tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2879848266093556965..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: About that "Hiatus" - IPCC climate models and recent observationsSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31006548362932859542013-10-08T10:19:22.845+11:002013-10-08T10:19:22.845+11:00Thanks for asking, Victor. Thanks for asking, Victor. Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82422998959670540682013-10-08T08:07:37.019+11:002013-10-08T08:07:37.019+11:00If the 5% level is never undercut there would be a...If the 5% level is never undercut there would be a problem as well. The 5% level should be "breached" 5 % of the time. Otherwise the uncertainty estimate would be too large.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9667819821575138352013-10-08T08:03:51.110+11:002013-10-08T08:03:51.110+11:00Sou, I asked and finally got an answer, there is n...Sou, I asked and finally got an answer, there is no help from science communication experts, certainly at the level of the underlying chapters.<br /><br />Might be an idea for the next time. Although that may make the process even more difficult.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56596550910749857402013-10-04T08:15:09.910+10:002013-10-04T08:15:09.910+10:00"Sceptics" have, in the mass, been decla..."Sceptics" have, in the mass, been declaring models completely discredited since they first emerged. Many will be aware of Pat Michaels giving evidence to Congress in 1998 and lying like a trooper about that very subject. They have certainly not, in the main, been saying that observations are within the 5% uncertainty range. If that's what they're acknowledging now then they are not as ineducable as they've always seemed. That or they don't see what they're doing, whatever.<br /><br />The uncertainty allows for natural variability, such as is caused by ENSO and volcanoes. Given the La Nina's in 2008 and 2011, a few minor volcanoes, and low solar activity in the last decade it seems unlikely that observations will breach that 5% uncertainty limit.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13107820204924723012013-10-04T05:09:05.060+10:002013-10-04T05:09:05.060+10:00Sou - I have not read the Tsonis/Swanson paper. It...Sou - I have not read the Tsonis/Swanson paper. It appears to be one of those "I see cycles" statistical matching papers. Dubious in other words. There is no physics behind such work, so it's of no value. It could be that they have detected the influence of the IPO, but I've got better things to do than read quack science.<br /><br />And if you take another look you'll see a lot of the model runs for the positive phase of the IPO (1977-1999), the 1990's in particular, are below the observed temperature. The Mt Pinatubo response might be an issue there though. Rob Paintinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198427903627448320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5210425046182165112013-10-04T05:05:56.962+10:002013-10-04T05:05:56.962+10:00Anonymous accused me of being dishonest and when I...Anonymous accused me of being dishonest and when I replied that Anonymous didn't read what I wrote bleats something about name-calling.<br /><br />Here's another "name" - in addition to not taking the effort to read what's written, fake sceptics tend to be sooks.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63350022761417591282013-10-04T04:09:05.697+10:002013-10-04T04:09:05.697+10:00And I love the blatant misrepresentation of the AR...And I love the blatant misrepresentation of the AR5 text, which is clear (at least on this point).<br /><br />Anon writes:<br /><br /><i>This is an admission the models are running too hot.</i><br /><br />But AR5 says:<br /><br /><i>after the upper and lower bounds are reduced by 10% to take into account the evidence that <b>some models</b> may be too sensitive to anthropogenic forcing (see Table TS.1 and Figure TS.14). {11.3.6}</i><br /><br />Spot the difference?!BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62204196681250817612013-10-04T03:57:50.489+10:002013-10-04T03:57:50.489+10:00And does this have any policy implications? Nope. ...And does this have any policy implications? Nope. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2615578231375076062013-10-04T03:03:55.861+10:002013-10-04T03:03:55.861+10:00Can't respond without name calling. The text ...Can't respond without name calling. The text you cite says the likely range was lowered 10% from the model range. This is an admission the models are running too hot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19175282929450076572013-10-04T00:50:32.077+10:002013-10-04T00:50:32.077+10:00One thing I've noticed about fake sceptics. T...One thing I've noticed about fake sceptics. They can look at pictures (sometimes) but have a distinct aversion to reading words.<br /><br />Maybe a climate comic picture book could be developed for them.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66446436977703276372013-10-03T23:53:08.595+10:002013-10-03T23:53:08.595+10:00What is interesting is that your last 2 graphs do ...What is interesting is that your last 2 graphs do show some inconvenient truths. First, the observations are in fact right at the 5% confidence lower bound for the models. Second, the "likely range" is actually lower than the model ensemble by quite a bit, indicating that even the IPCC realizes that the models are running too hot. By the way, in fact, if one looks at 30 year, 20, 15, 20 10 year trends, it is still true that the observations are right at the 5% lower confidence bound.<br /><br />With regard to skeptics, "it is the scope of the writer that giveth the true light... and those that insist on single texts can show no thing from them clearly, an ordinary artifice of those who seek not the truth but their own advantage." Skeptics have been in the main saying just what I said in paragraph 1. You should be honest enough to recognize that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62199392118308064572013-10-03T17:03:34.851+10:002013-10-03T17:03:34.851+10:00Meehl et al (2013) investigates the role of IPO. (...<a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1?journalCode=clim" rel="nofollow">Meehl et al (2013)</a> investigates the role of IPO. (They also have acouple of earlier papers).<br /><br />It's not in the paper (at least I didn't notice it), but IPO influences ENSO. (strength and place). Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51599962806429735922013-10-03T16:47:47.085+10:002013-10-03T16:47:47.085+10:00Yes, Rattus, you make a good point. My comments a...Yes, Rattus, you make a good point. My comments are tainted by my ignorance and I don't mean to suggest the experts are wrong. <br /><br />I'll see what more I can find out about what "observationally constrained" means in this context - eg how far back in time etc.