical evidence. Red rag to a bull. Best not to mention it.
41
I think what Doug is saying is this:
IF you took a sample of atmosphere every kilometer as you ascend and bring it back to Earth in a sealed container then.
You would find that the Pressure in each container, when tested, would be seen to diminish with height.
Also if the temperature had been taken at each sampling spot, the measured pressures would have a relationship with those Temperatures.
KK 🙂
BSc (Met), BSc – Majors in Psychobiology, Neuroscience, Abnormal Psychology and Statistics.
10
So not only can you determine who is crazy, you can also count them?
30
Hi TS
Most of us are a bit lacking in some area of perception, and the good thing about the human race is that there is usually someone else close by who can make up for the slight individual “weakness”.
That’s why, as a group, we have survived so well.
It is mainly those, like the well paid executives of G$$npiece, WWF, IPCC and so on, who start to become dysfunctional because they are not allowing input from others; but there is a reason for their deliberate isolation.
Sometimes it is best to avoid input that may make your Money Collection system appear to be criminal or unethical.
KK
10
should that be “bye”?
00
Non-existence of a hotspot proves the models were wrong.
But failure to match observational data now also proves them wrong.
But they’re only models. What did you expect ?
Ok , so dishonest, ignorant and gullible politicians have used them to add false plausibility to a catastophist agenda, and scientists (who should have known better) stood by and let this happen.
20
Hi Joe,
When you say:
“But they’re only models” you are being too generous to the warmers.
There is a Model, highlighted by Sonny, of the CO2 levels interacting with world “Temperature” and it is available as a plot made up of data from ice cores.
Unfortunately it shows a cycle length of approximately 140,000 years and also that CO2 levels are a function of “Temperature”.
Unfortunately also for the CAGW meme, it strongly implicates Solar variability and orbital mechanics as the main areas of input to world “Temp” and so this “Model” is not useful to the IPCC, WWF and Gr$$npeace in their quest for world domination.
At another level, this Green Army are just the foot soldiers to the Big Business interests and bankers who manipulate the world for their own purposes.
I STRONGly suggest that all warmers find out who is pulling their chain and making monkeys out of them.
KK 🙂
10
Table 2 of the paper
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018/pdf/1748-9326_7_4_044018.pdf
say the T24 (upper troposphere) and the TLT (lower troposphere) trends, using version 5.4 of the UAH MSU for the period 1981 to 2008 are 0.086 C/decade and 0.082 C/decade, respectively, giving an tropical upper troposphere amplification of 1.05.
I can’t find an archived 5.4 version of this data, but the current version 5.5 gives an amplification of 0.973 for the same period. In fact, the trend of the upper troposphere is less than the trend of the lower troposphere.
The upper troposphere trend T24 is 1.1 X middle troposphere – 0.1 X lower stratosphere.
The trends from 1981 to 2008 are:
T24 0.0867 C/decade
TLT 0.0892 C/decade
Amplification ratio = 0.973
But using ALL the data from 1979 to 2012 the trends are:
T24 0.0616
TLT 0.0645
Amplification ratio = 0.956
The amplification ratio reported in the paper of 1.05 for UAH is very different from that calculated with the current version 5.5 data. (I find it very hard to believe this discrepancy is due to the different version.)
The data and trend calculations are given in the Excel spreadsheet at:
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/Ken/MSU_UAH_Tropics.xls
00
Stephen Po-Chedley kindly provided the archived v.5.4 UAH MSU data that was used in his study.
I successfully replicated his results. I calculate a tropic 1981 to 2008 TLT v5.4 trend of 0.0817 C/decade, which compares well with his reported 0.082 C/decade. The version change from 5.4 to 5.5 changed the 1981 to 2008 trend from 0.817 to 0.0892 C/decade. This is despite the statement in the readme6Oct2012 file on the UAH website which announced version 5.5 “The net effect of this change is minuscule on the trend – from +0.137 to +0.138 K/decade for LT and +0.047 to +0.043 for MT.”
To summarize, the amplification of upper to lower troposphere trends for UAH data are:
1981 to 2008 v. 5.4 1.05
1981 to 2008 v. 5.5 0.973
1979 to 2012 v. 5.5 0.956
Climate Models Ave. 1.19
00
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/#more-25053 […]
00
If you don’t get the lapse rate right, you dont’t get anything right.
00
[…] the atmospheric layer temperatures than current satellites can provide. Over time, approximately 28+ million radiosonde measurements have taken […]
00
Both RSS and UAH are showing a “hotspot” in figure 4 and on interannual timescales it is matching models.
Your title for this post seems ridiculous.
12
I couldn’t help but chuckle when reading Nice One’s Thorne reference. Thorne has been gobsmacked too many times to count now.
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/
Nice One, don’t be a drone. The observational evidence is overwhelmingly against climate model predictions of the “hot spot”.
00