Climate Change

Climate Computer Models Right After All: What Global Warming Hiatus?

Does new study reconcile controversies about the 'global warming hiatus'?

|

BestThermometerMeryllDreamstime
Meryll/Dreamstime

"We are now much more confident than ever that human influence is dominant in long-term warming," declares a team of climate researchers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology led by Iselin Medhaug. Why? Because, among other things, they claim to have reconciled the differences between the computer model projections and observational temperature records. The article, "Reconciling controversies about the 'global warming hiatus'" appears today in Nature.

First they note that there are definitional problems in the scientific literature. The global warming hiatus can describe the period between 1998 and 2015 in which there was (1) no discernible increase in global average temperature, (2) a dramatic slow-down in the increase warming from the prior late 20th century trend, and (3) a slower increase than projected by climate computer models. They also explore the proposed causes for the hiatus including external drivers such as solar variability and aerosols from volcanic eruptions; the possibility of a lower equilibrium climate sensitivity in response to added carbon dioxide; and internal variability, especially periodic long-term shifts in regional ocean temperatures.

Another important concern is how the observational temperature records are measured and adjusted over time. For example, the U.K.'s Met Office's HadCRUT4 surface temperature data set was adjusted to take into account that the Met Office's previous datasets had used sea surface temperatures rather than air temperature measurements over the oceans. Overall, this adjustment resulted in higher global mean surface air temperatures. They also took note of the fact that the observational temperature records have poor coverage in remote areas like the poles, central Asia, and central Africa. Interestingly, the researchers used observational surface temperature datasets in their analysis, ignoring the satellite and weather balloon temperature datasets.

Medhaug and his colleagues adjusted the computer climate model runs by taking into account factors like changes like variations in solar radiation. In addtion, they applied results from computer models that best mimicked the observed internal variability of ocean temperature changes to estimate their effects on global air temperature to update the overall projected model trends. They do reanalysis of the HadCRUT4 dataset using model outputs to estimate temperatures in regions that are not adequately covered by observations. This produces a new dataset with higher global average temperatures.

They then compare the results of 84 simulations from 36 different climate models with the orginal HadCRUT4 and their adjusted HadCRUT4 data. Once the researcher make all of these adjustments they find that there is …

… excellent agreement between models and observations (Fig. 5, dark blue versus dark orange lines).

NatureClimateModelReconcileMedhaug
Medhaug et al.

Most discrepancies between models and observations can therefore be explained by the state of the natural variability, incomplete or biased forcings, and observational limitations; a complete explanation requires a combination of all of these (Fig. 5). When the effects of short-term temperature variations such as the El Nin?o Southern Oscillation (ENSO), of volcanic aerosols and of solar variability are removed, the anthropogenically forced global warming signal has not decreased substantially. This supports the current scientific understanding that long-term global warming is extremely likely to be of anthropogenic origin.

One point that the Swiss researchers stress is that climate models cannot and should not be expected to make projections encompassing relatively short periods such as a decade. Consequently, they argue that when climate variability from whatever source slows (or presumably) speeds up the rate of increasing temperatures due to man-made global warming that does not invalidate model projections of where average temperatures will be by the end of this century.

These researchers do acknowledge that the apparent hiatus spurred a lot of useful scientific work on measuring ocean temperatures, attempts to take into account missing surface temperature data in remote areas, further efforts to nail down more precisely how the earth's atmosphere will respond to added carbon dioxide, and improvements in the climate models.

Basically, the researchers reconciled the hiatus controversy by lowering modeled temperature trends while raising the observational temperature trend. This is fascinating work and it will be interesting to see how it stands up to the test of time and data.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Confident About Israel-Palestine Peace Deal, Comey 'Mildly Nauseous' About Prospect of Impacting Election, Cassini Spacecraft Flies Through 'Big Empty': P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Basically, the researchers reconciled the hiatus controversy by lowering modeled temperature trends while raising the observational temperature trend.”