<br /><br />The "plausible future trends" could more open ended to judgement calls or there could be specific criteria for judging plausibility. Would be useful to get more insight into how these judgements are made.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26833646951026294402013-10-03T12:10:44.864+10:002013-10-03T12:10:44.864+10:00I don't know, the Kosaka and Xie paper recentl...I don't know, the Kosaka and Xie paper recently is observationally constrained and does a pretty good job of reproducing the recent surface temperature evolution. A rather elegant experiment actually.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47394308992757347992013-10-03T11:18:47.126+10:002013-10-03T11:18:47.126+10:00If "observationally contrained" means th...If "observationally contrained" means that they give good model more weight, I think that that is a good idea. Many groups nowadays run climate models, computer power is relatively cheap. However, not every group is large enough to be able to build a good model.<br /><br />I do hope that they did not just look at the performance of the models with respect to the global mean surface temperature. I would expect that they consider more variables and also regional patterns.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45032250000157118762013-10-03T06:17:35.192+10:002013-10-03T06:17:35.192+10:00Good points, Rob. Does the Tsonis/Swanson paper t...Good points, Rob. Does the Tsonis/Swanson paper touch on the IPO issue? With their "shifts" hypothesis?<br /><br />The models do look to be fairly close to observations for the most recent positive IPO - 1978-98.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9337792083156736302013-10-03T06:04:23.231+10:002013-10-03T06:04:23.231+10:00Thanks for that reference to the comment by Ed Haw...Thanks for that reference to the comment by Ed Hawkins. It sounds as if he may have more insight to offer later on.<br /><br />I suppose we have to cross our fingers and hope that the experts are correct and some of the models are overheated. We'll find out soon enough. <br /><br />At the risk of sounding like a DuKE - I don't place a huge amount of faith in the "observationally constrained" results.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48469858239884806112013-10-03T05:17:03.702+10:002013-10-03T05:17:03.702+10:00Ed Hawkins says: "Red hatched [which is the b...<a href="http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/near-term-ar5/#comment-51347" rel="nofollow">Ed Hawkins</a> says: "Red hatched [which is the box we are discussing, vv] and black bar also relative to 1986-2005 and are expert judgement based on evidence in panel c which includes raw models, observationally constrained models and plausible future trends."<br /><br />So indeed expert judgement seems to be involved and explains the difference from the raw model output.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55356224412436823902013-10-03T05:12:47.974+10:002013-10-03T05:12:47.974+10:00Interesting that the models appear to underestimat...Interesting that the models appear to underestimate global temperatures during the positive phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), but overestimate temperatures during the (current) negative phase of the IPO. I hadn't noticed that before.<br /><br />IIRC correctly only a handful of the models accurately describe the observed change in wind-forcing that is responsible for the variation in heat uptake by the ocean. Failing to do so would mean that the models as a whole might underestimate natural variability, although the observed global brightening through the 1970's to late 1990's and dimming therefafter certainly complicates matters..Rob Paintinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198427903627448320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89056526207249257572013-10-03T04:15:37.095+10:002013-10-03T04:15:37.095+10:00Victor, thanks for that explanation. It makes sen...Victor, thanks for that explanation. It makes sense that it could be an expert assessment - and maybe that's clarified somewhere in the report.<br /><br />I admit I'm having considerable difficulty with parts of the report, particularly the descriptions of charts and figures. The summary for policy makers is fine and I haven't had any real trouble with that so far. Parts of the technical summary are fine, but parts are more difficult to read.<br /><br />However, there are some descriptions, particularly of figures, in the technical report and the full report that are so dense they are almost impenetrable - to me anyway. The sentences are too long and convoluted, too many references to "elsewhere in the report" - which means searching for figure numbers to try to work out what's going on. And there seem to be a lot of charts and figures that are trends of trends and maybe even trends of trends of trends.<br /><br />That's just an initial take. Maybe if I keep plowing through it I'll start to make some headway.<br /><br />Maybe I just picked the hard parts first. I hope that's the case. I know a lot of people have put in a lot of hours and I don't aim to belittle their efforts. I imagine that if I were an expert in the area I'd understand it all very easily.<br /><br />I wonder if the IPCC has ever given any thought to including science communication specialists on the editing team - to help translate science-speak into easier language without losing the meaning or intent. Maybe they do already.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32534735694136280982013-10-03T03:50:20.418+10:002013-10-03T03:50:20.418+10:00Badly written! When an interested reader cannot un...Badly written! When an interested reader cannot understand what exactly has been plotted. <br /><br />What is likely important is that the uncertainty is asymmetrical, the temperature difference between the mean prediction and the 99th percentile (the projection below which the temperature should stay with 99% probability) of the prediction is much larger than the difference between the mean and the 1st percentile. This could explain partially why the box is in the lower part of the spaghetti plot with all the model runs. However, the pink box in Figure TS.14 is below the minimum of the model runs, so this cannot be the full explanation. <br /><br />Furthermore, the lines of the box look to be very straight and are thus likely not directly based on the model runs. <br /><br />Thus I would say that the box is based on an expert assessment of likely warming rates for the near future. This could be that the experts estimate that the true uncertainty is larger as the uncertainty indicated by the spread of the various models. It is possible that all models make a similar error, because they all do not include certain processes or because the all model certain processing in a similar simplified way (physics parametrisations). Maybe they have a reason to expect that the the models are somewhat biased.<br /><br />Whatever it is. They should have written that clearly.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.com