Oh here we go...
Discussion
Jacobyte said:
jshell said:
No.
NASA clearly stated that a 15 year pause or hiatus in warming trend would demonstrate a clear failure of the models. We've hit well over 15 years and the bandwagon still rolls on, and on, and on...
That's what they said in black and white.
Please can you show where they state that? NASA clearly stated that a 15 year pause or hiatus in warming trend would demonstrate a clear failure of the models. We've hit well over 15 years and the bandwagon still rolls on, and on, and on...
That's what they said in black and white.
I'd like to use it as a reference, as it flies in the face of the alarmists' comeback that the "pause" is acceptable as part of multidecadal variation, and disagreement at that level is blatantly not consensus.
TIA.
Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita and authors in Germany pointedly acknowledge (in their paper) that even at the 2% confidence level the model predictions don’t match reality. The fact is, the model simulations predicted it would get warmer than it has from 1998-2012. Now some climate scientists admit that there is less than a 2% chance that the models are compatible with the 15-year warming pause, according to the assumptions in the models.
In a brief paper they go on to suggest three ways the models could be failing, but draw no conclusions. For the first time I can recall, the possibility that the data might be wrong is not even mentioned. It has been the excuse du jour for years.
While a 10 year “pause” passed the basic 5% test of statistical significance, by 13 years the pause was so long that only 2% of CMIP5 or CMIP3 models simulations could be said to agree with reality. By 16 years that will be 1% of simulations. If the pause continues for 20 years, there would be “zero” segments that match.
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir.,
44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22
years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center,
24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir.,
34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40
years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33
years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28
years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48
years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
Lotus 50 said:
That's a more general take on the lack of warming, though, not an attempt to defend the performance of the models.otolith said:
That's a more general take on the lack of warming, though, not an attempt to defend the performance of the models.
The last of the three papers linked to the page is the key one. "This paper has considered recent developments in quantifying the long term warming of the climate to increases in greenhouse gas concentration in the light of the recent pause in global surface temperature rise, and whether this has radically altered estimates of climate sensitivity and therefore future projections of global surface temperature rise.
Despite the fact that the first decade of the 21st century has been a period during which there was very little global mean surface temperature rise, the range of TCR estimates from the CMIP5 models lies within the TCR derived from observations, including this period. Indeed it can be shown that even the projections from much earlier models encompass the subsequent surface temperature observations, including the most recent decade. Therefore the physical basis of climate models and the projections they produce have not been invalidated by the recent pause in global surface temperature rise.
When projections from the newer CMIP5 models are combined with observations, and specifically including the surface temperatures from the last 10 years, the upper bound of projections of warming are slightly reduced, but the lower bound is largely unchanged. More importantly, the most likely warming is reduced by only 10%, indicating that the warming that we might previously have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years.
Observational constraints on the ECS are more problematic because of uncertainties in energy storage in the Earth system. Again the models continue to provide a consistent range of values for the ECS, lying within the uncertainty range of the observationally-based estimates.
In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat, as highlighted in the second report. In particular, this report emphasises that the recent pause in global surface warming does not, in itself, materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century."
Lotus 50 said:
The last of the three papers linked to the page is the key one.
"This paper has considered recent developments in quantifying the long term warming of the climate to increases in greenhouse gas concentration in the light of the recent pause in global surface temperature rise, and whether this has radically altered estimates of climate sensitivity and therefore future projections of global surface temperature rise.
Despite the fact that the first decade of the 21st century has been a period during which there was very little global mean surface temperature rise, the range of TCR estimates from the CMIP5 models lies within the TCR derived from observations, including this period. Indeed it can be shown that even the projections from much earlier models encompass the subsequent surface temperature observations, including the most recent decade. Therefore the physical basis of climate models and the projections they produce have not been invalidated by the recent pause in global surface temperature rise.
When projections from the newer CMIP5 models are combined with observations, and specifically including the surface temperatures from the last 10 years, the upper bound of projections of warming are slightly reduced, but the lower bound is largely unchanged. More importantly, the most likely warming is reduced by only 10%, indicating that the warming that we might previously have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years.
Observational constraints on the ECS are more problematic because of uncertainties in energy storage in the Earth system. Again the models continue to provide a consistent range of values for the ECS, lying within the uncertainty range of the observationally-based estimates.
