Bishop Hill Consistency
Nov 6, 2013 Climate: Models Climate: Surface 
Image from www.despair.com (click to buy)The failure of the GCMs to reproduce real world temperature trends is becoming quite awe inspiring. In a post at WUWT, Michaels and Knappenburger have compared actual temperature trends over periods of different lengths (but all ending in the present - either 2012 or 2013) with the output of the IPCC corpus of climate models. They find that trends as long as 27 years are inconsistent for 2012 period ends. If you bring the data bang up to date it's even worse
For data ending in the year 2013, the category of marginal inconsistency extends out to 37 years and is now flirting with lengths exceeding 50 years, and trends of lengths 11-28, 31, 33, and 34 (!) are clearly inconsistent with the climate model simulations.
Some people say you need a fifteen year trend to falsify the models, some say seventeen, others say you need thirty. It's beginning to look as if the day when all excuses fall by the wayside is fast approaching.
Reader Comments (16)
It was all neatly summed up by Robert Brown at WUWT in his post ‘Let’s face it. The climate has never been more boring.’
The simple fact is that the heat generation physics imposed on the GCMs is a juvenile fantasy no professional scientist or engineer can support. the implication is that those who do support this junk science are being unprofessional.
How about awarding a prize to the climate scientist(s) who produces the model that defies, or perhaps I should say "denies", reality for the longest period? We could call it the Michael Mann Prize.
The prize would have to compete with the Nobels in prestige and therefore would have to be made of something priceless. How about a hockey stick made from the wood of the "most influential tree in the world"?
Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html
@Roy Priceless! :-)
For chapter and verse on the extensive failings and failures of GCMs, see http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Chapter-1-Models.pdf.
It is one of the wonders of the age that blatantly inadequate models of the climate system are treated with so much respect in political if not scientific circles. Where these circles overlap, in the leadership of the Royal Society for example, the political seems to be winning over the scientific.
Of course if the world started cooling that would be the fault of fossil fuels too - just like the 70's ice age scare.
Won't make a blind bit of difference to the Greenshirts. The course is set. Too much power at risk.
I've already had one tell me that the models don't matter, because everyone knows the weather is changing.
Give them time and the message will be, 'the models never mattered. It's all about droughts/storms/floods/fires/acidification*'
* Pick one.
OT - just "helped" juniors homework on getting photos of power sources printed - of course it included solar panels, windmills, tidal, wave power.
So I added a picture of a shale gas pad and a nuke before printing ;-)
Morph,
can you stick this graph on the back to add some perspective: Energy output
Your child will learn a useful lesson.
It does not matter how long they say it will take for the CAGW theory to be falsified. When you reach that point a new target has already been established. It is like the day of the end of the World being put out when nothing happens.
You just need the various organisations coming out with their "it's worse than we thought" predictions and "evidence" at regular intervals
.
WHO is the latest to add "fuel to the CAGW fire" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24833148
"The levels of gases in the atmosphere that drive global warming increased to a record high in 2012.
According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), atmospheric CO2 grew more rapidly last year than its average rise over the past decade."
Eyeballing NOAA http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
I can't see any real acceleration and it looks as if the trend is flattening of late.
Let's also add a bit of extra alarmism "Since the start of the industrial era in 1750, global average levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by 141%." My guess is they mean 41% (280 to 395ppm), but that does not sound alarmist enough or they need a new calculator.
The only thing consistent is the endless stupidity.......
/////////////////
From the BBC today:
'Scientists believe that the new [CO2] data indicates that global warming will be back with a vengeance, after a slowdown in the rate of temperature increases over the past 14 years.
"The laws of physics and chemistry are not negotiable," said Michel Jarraud. "Greenhouse gases are what they are, the laws of physics show they can only contribute to warming the system, but parts of this heat may go in different places like the oceans for some periods of time," he said.
This view was echoed by Prof Piers Forster from the University of Leeds. "For the past decade or so the oceans have been sucking up this extra heat, meaning that surface temperatures have only increased slowly. "Don't expect this state of affairs to continue though, the extra heat will eventually come out and bite us, so expect strong warming over the coming decades."
////////////////
Right....so the laws of Physics and Chemistry are non-negotiable except when the deep ocean is postulated to absorb heat without it being detected at the surface, thereby breaking every thermodynamics law plus Henry's law to boot. Notwithstanding that this magic mechanism is unidentified and clearly unpredictable, Foster is convinced it will disappear just as suddenly despite normal Physics and Chemistry telling us that such a massive heat sink is able to absorb as much as we could possibly give it.
You'd think that an ever rising CO2 level coupled with an ever reducing rate of rise of temperature would telegraph the message to at least some of these clodhopper journalists that consensus climate researchers clearly don't have a clue what really drives global temperature. Not that a benign or beneficial +0.6C per century was ever anything to get worked up about in the first place!
The Creep:
A poem.
The Creep arisen
From its midden.
Beware.
Ordure.
© 2013
PM Walsh
Catastrophic panic
Seizes the human carbon cornucopia;
Dashed on frozen ground.
==================
@JamesG: Forster is being unprofessional because no professional scientist can ever accept Sagan/Houghton's claim that a planetary surface emits IR energy to the atmosphere as if it were an isolated body in Space in equilibrium with its zero point energy. This is the most basic physics imaginable because to believe otherwise creates imaginary energy, a perpetual motion machine.
John Peter above is sadly right. We are dealing with a form of apocalyptic religion, and experience shows that falsification of the prophecy tends to strengthen and not weaken belief. Its not that the beliefs are religious, they are plainly ordinarily scientific and concern matters properly the subject of scientific inquiry. In addition, the theories are couched for the most part in legitimate scientific terms, so they are capable of testing and are being tested.
What is religious is the feelings and committment of the movement at a grass roots level, where the scientific theories are cited in one liners like a Party Line. This is what will continue to strengthen even as the scientific establishment weakens.
It has happened in well studied examples that the leadership levels of these movements become sceptical and worried quite early, but they feel unable to back off given the pressure from the grass roots. This is probably happening here.
The Guardian environment pages are a true mine for future historians of this mania.
Stuck Record; it's already happening. Obama's announcement of his climate change bill features just such a list....but he picks all of them.