    Does anyone else here think that the people out there are taking crazy pills???
    OF COURSE THERE IS EXCELLENT AGREEMENT!! FFS, raise the measured temps and lower the modeled temps and lo and behold, the gap closes.

    “They do reanalysis of the HadCRUT4 dataset using model outputs to estimate temperatures in regions that are not adequately covered by observations. This produces a new dataset with higher global average temperatures.”

    And when there is a lack of observational data, estimate using the very same model outputs. NO SHIT that the new dataset has higher global average temperatures.

    THERE IS NO NEW SCIENCE HERE!! This is just playing with the models and the numbers.

    1. B: To be fair: It is an “analysis” article which means that what they are trying to do is incorporate and synthesize the findings of other researchers. Just FYI, they cite 235 recent climate change studies in their article.

      1. That’s like calling what the Federal Reserve does “capitalism”.

        1. [polite golf clapping]

          1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

            This is what I do.,.,.,.,.,.. http://www.careerstoday100.com

          2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

            This is what I do.,.,.,.,.. http://www.careerstoday100.com

      2. Oh, come on Ronny, it is pure BS…

      3. I say we use the starting point of 2017 and take 50 years worth of climate readings and see where we are climate wise.

        That is plenty of time for the die hard climate sky-is-falling-types to die and see what the Gen Zers come up with.

        1. Transclimate? Climate microaggressions? Climate safe spaces?

          1. Climate appropriation!

      4. The number of studies is irrelevant if they quote each other and rely on the same source material. Camile Paglia proved that the often quoted statistic for deaths by anorexia was just tail-chasing when she picked up the phone and called the Anorexia and Bulimia Foundation of America only to find that there were only a handful of deaths. The original reporter confused the number of *total cases* with deaths. This was quoted by 2. 3 quoted 1 or 2. 4 quoted 2, 3, or… you get the picture.

          1. It demonstrates that it is possible for one instance of error to be quoted uncritically in multiple subsequent studies, which are then quoted uncritically in even more subsequent studies, until you end up with dozens (or even hundreds) of studies that all agree because they are all interdependent. Citing the number of studies as a source of authority is a fallacy unless you can be sure that these were actually independent studies.

      5. No – they are saying they don’t even know what the current temperature is until they adjust it to fit their projections.

      6. No – they are saying that they don’t even know what the current temperature is until they fit it to match their projections.

        1. Even worse, their models cannot accurately model the weather from the past. If they enter all the data we know, their results aren’t the same as the actual recorded weather.

    2. B: To be fair: It is an “analysis” article in which they try to incorporate and synthesize a lot of recent research. They are not claiming to have produced “new” science; just put it together in a more comprehensive way. FYI, they cite 235 research articles.

      1. You’ve been hit by the squirrels too, it seems. The server has no favorites.

        1. No, he changed his response a bit.

          1. The squirrels now steal posts for a few minutes, leaving you to believe that it never posted. This results in differences when you type out what you think you just said. Been there, done that!

            1. That’s funny right there…. Or oddly accurate.

            2. OK – that means I’m not being shadow banned. I feel better now.

            3. “This results in differences when you type out what you think you just said’
              But I could produce an analysis in which I try to incorporate and synthesize a lot of recent research to reconcile those differences to fit my computer models.

      2. That is a fair point. And I freely admit I haven’t read the actual article yet. However, the quotes you used were quite suspicious sounding.

        1. It like they read people’s comments about the issue between climate models and actual readings and decided to just make that discrepancy go away…poof!

          If they can make that disappear, why not make “excessive” CO2 disappear too?

      3. A “Review Article” ??

    3. “Medhaug and his colleagues adjusted the computer climate model runs by taking into account factors like changes like variations in solar radiation.”

      From what I’ve heard, anybody who speaks of variations in solar radiation is related to global temperature is a climate change denier of the very worst sort. Will Iselin Medhaug be on the docket with Willie Soon in future climate Nuremburg trials?