In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat, as highlighted in the second report. In particular, this report emphasises that the recent pause in global surface warming does not, in itself, materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century."
Thank you. So, to summarise - we don't really understand the system well enough to know why our models are failing to match the observations, but we still trust them going forwards."This paper has considered recent developments in quantifying the long term warming of the climate to increases in greenhouse gas concentration in the light of the recent pause in global surface temperature rise, and whether this has radically altered estimates of climate sensitivity and therefore future projections of global surface temperature rise.
Despite the fact that the first decade of the 21st century has been a period during which there was very little global mean surface temperature rise, the range of TCR estimates from the CMIP5 models lies within the TCR derived from observations, including this period. Indeed it can be shown that even the projections from much earlier models encompass the subsequent surface temperature observations, including the most recent decade. Therefore the physical basis of climate models and the projections they produce have not been invalidated by the recent pause in global surface temperature rise.
When projections from the newer CMIP5 models are combined with observations, and specifically including the surface temperatures from the last 10 years, the upper bound of projections of warming are slightly reduced, but the lower bound is largely unchanged. More importantly, the most likely warming is reduced by only 10%, indicating that the warming that we might previously have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years.
Observational constraints on the ECS are more problematic because of uncertainties in energy storage in the Earth system. Again the models continue to provide a consistent range of values for the ECS, lying within the uncertainty range of the observationally-based estimates.
In conclusion, the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate climate models or their estimates of climate sensitivity. It does however raise some important questions about how well we understand and observe the energy budget of the climate system, particularly the important role of the oceans in taking up and redistributing heat, as highlighted in the second report. In particular, this report emphasises that the recent pause in global surface warming does not, in itself, materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century."
What I think they are saying is - "There has been a pause in near surface atmospheric warming over the last 10 years, this pause isn't consistently shown in other temperature observations and in any case is within the uncertainty bands of the models so doesn't show that they are incorrect. Using the more recent data in climate forecasts doesn't make a big difference to the latest set of projections. Oh and the pause is likely to be due to Pacific Ocean circulation changes"
Edited by Lotus 50 on Friday 5th December 15:11
Lotus 50 said:
What I think they are saying is - "There has been a pause in near surface atmospheric warming over the last 10 years, this pause isn't consistently shown in other temperature observations and in any case is within the uncertainty bands of the models so doesn't show that they are incorrect."
Except of course that statement is now out of date and the pause is now at least 17 years 6 months and from the McKitrick analysis, over 19 years. This is approaching the 20 year point where there are no model segments reflecting reality and all IPCC models are out of the frame.The so-called pause is only one way in which climate models fail exceptionally well.
Modelled troposphere hotspot (brown blob in model gigo not seen in the three data plots) note also the error in the size of stratosphere cooling (blue bar).
Models get feedback wrong, ERBE satellite data top left, model gigo in the other charts.
Vertical profile model gigo failures against data alongside, only near the surface - left hand axis - is there any agreement (see earlier comment about suboptimisation and ask why fiddlefactoring at the surface is happening) also see below for the trend over time for more model gigo at the surface.
1990 IPCC temperature trend from gigo prediction fails against HadCrut surface and UAH satellite data.
There are various questions that anyone with any remaining belief in the climate models is welcome to answer.
What progress with cell size, also rigid paramaterisation and the vertical profile problem?
Sun et al (2012) showed that climate models can't even get surface solar radiation right, with an error more than 20x the claimed forcing from doubling carbon dioxide. What are the modellers doing about that?
Drawing partly from Sun et al as above, have errors in precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations been addressed?
Is anything happening on underestimating the magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport?
Where have advances in the treatment of poleward transport of energy by the ocean circulations got to?
How about overestimates of LW exchange in the tropics and underestimates over high latitudes?
How many of the many natural forcings are now modelled and how many have a high LOSU (level of scientific understanding)?
What account has been taken of the fact that the planet's climate sensitivity has clearly been over-estimated?
Is overall feedback still taken as positive in the face of evidence to the contrary from e.g. Lindzen and Choi (2011)?
The initial value problem, that'll be tricky always, surely...not least in deterministic terms!
