New paper finds climate models have greatly exaggerated warming & finds no statistica

[flacaltenn]

Prove it.

The plots you yourself have posted show a very good correlation between model predictions and actual observations up until 1998. You know what I'm saying is true. All the models missed the beginning of the warming hiatus in 1998. Occam tells us it is a great deal more likely that something in the way the world's climate works changed, than than that EVERYONE'S previously satisfactory climate models all went south in precisely the same way.

Do you not see how that throws MAJOR problems into the mix when you are predicting catastrophe if we do not make major changes globally in our economic and energy production?

If the models did not predict a rather large change like this and go off the rails, why are we to assume that the rest of the predictions are going to be accurate or even valid enough to make policy with. It does not really even matter why at that point, if you can’t make accurate predictions then something is incorrect and needs to be addressed before we start making policy in order to see what the actual dangers might (or might not) be.

Think of it this way for a sec.. Back in the 90s when it looked like the political policy part of this AGW just might take off --- these Al Gorians had a WHOLE DECADE to get it done..

Then --- 10 years later ---- when the warming takes a hiatus --- they are the Worlds' Largest HEROES.. Tickertape parades, more Nobel Prizes, promotions, money and fame.

They all figured they'd be saviours by now... 15 years of reduced warming --- because THEY SAVED the PLANET..

Missed the party by a decade or so.....

 

[mamooth]

If someone is delusional enough to say there's no warming and the models failed, just twirl a finger around your ear, smile and walk away. There's nothing to be gained by speaking with crazy people. It only encourages them.

 

[flacaltenn]

If someone is delusional enough to say there's no warming and the models failed, just twirl a finger around your ear, smile and walk away. There's nothing to be gained by speaking with crazy people. It only encourages them.

You DIDN'T read the OP abstract then ???? Because the AUTHORS make it clear how badly the models have performed. And not just from 1998...

You ain't got the balls to comment on this graph set from the abstract...

Trends in global mean surface temperature. : Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years : Nature Climate Change : Nature Publishing Group

Because you're twirling your finger SOMEWHERE and speaking with crazy people again.

If someone is delusional enough to say there's no warming and the models failed, just twirl a finger around your ear, smile and walk away.

This paper says literally --- " there's no {recent} warming and the models failed"..

Go crying to skepticalscience.. They'll tell ya what to think about this paper...
But it's not me you have a problem with.. Take it up with the guys named under the title..

 

[SSDD]

The new paper is behind a paywall, so I can't comment on it fully. If Dave wants to send me $32, I'll check it all out for him. Without that, instead of looking at yet another one of Judith Curry's cherrypicking acts, I'll simply look at the actual abstract.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html
---
Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.
---

So the paper says what we've been saying, that the strong La Nina events of the past decade have suppressed the warming of air temperatures, but that the warming will come roaring back when it flips to El Nino. It's good to see Dave finally moving to the rational side and accepting that.

Clearly the authors are not very bright. The obvious question, rather than simply assume future greenhouse warming, was to ask if a La Nina event could bring a halt to the warming, could a strong El Nino event have been responsible in the first place? The question was never even hinted at. Why?

 

[SSDD]

The new paper is behind a paywall, so I can't comment on it fully. If Dave wants to send me $32, I'll check it all out for him. Without that, instead of looking at yet another one of Judith Curry's cherrypicking acts, I'll simply look at the actual abstract.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html
---
Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.
---

So the paper says what we've been saying, that the strong La Nina events of the past decade have suppressed the warming of air temperatures, but that the warming will come roaring back when it flips to El Nino. It's good to see Dave finally moving to the rational side and accepting that.

So, you knew about La Nina's effects...but the models didn't predict it.

Remind me again -- why do you think the models are accurate?

More importantly, if La Nina could bring the warming to a halt, why aren't the scientists who discovered this asking if a strong El Nino could have triggered it in the first place?

 

[daveman]

You shouldn't be. AGW cultists have been stating their opinions as fact for years.

Was I being too subtle there?

Ms Curry was expressing an opinion. Even if it were true - which is exceedingly dubious, it was still an opinion.

No, you weren't being too subtle -- that's an impossibility.

But apparently I was.

 

[daveman]

The new paper is behind a paywall, so I can't comment on it fully. If Dave wants to send me $32, I'll check it all out for him. Without that, instead of looking at yet another one of Judith Curry's cherrypicking acts, I'll simply look at the actual abstract.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html
---
Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.
---

So the paper says what we've been saying, that the strong La Nina events of the past decade have suppressed the warming of air temperatures, but that the warming will come roaring back when it flips to El Nino. It's good to see Dave finally moving to the rational side and accepting that.

So, you knew about La Nina's effects...but the models didn't predict it.

Remind me again -- why do you think the models are accurate?

More importantly, if La Nina could bring the warming to a halt, why aren't the scientists who discovered this asking if a strong El Nino could have triggered it in the first place?