      1. Willie deserves a Clio Award from the right hand side of K Street for creative cherry picking at the expense of the honor of the scientific profession.

  2. “Basically, the researchers reconciled the hiatus controversy by lowering modeled temperature trends while raising the observational temperature trend. This is fascinating work and it will be interesting to see how it stands up to the test of time and data.”

    That seems to be a fundamental approach to a lot of Global Warming research.

    1. Has anyone noticed that these Climate Cassandras Ron worships are always anonymous faceless bureaucrats with no names, degrees or university training mentioned? The Petition Project–the one that stopped ratification of Kyoto sellout–lists degreed scientists by name and by state. Realclimatescience too deals in actual declarative predictions of a global Ice Age by the quacks who (when identifiable) invariably turn out to be Vichy Occupiers of the Citadels of subsidized State Science changing their failed prophesies from Warming to “Change” as frauds are exposed.

      1. That was some impressive verbal diarrhea.

        1. What?


  3. One point that the Swiss researchers stress is that climate models cannot and should not be expected to make projections encompassing relatively short periods such as a decade. Consequently, they argue that when climate variability from whatever source slows (or presumably) speeds up the rate of increasing temperatures due to man-made global warming that does not invalidate model projections of where average temperatures will be by the end of this century.”

    As with any scam, it is vitally important to give yourself enough time to escape (or in this case, die of old age) before your theories are proven to be utter horseshit.

    Not that they’re wrong in the sense of how long it actually takes for an entire planet to warm or cool, and I completely agree with you Ron in that it will be interesting to see how their models pan out.


    “Basically, the researchers reconciled the hiatus controversy by lowering modeled temperature trends while raising the observational temperature trend.”

    I remain skeptical of data that’s been mangled and ‘adjusted’. I predict that their outputs will be closer, but still non-predictive in any meaningful sense. It’s troubling that their ‘solution’ to a complete pause, that wasn’t predicted, was to adjust the data further.

    1. Though Baron Fourier , Sir John Tyndallm and Svante Arrhenius have all been dead for a century, they still all got the anthropogenic CO2 forcing trend right– though the earth’s most complex dynamic system remains too complex to model decadally, the tre end has been a no brainer for two centuires running.

      While beta is the ground state of climate model software , this isn’t Microsoft– every new release is more realistic than the last.

      1. But it was the same trend that’s been happening since the last bottom in the Little Ice Age. The trend has been warming for 300 years at about the same rate despite the fact that human CO2 emissions have gone parabolic.

    2. BY: Of course, one popular explanation for some climate researchers is that the “pause” occurred in atmospheric temperatures while the oceans were merrily sucking up the extra heat when they weren’t looking. Eventually, the extra heat will emerge from the oceans and heat the atmosphere.

      1. More than likely the extra heat emerging from the oceans is from volcanic activity.

        1. A volcano able to change the temperature of the ocean to a noticeable degree would be something to see. Even the hundreds of undersea volcanoes that have always been there probably don’t heat the ocean anywhere near as much as the sun shining on the ocean each day. Sobering, right?

          1. Geophysicists started running the integral on underwater volcano heat production and CO2 release back in Eisenhower’s day , and relative to antropogenic atmospheric forcing , the numbers are truly underwhelming- as in millidegrees and tenths of 1 %

            This isn’t sobering, it’s what Drunk Uncle reads in The American Thinker.

      2. Can they point to significantly increase ocean temperatures? Not models…actual readings. Raw data.

        1. First, I’d like someone to state what the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean was in 1900.

    3. Adjusting the data and extrapolating trends, doesn’t sound very much like science to me. What it sounds like is this, “We don’t like what the data says so we’re going to change it to fit our hypothesis, and then spend a huge amount of time and words creating a lie to obfuscate why we did so.”.

      1. So other than spewing generalities and opinions, where’s your scientific counter argument? If they’re lying and falsifying as you claim it should be easy to point out what exactly they’re lying about and back it up with factual data.

        1. Is a scientific counter-argument to “We’re fudging the data” really necessary?

        2. Here’s an article that looks at the data from this study and comes to an opposite conclusion…

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/ 2017/05/04/new-study-confirms-the- warming-pause-is-real-and-revealing/

    4. Can anybody why their models will become MORE accurate the further out they go?

      I cannot think of any kind of legitimate math modeling that is IMPROVED by an increase in the time measured.

      1. ^^This

        It is is like some weatherman made the argument that he could not predict the temperature tommorrow, but he was sure that he would be right on the money for his prediction of the temperature in 2 weeks. And then in 4 weeks, his forecast would be even more accurate.

        How can they say stuff like this with a straight face?

  4. The question being are these adjustments the ewuivalent of Kepler’s insight on the elliptical nature of orbits making tbe Copernican model of the Solar System viable, or the fudge factors that enabled tbe Ptolemaic model able to dedcribe planetary motion?

    I love the idea thst the models are are accurate to a century out, but their onability to track with current climate dies not call them into question, despite trying to model a chaotic system that we may not have accounted for all the significant variables.

    1. What would you expect from the same group of people that refuse to acknowledge that socialism has a calculation problem. Their very jobs depend on denial.

    2. If you know the causal factors of change, you should be able to predict with some accuracy in either the near or long term. The fact they can’t predict in either means they’re missing something large enough to make them consistently wrong. Rather than really looking for what that might be, they continue to play with numbers in a data set that is proven to be essentially valueless. This is because their ‘good’ data set isn’t large enough to be at all useful yet.

      The colloary to this: “…climate models cannot and should not be expected to make projections encompassing relatively short periods such as a decade.”

      …is that your data set also can not be constructed in merely a few decades. This seems so obvious that it must be something only a scientist could miss. Anyone who thinks their ‘accurate records’ go further back than the invention of the satellite is probably being fooled.

    3. If you focus hard enough on the noise , you can go on ignoring the signal indefinitely.

      1. These days Reason should put that on their masthead.

  5. “Overall, this adjustment resulted in higher global mean surface air temperatures”

    Oh yeah?, well, when I finish my “adjustments”, my computer models prove we are actually in an ice age!!!
    Who are you to argue with a Commodore 64??

  6. “Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus'”

    Controversy? The science was settled. Until it wasn’t.

    Teach the controversy, I guess.

  7. The article, “Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus'” appears today in Nature.

    “We’ve been wrong about measured temps for years now. Trust us, we’re the experts.”

  8. Your third paragraph sounds an awful lot like a description of cherry picking data. But, they would never do that.

  9. If the models can’t be expected to be accurate over the course of a decade or so, then there is no possible way to prospectively validate the models.

    Retrospective curve fitting is no way to choose a system of government.

    1. Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government.
      Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

      FIFY

      1. Truer words have never been spoken Dennis!

  10. This is fascinating work

    Uh. Really?

    1. It is if you consider it “climatology porn”.

    2. “This is fascinating work”

      In the same way listening to the Pope is fascinating.

  11. You know… My professors in my econometrics classes never mentioned ANYTHING about adjusting the data to fit the models..

    Not once…

    1. Climate Science is a different kind of math. You would not understand because you are not a climate warrior trying to save EARTH!

    2. Walter Block says Gary Becker told him this when Block’s data on rent control wasn’t fitting the theory.

      1. He didn’t say to adjust the DATA though. If you have a strong theory and reality doesn’t seem to work that way, your analysis is wrong. Supply, demand-free market stuff is very strong theory. If it were wrong the underlying math and logic would necessarily be wrong. If that were the case our technological civilization wouldn’t work, since it’s based on the same principles.