Has computing power suddenly increased by many orders of magnitude recently to the point that it's adequate, even taking into account the new £90m computer?
Jacobyte said:
jshell said:
No.
NASA clearly stated that a 15 year pause or hiatus in warming trend would demonstrate a clear failure of the models. We've hit well over 15 years and the bandwagon still rolls on, and on, and on...
That's what they said in black and white.
Please can you show where they state that? NASA clearly stated that a 15 year pause or hiatus in warming trend would demonstrate a clear failure of the models. We've hit well over 15 years and the bandwagon still rolls on, and on, and on...
That's what they said in black and white.
I'd like to use it as a reference, as it flies in the face of the alarmists' comeback that the "pause" is acceptable as part of multidecadal variation, and disagreement at that level is blatantly not consensus.
TIA.
turbobloke said:
Except of course that statement is now out of date and the pause is now at least 17 years 6 months and from the McKitrick analysis, over 19 years. This is approaching the point where there are no model segments and all IPCC models are out of the frame.
Given that the Met Office page was last edited in August this year and they haven't revised it, I'd suspect that they would disagree with your assertion that the pause has been over 17 years (the info given says it's less than 10). As for the other questions, you're probably better asking them directly rather than posting on an ostensibly car-related forum!Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
Except of course that statement is now out of date and the pause is now at least 17 years 6 months and from the McKitrick analysis, over 19 years. This is approaching the point where there are no model segments and all IPCC models are out of the frame.
Given that the Met Office page was last edited in August this year and they haven't revised it, I'd suspect that they would disagree with your assertion that the pause has been over 17 years (the info given says it's less than 10). As for the other questions, you're probably better asking them directly rather than posting on an ostensibly car-related forum!I have asked those questions and more, I got two holding replies then nothing.
No I meant that the level of questions you're asking (even if rhetorical) seem out of place here given that i'd doubt many Met Office, Haleigh Centre, IPCC scientist frequent these fora...
Interesting that you simply got a holding response then nothing more. I thought Govt orgs were duty-bound to provide responses. Did they give a reason?
Interesting that you simply got a holding response then nothing more. I thought Govt orgs were duty-bound to provide responses. Did they give a reason?
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
TB would have a better idea of exactly where. I do remember downloading the document and reading it for myself, so I know it exists! I'm sure it was from NOAA. I'll try to find it...
Righto I'll have another dig through files 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-yea...
ETA - that 2012 article is also poignant, as we're now over the 17-year period mentioned within. And still it rumbles on...
Edited by Jacobyte on Friday 5th December 16:34
Jacobyte said:
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
TB would have a better idea of exactly where. I do remember downloading the document and reading it for myself, so I know it exists! I'm sure it was from NOAA. I'll try to find it...
Righto I'll have another dig through files http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-yea...
ETA - that 2012 article is also poignant, as we're now over the 17-year period mentioned within. And still it rumbles on...
The point Slingo made on climate models is inaccurate btw.
"if you disagree with the models you are disagreeing with the immutable laws of physics"
Not quite. Climate models are not solely 'laws-of-physics' models. With the exception of some fluids effects including pressure, gravity, advection and so on, the physics and chemistry (and biology) in climate models amount to tuned paramaterisations not immutable laws of physics.
This has been pointed out before several times (by me) and including by one of the Prof Pielke duo if I remember correctly.
If she knew that, why say what was said; if she did not know, what was she doing standing there emitting?!
turbobloke said:
Jacobyte said:
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
TB would have a better idea of exactly where. I do remember downloading the document and reading it for myself, so I know it exists! I'm sure it was from NOAA. I'll try to find it...
Righto I'll have another dig through files http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-yea...
ETA - that 2012 article is also poignant, as we're now over the 17-year period mentioned within. And still it rumbles on...
The point Slingo made on climate models is inaccurate btw.
"if you disagree with the models you are disagreeing with the immutable laws of physics"
Not quite. Climate models are not solely 'laws-of-physics' models. With the exception of some fluids effects including pressure, gravity, advection and so on, the physics and chemistry (and biology) in climate models amount to tuned paramaterisations not immutable laws of physics.
This has been pointed out before several times (by me) and including by one of the Prof Pielke duo if I remember correctly.
If she knew that, why say what was said; if she did not know, what was she doing standing there emitting?!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff