Are AGW climate models a failure

So let's get right down to brass tacks. This subject comes up quite a bit in just about every thread on AGW but I'm not sure a thread has ever been devoted soly to this question. Have the climate models for AGW failed? Time to step up and state your piece. I'll start and I say yes they have failed. Your turn.

"A group of scientists recently put out a new study confirming the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming. That study made headlines, but what went largely unnoticed was a major admission made by the paper’s authors: the climate models were wrong.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. “We can’t ignore it.”

“Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,” Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist, echoed in a blog post.

This is a huge admission by climate scientists and a big victory for skeptics of man-made global warming who have for years been pointing to a mismatch between climate model predictions and actual temperature observations."



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/s...ling-to-predict-global-warming/#ixzz4RLDzDLn4

"95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
February 7th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):"
Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.

I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.

Yet, that is the direction we are heading."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/


"The controversial global warming aka climate change “hiatus/pause”, lingering like a bad smell to climate alarmists for nearly two decades, is back in play with a record drop in global temperatures since the middle of the year.

Temperatures are heading south rapidly. The latest huge drop despite record and increasing CO2 emissions.

Must be nearing revision time for the theory of Catastrophic Global Warming with regards to CO2-sensitivity?

•••

Via GWPF :

(Bolds added by Climatism)

RECORD DROP IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURES AS EL NINO WARMING ENDS
Date: 27/11/16
David Rose, Mail on Sunday
Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record. According to satellite data, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino.
The news comes amid mounting evidence that the recent run of world record high temperatures is about to end.

The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, has been caused by the end of El Nino – the warming of surface waters in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America.

Some scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, head of Nasa’s climate division, have claimed that the recent highs were mainly the result of long-term global warming.

Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.

The new fall in temperatures suggests they were right.

Big El Ninos always have an immense impact on world weather, triggering higher than normal temperatures over huge swathes of the world. The 2015-16 El Nino was probably the strongest since accurate measurements began, with the water up to 3C warmer than usual.

It has now been replaced by a La Nina event – when the water in the same Pacific region turns colder than normal.

This also has worldwide impacts, driving temperatures down rather than up."

https://climatism.wordpress.com/category/failed-climate-models/

 

This was NASA 2014:

'Hiatus' in rise of Earth's surface air temperature likely temporary

According to satellite records the global climate just dropped the largest drop in recorded history, 1C. This is because the El Nino ended. We are back to hiatus temperatures now.

 

Nonsense.

15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred during the 21st century.

Do you know how many years there have been in the 21st century?

Nothing changed to suggest that much heat suddenly decided to leave earth.

The rational explanation is that it went to locations that we haven't been monitoring closely, and subsequent investigation has confirmed that.

 

Media headlines do not science make. Do you know what ENSO is?

 

And it was hotter in 1250 AD than it is now. I guess those Vikings were emitting carbon like mad men.

 

Fact.

I keep seeing that statistic, but it seems those who quote it do not understand: if you measure someone's height every year starting at birth, when they hit 30, 16 of the 16 tallest years will be the most recent 16 years. That doesn't mean the guy is still growing.

CAPISCI???

Do you know what "No longer increasing" means?

Everything is always changing.

No it's not, and no it hasn't.

 

Well, please cite a reference on that.

Climatologists are saying that the recent pause in warming came mostly because heat started going into the oceans more than it had. In other words, earth was still heating even if surface air temperature increases paused for a while.

The idea that the earth slowed in collecting heat seems highly unlikely, as it would require some physical change in earth or some change in the sun that is large enough to account for the change. Science I read says that most of the heat is being found in the oceans, where we hadn't been doing as much measurement.

I don't know how to make sense of your human height thing. We know when and why human growth accelerates, slows, stops, and even why it can reverse. There are a lot of scientists working on that for earth's surface temperature, too.

 

Your answer fits on a bumper sticker as per usual

 

Yes there are now new hypothesis presented to explain the failure of the original hypothesis so we are getting a multi layer hypothesis built on a foundation of shifting sand that fails real world test time and again

 

The alarmist response to this thread has been very weak and I don't blame them. They either have to deny the shifting view of main stream AGW scientist that it has failed to warm as predicted or they have to accept that and then explain why they are still alarmist. Why we need to change our ways and fast. Must hurt being impaled on the horns of a dilemma. OUCH!

 

So NASA is now nonsense. Check.

 

Yes, some answers need supporting documentation, logic, understanding of science, etc.

The fact I stated does indeed fit on a bumper sticker.

 

You're now in the realm of attacking how science works.

That's sad.

But, I don't really have time to try to explain how science works other than to say that it absolutely does depend on constant step wise refinement.

That is a strength. No explanation by humans can possibly be fully correct out of the box. Not only are we imperfect, but were talking about how to proceed when we don't have full information - discovery! So, any process oriented toward discovery is absolutely required to have some method of accommodating that discovery.