  12. “Medhaug and his colleagues adjusted the computer climate model runs by taking into account factors like changes like variations in solar radiation. In addtion, they applied results from computer models that best mimicked the observed internal variability of ocean temperature changes to estimate their effects on global air temperature to update the overall projected model trends”

    First, HA HA

    Now, since last I checked man didn’t control the solar radiation and we have a hard time changing the ocean temperatures. Doesn’t this show that nature, not man, causes heating or cooling? Space science. this solar cycle has not had as many sunspots as expected. Some are predicting a mini ice age coming up. I’m sure the prophet Goracle will allow us to live in his mansion for warmth.

  13. You know… My professors in my econometrics classes never mentioned ANYTHING about adjusting the data to fit the models..

    Not once…

  14. By simply “adjusting” the source data, I have proven that the number of deaths due to Communism in the 20th century was actually 0!

    I’m confident I can get a job with the New York Times and a Pulitzer Prize out of this.

  15. So someone massaged some data into a shape that fit the conclusion they already had? FAKE NEWS

  16. We could just as honestly call it “government-made global warming”. The largest emitters of greenhouse gases BY FAR are governments.

    We might be able to “solve” global warming by calling for a drastic reduction in the size of government. But since none of these researchers will put forth such a suggestion it is safe to call all of them charlatans.

  17. Hopefully we are warming the planet. We’re overdue for the end of the interglacial period.

    1. People laugh when I say this, but it’s clearly true.

  18. There was nothing to reconcile. The “controversy” only came about because “deniers” were cherry picking the data by starting with an uncharacteristically high year. It’s easy to lie with statistics if you get to pick and choose your data.

    1. cref: “Regression to the mean”

    2. It’s not cherry picking to say “this span of 16-17 years in the data shows a flat trend that your theory can’t explain” unless you’d also like to say that it’s “cherry picking” to pick out the trend from 1900-present and declare it to fit the theory perfectly and it’s dangerous so we have to abolish capitalism as soon as possible.

      1. Look up “regression to the mean”. This is how statistics can be used to lie. Find the data that fits your hypothesis and then publish.

        1. I know what it means. And if you look at long enough time scales the 20th century is also just noise.

          http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/……18kyr.gif

  19. If there’s any part of me that’s . . . reluctant to embrace technology, it has to do with the observation that when technology makes it possible to do things we could never do before, it gives the government impetus to control things they never did before.

    We libertarians get too focused on legal barriers. The Fourth Amendment didn’t protect us from technology, really. Once it became possible and sufficiently inexpensive to sift through all our phone calls and track who we’re calling, that’s what the government did. The reason they didn’t do it before wasn’t because the government used to be honorable. The reason they didn’t do it before was because the technology didn’t exist.

    We never heard about being forced to sacrifice our standard of living for climate change before it became possible to measure changes in climate. If we’re still arguing about the interpretation of data, be aware that someday we won’t be. I don’t know what the data will show in the future, but when we develop legitimate confidence in those numbers and IF IF IF they show a problem, we better be ready to argue against authoritarian socialist solutions–with something . . . else.

    1. I don’t know what the data will show in the future,

      It will show that the climate has changed. Hence, global climate change.

  20. I suspect modern academics trend towards utilitarianism–because we’re able to measure outcomes we could never measure just a couple of decades ago. There’s just so much more to do on the utilitarian side. They used to have to argue for utilitarianism when the consequences of making changes to complicated systems were unclear. Complain, primarily, that the utilitarians don’t really know the consequences, and what happens to your argument when that problem disappears because the technology improves?

    Technology lends itself more and more to utilitarianism over time, and, ultimately, there’s no escaping moral arguments about the agency of average individuals. Don’t get distracted by statistics. Authoritarian socialism is immoral. Violating people’s right to make choices for themselves is immoral. Opposition to authoritarian and socialist solutions isn’t just about statistics. It’s a moral argument. In the meantime, I do not look forward to the day that uncertainty over climate change drops below whatever critical level. Gives me the shivers.

  21. Just for my own reference, as I am not a Climatologist, where exactly are we in the 11/22 year sunspot cycle viz-a-viz this “Hiatus”?