Because they have blinders on.

 

[skookerasbil]

The models are wrong | Behind The Black


Isnt it interesting that anybody associated with the climate change business INVARIABLY promotes the extreme ends of the temperature spectrum? They don't even try hard to present honestly. Fascinating stuff.......but largely irrelevant.

 

[editec]

New paper finds climate models have greatly exaggerated warming & finds no statistically-significant warming for past 20 years

A paper published today in Nature Climate Change finds climate models have greatly exaggerated global warming over the past 20 years, noting the observed warming is "less than half" of the modeled warming. The authors falsify the models at a confidence level of 90%, and also find that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 20 years. According to the authors, "The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models ...do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years." The paper follows another recent paper falsifying climate models at a confidence level of greater than 98% for the past 15 years.

Dr. Judith Curry comments on this paper:

In terms of reasons for model underestimation, the apparent ‘preferred’ explanation of ‘the ocean ate it’ does not get any play here, other than in context of a brief consideration of natural internal variability. Their conclusion This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal [natural] climate variability is right on the money IMO, although I don’t think their analysis of why the models might be wrong was particularly illuminating. If you would like further illumination on why the climate models might be wrong, I refer you to my uncertainty monster paper.​

Oh well, as long as there's a NEW PAPER on the issue then we can thank god and move on, right?

 

[FA_Q2]

New paper finds climate models have greatly exaggerated warming & finds no statistically-significant warming for past 20 years

A paper published today in Nature Climate Change finds climate models have greatly exaggerated global warming over the past 20 years, noting the observed warming is "less than half" of the modeled warming. The authors falsify the models at a confidence level of 90%, and also find that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 20 years. According to the authors, "The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models ...do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years." The paper follows another recent paper falsifying climate models at a confidence level of greater than 98% for the past 15 years.

Dr. Judith Curry comments on this paper:

In terms of reasons for model underestimation, the apparent ‘preferred’ explanation of ‘the ocean ate it’ does not get any play here, other than in context of a brief consideration of natural internal variability. Their conclusion This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal [natural] climate variability is right on the money IMO, although I don’t think their analysis of why the models might be wrong was particularly illuminating. If you would like further illumination on why the climate models might be wrong, I refer you to my uncertainty monster paper.​

Oh well, as long as there's a NEW PAPER on the issue then we can thank god and move on, right?

Or we could be rational and stop using the consensus angle to shut down any conversation of actual facts.

 

[mamooth]

More importantly, if La Nina could bring the warming to a halt, why aren't the scientists who discovered this asking if a strong El Nino could have triggered it in the first place?

But it didn't bring warming to a halt. The warming kept going strong.

The isn't rocket science, but you cultists just keep failing at it. If you can't grasp even the basics, take your juicebox, head back to the kiddie table and stop bothering the grownups.

 

[SSDD]

More importantly, if La Nina could bring the warming to a halt, why aren't the scientists who discovered this asking if a strong El Nino could have triggered it in the first place?

But it didn't bring warming to a halt. The warming kept going strong.

The isn't rocket science, but you cultists just keep failing at it. If you can't grasp even the basics, take your juicebox, head back to the kiddie table and stop bothering the grownups.

I guess you missed the memo that warming has stopped for going on two decades now. Only true brain dead cultists believe the warming never stopped.

 

[mamooth]

Too bad no one outside of your cult will fall for your nonsense. Which would be why you so rarely venture outside of your cult bubble. It must suck, being laughed at by everyone.

 

[daveman]

New paper finds climate models have greatly exaggerated warming & finds no statistically-significant warming for past 20 years

A paper published today in Nature Climate Change finds climate models have greatly exaggerated global warming over the past 20 years, noting the observed warming is "less than half" of the modeled warming. The authors falsify the models at a confidence level of 90%, and also find that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 20 years. According to the authors, "The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models ...do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years." The paper follows another recent paper falsifying climate models at a confidence level of greater than 98% for the past 15 years.

Dr. Judith Curry comments on this paper:

In terms of reasons for model underestimation, the apparent ‘preferred’ explanation of ‘the ocean ate it’ does not get any play here, other than in context of a brief consideration of natural internal variability. Their conclusion This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal [natural] climate variability is right on the money IMO, although I don’t think their analysis of why the models might be wrong was particularly illuminating. If you would like further illumination on why the climate models might be wrong, I refer you to my uncertainty monster paper.​

Oh well, as long as there's a NEW PAPER on the issue then we can thank god and move on, right?

No. We can take a closer look at the models and see if their performance is backed up by reality.

You do know reality is the stuff that actually happens, right? And that a model that doesn't model reality is useless?

 

[daveman]

Too bad no one outside of your cult will fall for your nonsense. Which would be why you so rarely venture outside of your cult bubble. It must suck, being laughed at by everyone.

Nothing but projection.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Pacific Ocean ate all the global warming but the models are still accurate

Uh huh

Sure they are