Schrödinger's cat

I lifted the graph from Tamino's website here.

You can download the original RATPAC datasets here from the NOAA website.

Oh dear, certainly not a biased source then.

We could, and frequently do, go round in circles quoting results from activists on both sides.

That does not let you off the hook that climate models predict much more warming than is observed.

The climate community puts enormous effort into creating so called evidence of each year being warmer than the previous one.They have produced about seventy unconvincing papers that the pause did not happen or has ended.

It is much simpler to look at the predicted warming for the last twenty years and compare it with reality.

Game, set and match.

Martin A
I haven't even looked at your paper yet. I have found what I was thinking about in this chart. Which by the look of it comes from John Christy at University of Alabama. I've now got to locate the source of the original.

Sandy S

Three snags with that graph, two scientific and one political.

Firstly, the average of the 295 CMIP 5 models still used larger projected forcings than actually occurred. They therefore project a higher rate of warming than actually occurred. The models which most accurately reflect reality have projected forcings which match reality and project temperatures which match reality. Those models are about 1SD below the average. This point has been made repeatedly by Raff and myself, but does not seem to have sunk in.

Secondly, you are not comparing like with like. The CMIP5 models are designed to be comparable with HadCRUt4. They generate temperature 5ft above the land surface or 5ft above the sea surface.
Depending on the algorithm, thee satellite and radiosonde data combine measurements from the troposphere and lower stratosphere. They would be expected to show lower readings than the surface datasets or a forcing adjusted CMIP5.

Thirdly, your graph came from John Christy, a recognised sceptic. Oh dear, certainly not a biased source then. ☺

Schrödinger's cat

The problem of perceived bias in sources is an old one. Since the only global data sources are controlled by those you regard as part of the. Conspiracy, I see no solution.

Anything presented here from a non-sceptic will be automatically suspect and liable to be rejected by you. Similarly anything presented by a sceptic will be suspect and liable to be rejected by me.

BEST sums up the problem. It was founded as an independent check on NOAA, etc. When it came out with the same results as the other land surfaces it was rejected by the same sceptics who financed and encouraged it.
Two high profile sceptic scientists took part. One accepted the data and changed his beliefs. The other rejected the data and kept her beliefs.

Richard Feynnman would regard the former as correct, since data trumps belief.

EM, "skeptics" rely on misunderstanding the issue of projected vs actual forcings in order to be able to claim, as the graph does, that "models don't work". We can rely on their misunderstanding not going away. On your second point, I thought the same of similar graphs, but I'm not so sure now. It might well be like-with-like in two ways. Firstly I believe CMIP5 models can also project tropospheric temperatures and, giving the benefit of the doubt, I imagine that is what Christie has plotted. Secondly, the CMIP5 models are famously not 'validated' and neither, so it transpires, are the satellite data series (nor any other series perhaps).

Entropic man
As long as you recognise that MRDA to your warmist sources then it is taken as read on my part that people who take a sceptical, Missourians if you like, view on any research showing impending frying to death are regarded by you as beyond the pale

Repeating the insult Ad nauseam is of no benefit as far as I'm concerned, which is why I mentioned the source in the first place. I can only assume that you made the comment for Raff's benefit, as are my links.

"EM, "skeptics" rely on misunderstanding the issue of projected vs actual forcings in order to be able to claim, as the graph does, that "models don't work". We can rely on their misunderstanding not going away."

It looks like we can also rely on you to refusing to recognise that without knowing future forcings whatever the 'models' produce is as much use as chicken entrails for predicting future climate.

It looks like we can also rely on you to refusing to recognise that without knowing future forcings whatever the 'models' produce is as much use as chicken entrails for predicting future climate.
Jan 22, 2016 at 9:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterNial

Nial. You are exaggerating the capabilities of the models. Even if the future 'forcings' were known, the models would still be *worse* than useless. Why?

- CO2 has increased faster than foreseen. Models still over-predicted warming. So even if future 'forcings' were known, the models could still be relied on to be wrong.

- You are far better off with no model and saying "we are buggered if we know what will happen" than having a model that predicts wrongly and believing in its wrong predictions.

Simon Hopkinson

"For some unknown reason, the alarmists who promote models generally as therefore being effective in predicting the future don't insist that the "failed" models in the ensemble be dropped, and remain silent on the rather unexciting future which is predicted by the "validated" models.