    1. The “Hiatus” was caused/started in 1998 because of the very strong El Nino that year. The alarmist picked that year as “the warmest evah!!!”
      However the sun cycles have been in a definite downturn. One of the foremost authorities on the sun is Leif Svalgaard, and can tell you just about anything you’d like to ask, http://www.leif.org/research/ His papers are pretty “thick” for non-solar scientists. But he does do his level best to explain to a layman

    2. Sunspot activity is somewhat below predictions, and this was a weak cycle: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/produ…..rogression

    3. I thank you both.

      So, does that, at all, help to explain this “Hiatus”?

  22. Consequently, they argue that when climate variability from whatever source slows (or presumably) speeds up the rate of increasing temperatures due to man-made global warming that does not invalidate model projections of where average temperatures will be by the end of this century.

    Our predictive models are completely unfalsifiable by any mismatch between our predictions and observed reality.

    We call this Science.

    1. And if you bundle enough models that were all wrong together, you get one that’s right! Of course, you achieve this by only using the bits that were closest to what you observed.

      For SCIENCE!

      1. And then Moody’s gives it a AAA rating and then it can be sold to carbon credit investors in Brussels.

  23. Basically, the researchers reconciled the hiatus controversy by lowering modeled temperature trends while raising the observational temperature trend.

    The Science is Settled!

    1. Can the government reconcile their debt by simply lowering the amount owed and raising the amount paid?

      It seems to be the exact same thing.

  24. One point that the Swiss researchers stress is that climate models cannot and should not be expected to make projections encompassing relatively short periods such as a decade.

    Okay then. Shall we hold them to that?

    1. The researchers also agreed that having your cake and eating it too is totally gnarly,

  25. Reconciling controversies? I thought there was no controversy. Or so I’ve been told over and over and over and…

  26. But does the data weigh as much as a duck?

  27. “Medhaug and his colleagues adjusted the computer climate models…” until they agreed with the data.
    Ha, ha ha ha!

    And when they are wrong again, they will “adjust” the models again.

    1. Well, that’s the way it’s supposed to work. Adjusting the data to fit the models on the other hand…

  28. “They also explore the proposed causes for the hiatus including external drivers such as solar variability…”

    From what I’ve read, any claim that temperature is related to solar variability is tantamount to climate change denialism. Will Iselin Medhaug be on the docket with Willie Soon in the upcoming climate Nuremburg trials?

  29. As a libertarian, I’ll believe global warming is real after sufficient time has passed, so we can form a scientific not proggie analysis. A million years should be the minimum. Get back to me then for my pronouncement.

    1. Alternate DanO.: “I’m so full of shit.”

  30. “They also explore the proposed causes for the hiatus including external drivers such as solar variability …”

    From what I’ve read, attributing temperature changes to solar variability is tantamount to climate change denialism.

    Will Iselin Medhaug and crew be on the docket with Willie Soon in the upcoming climate Nuremburg trials?

  31. “They also explore the proposed causes for the hiatus including external drivers such as solar variability …”

    From what I’ve read, attributing temperature changes to solar variability is tantamount to climate change denialism.

    Will Iselin Medhaug and crew be on the docket with Willie Soon in the upcoming climate Nuremburg trials?

  32. Good point Cato- the solar flux has been warbling down in the third decimal place while temperatures have been rising the last few decades– want to go back to underwater volcanoes?

    1. And human-produced CO2 has been hovering around the third decimal place as well.

      Any more bright ideas?

      Oh, and by the way, let me leave this here: Holocene

      … Hobbit

  33. Ronald is sold on the idea that data needs to be cooked to make it palatable.
    This is the same Switzerland that invented the Luger? hid National Socialist treasure? hosts conventions of econazi Cassandras and ex-scientists preaching imminent doom? What abt the thermometers that since 1920 have recorded a net decreasing temperature trend?

    1. You know who else cooked things to make them palatable…

  34. The important lesson remains, play with the data long enough and you’ll eventually make your models agree with the data.