 

AGW is not being defined it's being protected with entirely new hypothesis to explain or should I say find excuses for its failing real world test.

 

They were. The Vikings were crude and farted a lot.

 

I'm not very interested in unsupported pronouncements such as this.

I know your opinion.

 

If you can explain how concocting an entirely new hypothesis(hypothesis B) ,to prop up another failing hypothesis (hypothesis A), is refining hypothesis A be my guest. Seems pretty convoluted to me and not real science which test hypothesis to see if they work or fail and are accepted or rejected based on that and that alone. Real science does not look for new hypothesis to salvage failed ones. You are getting out of science and into politics here or even religion.

 

Please cite.

I know of no such wholesale replacement.

 

There were at least 60 different hypothesis for the missing heat that caused the current hiatus. The one probably most memorable is that it was hiding in the oceans. Shortly after that the government adopted Karl et. al. paper which changed the recorded temperature record again making the hiatus disappear then it was claimed that the hiatus never happened. This was after about 18 years yet the more accurate satellite record still shows a hiatus.

 

Having lots of hypotheses is not a measure of anything other than the high degree of activity in this field of science. It's exactly what we should WANT.

Yes, NOAA corrected for the fact that temperatures taken by moving vessels read higher than temperatures taken at static locations such as buoys or shorelines. Those records were left alone in part because the accuracy of the reading is not as important as is the change over time. But, the advent of large numbers of buoys meant that a correction needed to be made to the ship data as the skewing started to be a significant factor.

I don't see anything wrong with that, do you? Really, all it means is that our understanding of sea temperature is improving.

And, we're getting better at using satellites. Satellite don't pass over the exact same spot all the time, plus their orbits gradually decay over time. Satellite data has to be corrected for stuff like that, and improvements in doing so have made satellite measurements even more accurate.

These advances have left little room for any warming hiatus.

 

​

You have that backwards. The Karl et. al. paper used ship intake data and bucket data as preference over the buoys designed for climate science.

Why do you think satellite data still shows the hiatus or slow down in warming?

 

It's not all about that one paper.

Ship data was corrected by using data from Buoys. They calculated the temperature differential between buoys and ship data methods, locations, etc. That correction was then applied to ship data which accounted for the "hiatus".

My understanding is that it was the ship data that led to the "hiatus" theory and that the buoy data is considered more accurate. Buoy data led toward no "hiatus".


I think scientists are considering satellite data and surface data to be in accord and that no significant hiatus actually occurred. I've seen notes from scientists who do believe that heat was absorbed by oceans at a greater rate for at least a while if not continuing, but it's a little hard to tell where that fits in, as these things usually have to work their way through the system.

For example, those working on ocean data would need time to react to the finding that ocean temperature data has been corrected. And, that takes time.

 

No, ship data is warmer. Ship bucket data is notoriously unreliable. The Argo buoys showed no increase in temperatures so the data was skewed towards the ship temperatures. That changed the historical data to be warmer.

 

Huh? A reference on what? What sort of reference could possibly be required as evidence that if you measure someone's height every year from birth to age 30, the 16 biggest numbers will be from the 16 most recent years, even though the numbers are not increasing?

But not that the previous 30-year increase came mostly because heat started coming out of the oceans more than it had....?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

Or maybe it wasn't, and the surface air temperatures only stayed high because previous oceanic heat was coming out.

Highly unlikely, despite the fact that such change has been the constant for billions of years?

Science I read says the ocean temperature readings are being increased after they are taken.

The point is, the observation that the last n readings are the highest does not indicate they are increasing.

 

There is nothing even slightly similar to that going on, so I ask for a cite on what the heck you're talking about. Just a cite, please.

This has more recently been resolved, as the issue was that the temperature of the ocean was appearing to change when what was actually happening was that two different measuring mechanisms were being used, and more and more data from the more accurate method as being included. So, now the old method has had the appropriate correction applied, and it shows that the "hiatus" didn't happen.

BUT, besides that our temperature data goes back farther than 30 years previous. And, I don't see where your idea makes any difference.

OK. My understanding of what happened is that the old method of taking ocean temperature was to drag measurement equipment behind ships. More recently, we've been adding more and more static buoys that measure temperature - new technology that's not cheap as the buoys stay put and communicate data through satellites, live through storms, etc. It turns out that the dragging method is less accurate - I don't know for sure, but it may have to do with the fact of being dragged or with the fact of having a nearby ship.

All temperature readings were being averaged together, and the fact that more and more buoys were being added meant that buoy data became more prominent - making it look like an actual change in temperature had happened - thus it looked like a "hiatus"!!

Scientists worked on that and figured out the correction needed to make the "dragged" readings more accurate. Basically, they compared static buoy data from near the appropriate ship measurements.

The result of that was that the "hiatus" went away since it turns out it was just an issue of measurement method.