I just can't think why this is so. There has to be a reason, but what can it be?"

The purpose of the CMIP5 model is to ask "What if?". It was written as an open source tool for any researcher wanting to investigate the effect of different forcings on future temperatures.

Each model run starts using measured forcings up to 2005. Forcings after 2005 can be preset or randomised as required by the researcher.

Since the model was made available the results of about ,300 runs have been published Some used conservative projected forcings, some extreme.Together they make up the ensemble we have been discussing.. Since the original runs,we have an extra ten years of real-world forcing and tempperature data. This can be used to validate the performance of the models.

IPCC is tasked with supplying scientific advice to policy makers. In AR4 and AR5 they used the available ensemble projections to illustrate the probable outcome of different CO2 emission pathways. For this purpose there are no failed or successful runs. Each run projects future temperatures under a specific set of projected forcings. Not surprisingly, models projecting large CO2 increases projected large temperature increases. Runs projecting low CO2 increases projected lower temperature increases. Each run represents a policy choice and its consequences.

It is not up to IPCC to choose which policy to follow. That is a choice for politicians and their voters.

SandyS

So that is what your reference to Mandy Rice Davis meant! I should get out more.☺

Living in Ireland, I am familiar with the Pale of Dublin.The problem in the climate debate is deciding which side of the Pale is "inside" and which is "beyond". For a Michigan sceptic his local Republican lodge is " inside". For most climate scientists, who are probably in a better position to judge, "inside " is AGW.

In search of unbiased input I tend to go to the published science literature where possible. Most papers are written by scientists to be read by scientists and fdo not have an overt political agenda. Unfortunately, like Mears et al, it can be hard to get clear, brief, information out of the dense detail. Then one looks to the bloggers.

By contrast, consider the Christy graph you linked. IIRC it was presented at the recent Congressional hearing run by Senator Cruz. That is about as political as you can get. It may be cynical, but I saw a sceptic scientist telling a sceptic senator what they both wanted sceptic Republican voters to hear. Whether or not it was scientifically valid was irrelevant. It was designed as propaganda.

Martin A

If you really want to trade insults, sobeit.. I find myself considering new vocabulary to describe you. Most of them are synonyms for "senile old fool"

Having got that out our systems, let's get back to the models.

Methinks we are looking at the CMIP5 model in different ways

I look at the CMIP5 as a mathematical description of the land, ice, ocean and atmosphere, describing their physics. One puts in starting conditions at time t. The model solves the simultaneous equations until time t+n and expresses the result in a format comparable with actual climate data. While the starting conditions and the physical processes are known are known, the final result is unknown unti one runs the model.

You seem to think that the climate conspiracy decided what results it wanted the model to produce, and then worked backwards, writing software to match.

This is the difference between a genuine criminal trial and a show trial. The former examines the evidence and uses it to derive a verdict. A show trial started with the verdict and then fiddled the evidence to suit.

Are you seriously suggesting that the output of thousands of scientists over 200 years is a deliberate plot by "them" to control the world? If so, " senile old fool " seems entirely inadequate.

Simon Hopkinson

Politics is the game politicians play.

The problem with SandyS' Michigan sceptic is not his attitude to the science of AGW. It is that accepting the probblem requires him to react in ways he finds politically unacceptable. It is easer to find excuses to do nothing.

Ultimately this is why we will probably sleepwalk into a future climate crisis.

Radical Rodent

Are you a Michigan sceptic?

Jan 22, 2016 at 12:31 PM | Entropic man
OK I've got it, warmists and greens talking to warmist about model outputs and green politicians is apolitical pure science from unbiased scientists with no financial interest in the outcome, everything else is highly politicised mumbo-jumbo.
I hadn't realised that, as a retired teacher, you'd be unaware of the great Mandy Rice-Davies quote which I thought everyone of my age remembered, it's become slightly modified since she first said it. In clisci it applies to all warmist statements as far as I can see. It's a variant of this GBS quote. Peter being the taxpayer and Paul the host of Climate Scientists.

Links provided for the sorcerers apprentice.

Martin, is a graph from Steven Goddard the best you can do? He has no credibility with realists and I got the impression he had little with "skeptics" either. Since you are implying widespread fraud, you should try to do better.

... all to see in the graphs of their predictions of global temperature.