    1. The opposite is going on here, they are adjusting the data to fit their failed model.

  35. “We closed the gap by cheating adjusting the data.”

    That’s how we should file our taxes: change the data to make the figures agree and presto! We all go to jail.

  36. I would also love to find no problem with “correcting” my predictions after the fact and call it “science”… Very… Nostradamusy…

  37. Basically, the researchers reconciled the hiatus controversy by lowering modeled temperature trends[…]

    What seems to be lost in all this self-congratulatory fiesta is that VERY SERIOUS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS were being peddled by politicians, the UN and environmentalists based on the modeled trends as they were before these “adjustments” and yet we’re supposed to be happy that the Swiss are making these corrections? So where does that leave the IPCC, the Kyoto agreements? What happened to the hockey stick, and the positive feedback bugaboo these “scientists” used to scare buteaucrats for grant money?

    Am I missing something? Don’t you understand the implications? This is a joke. This has to be a prank played on us. How can they seriously say “Oops!” now and get away with it?

    1. Proggies have “Sciencey Privilege”.

  38. ” the researchers reconciled the hiatus controversy by lowering modeled temperature trends while raising the observational temperature trend.”
    Lower the models, raise observations … torturing the data anyway they can. If observational data doesn’t conform to the models, the observational data must be wrong. How convenient! Alternative facts ….

    1. Yep you adjust your models to fit what the data tells you. You don’t massage the data to make it fit your model. Eventually their poor science will get found out.

  39. Medhaug and his colleagues adjusted the computer climate model runs by taking into account factors like changes like variations in solar radiation.

    Umm, that is already included in the models, so what exactly did they “take into account?”

    In addtion, they applied results from computer models that best mimicked the observed internal variability of ocean temperature changes to estimate their effects on global air temperature to update the overall projected model trends.

    So they searched through the CMIP5 ensemble until they found some fluctuations that sorta matched up with ENSO even though the models have a known deficiency in predicting such events.

    They do reanalysis of the HadCRUT4 dataset using model outputs to estimate temperatures in regions that are not adequately covered by observations.

    So they injected modeled results into the “observational record” and claimed that they were not somehow comparing modeled results to, um, modeled results.

    If the paper is at all like Ron described, this is a complete joke. If I have time I may read it, but I suspect M&M will have a field day with the analysis of these adjustments.

  40. Ah! Faith and doubt, God and man are reconciled. In a mass hysteria movement, the urge to avoid the real is so intense that a pathological cathexis occurs. That global warming has taken on the hue of religious belief (man is bad therefore he will burn) shouldn’t be surprising. Nor should dishonesty. For those truly convinced, telling the truth would be dishonest, even murderous, and on a global scale.

  41. Basically, the researchers reconciled the hiatus controversy by lowering modeled temperature trends while raising the observational temperature trend.

    I have no idea why people think GW is hoax.

  42. Why would they leave out the temperature datasets with the least bias (those being the satellite data)? Any model That doesn’t include the satellite temperature data is suspect.

    1. Satellites take indirect measurements and are highly susceptible to bias from decaying orbits and other variables. The advantage of satellites is their broad viewpoint, allowing them to take measurements over large areas.

      The most accurate (least biased) measurements are those taken with simple thermometers, but it’s difficult to cover much area with them.

  43. I thought 2015 sounded wrong, so I referenced the linked article and in the first paragraph it states “Between about 1998 and 2012,”.

    If you’re going to critique a technical writing, you better get technical details right, especially when you have a bias going in.

  44. I find it troubling finding an article seriously celebrating data-fudging in a magazine/website named “Reason”. Maybe I’m getting old…

  45. When the effects of short-term temperature variations such as the El Nin?o Southern Oscillation (ENSO), of volcanic aerosols and of solar variability are removed, the anthropogenically forced global warming signal has not decreased substantially.

    It always bears repeating that, once again, using statistics and then injecting your explanation as or for the null hypothesis is even the pretense not science. You can take an exceedingly simpler system and demonstrably prove the method to be unfit/unfounded/inappropriate. So the idea that it works on phenomenally more complex systems is nothing but magical thinking. Assuming a known, fixed, causal correlation between vehicle mass and driver age, to walk onto a used car lot with several hundred cars, adjust for make, model, and production year and ascribe the rest of the variability in vehicle mass of the car(s) to the age of the drivers is patently absurd. Expanding it to more broad variability among cars on the lot, across lots, around the globe, and over time makes it nothing but the very definition of jumping to conclusions.

    This is easily recognizable in the way the researchers “stress is that climate models cannot and should not be expected to make projections encompassing relatively short periods such as a decade” and then proceed to attempt what they just suggested should not be attempted.

    Any time Bailey wants to stop tapping on the drum when the scienticians call out “Drum roll please!” is fine with me.

  46. At this point they’re just manipulating data to fit their bias rather than evaluating observational data to come up with a viable model.

  47. So this set of data was wrong and needs to be corrected. But all the other data is correct, trust us!

  48. Medhaug and his colleagues adjusted the computer climate model runs by taking into account factors like changes like variations in solar radiation. In addtion, they applied results from computer models that best mimicked the observed internal variability of ocean temperature changes to estimate their effects on global air temperature to update the overall projected model trends. They do reanalysis of the HadCRUT4 dataset using model outputs to estimate temperatures in regions that are not adequately covered by observations. This produces a new dataset with higher global average temperatures.

    What they didn’t do was cite, you know, the original data.

    “We used this bad model to correct a problem from other models” isn’t exactly “science”.

  49. Some quotes from a NOAA paper on ERSST (Extended Reconstruction Sea Surface Temperatures) in Journal of Climate reveal how fragile the models are, being based on assumptions piled on top of assumptions, and unveiling a tendency to massage data to fit the models.

    “In early 2001, CPC was requested to implement the 1971-2000 normal for operational forecasts. So, we constructed a new SST normal for the 1971-2000 base period and implemented it operationally at CPC in August of 2001”.

    “SST predictions are usually issued in terms of anomalies and standardized anomalies relative to a 30-yr normal: climatological mean (CM) and standard deviation (SD). The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) suggests updating the 30-yr normal every 10 yr.”

    How can a normal be updated? The data is the data, and its normal is its normal? This sentence implies that the data is somehow massaged every ten years or so. There may be legitimate reasons to do so, but anytime you massage data, there have to be questions as to the legitimacy of the alteration.

  50. “Using the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) on a 28 grid for 1854-2000 and the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and SST dataset (HadISST) on a 18 grid for 1870-1999, eleven 30-yr normals are calculated, and the interdecadal changes of seasonal CM, seasonal SD, and seasonal persistence (P) are discussed.”

    This says that data is being assembled from widely disparate data sources, with different measurement techniques, and that some of the data was made with instrumentation that simply cannot be validated (data from 1854?).

    “Both PDO and NAO show a multidecadal oscillation that is consistent between ERSST and HadISST except that HadISST is biased toward warm in summer and cold in winter relative to ERSST.”

    Now we see that different data sets, ostensibly of the same population, disagree. And the fact that one data set exhibits bias to the extreme (too warm in summer and too cold in winter) raises questions about the proper use of this data. One scientist may be able to make a valid claim that the more stable data is in error and “correct” it to be more in line with the more volatile data; another scientist may do the opposite.

  51. So, when reality failed to conform to the models, they furiously tortured the data to get the results they wanted.

    Yay “science”! Lol….

  52. Did anyone else notice that they manipulated the data set in the computer models to get the models to agree. They didn’t manipulate the models to get them to agree with the observed data. They then say that there is a high level of agreement with this new FICTIONAL DATA that they developed to fill in data from places where there is no data that was adequately covered by observations. But if there was no data from those places how do they know if the new models agree with reality? This is the scientific version of chasing your tail.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.