archive-org.com » ORG » C » CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG

Total: 491

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • betts « Climate Audit
    Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000 NOTICE Click

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/betts/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • metoffice « Climate Audit
    al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/metoffice/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Nature-mag Hides the Decline « Climate Audit
    Bill Posted Jul 16 2013 at 7 32 PM Permalink My favorite quote from the last few weeks was that the flattening of temp s for 15 years only gave us an extra decade I m sure if it stays fairly flat for 20 25 years it still will give us only another decade ianl8888 Posted Jul 16 2013 at 8 19 PM Permalink My view based on two quite recent published papers much to my chagrin I ve lost the links is that the model assumed nexus between modest temperature rises from CO2 x2 of 1 1 3C and consequent increases in water vapour increasing the temp rise to 5 6C simply hasn t happened The papers I refer to here were based on empirical satellite data and concluded that no significant rise in humidity has been observed over the data period about 30 years So the assumed dangerous amplification hasn t happened MikeN Posted Jul 16 2013 at 10 54 PM Permalink RealClimate hedged their bets a few years ago and put up a guest post arguing for a 20 year pause in temperatures at which point global warming would come back stronger than ever That post was when I really started to think the global cooling since 1998 might be true Lance Wallace Posted Jul 15 2013 at 11 31 AM Permalink AR1 correlation of 4 01 HaroldW Posted Jul 15 2013 at 11 56 AM Permalink Lance Re read the sentence The t value is 4 01 when one includes an adjustment for AR1 correlation Steve added commas for clarity HaroldW Posted Jul 15 2013 at 11 44 AM Permalink Steve wrote What did longer HadGEM3 runs show According to the Smith et al paper which describes HadGEM3 Steve No it doesn t a bias appears in temperatures after running the model for a while This bias is essentially absent for lead times up to six years However the model does develop a warm bias in Ts beyond year six rising to 0 07 C by year nine Supplemental Information for Smith et al is here Steve Please pay attention to the model number Smith et al 2007 is the older HadCM3 model not HadGEM3 HaroldW Posted Jul 15 2013 at 12 16 PM Permalink Apologies You re correct Delete the comment if you wish Willis Eschenbach Posted Jul 15 2013 at 12 27 PM Permalink Interesting find Harold This bias is essentially absent in the DePreSys hindcasts for lead times up to six years suggesting that it is caused initially by a warm bias in upper ocean heat content see main paper However DePreSys does develop a warm bias in Ts beyond year six rising to 0 07 C by year nine We can draw a couple of mathematical conclusions from that First the bias has reached six tenths of a degree per century by year 9 That is approximately the warming over the last century so the model starts out with an error the size of the observations it s trying to explain In addition if there is minimum bias in year six as they say call it 0 01 C in that year this means that after year six the bias is rising at 0 02 C per year yikes And while a long extension of any trend is hazardous even taking that rising bias out 5 years to year 14 would indicate a bias of 1 2 degrees per century can we call it an error now w Steve WIllis watch out for Harold s misdescription SMith et al 2007 used the OLDER HadCM3 model not HadGEM3 Willis Eschenbach Posted Jul 15 2013 at 2 59 PM Permalink Thanks Steve I caught that Turns out I was commenting on the green line in your post w Steve yes I think that this model was used in AR4 Richard Drake Posted Jul 15 2013 at 12 12 PM Permalink Thanks for this Steve The droop in the 2012 model forecast even though it only runs to 2017 is striking indeed William Newman Posted Jul 15 2013 at 12 18 PM Permalink Thanks for the clear Figure 1 I ve been curious about this kind of relationship between climate forecast not hindcast and observation for some time e g http rankexploits com musings 2013 models v observations ar5 rcp4 5 comment 117093 and while I can often get the basic idea by eyeballing a mixed forecast hindcast graph and using informed guesses at the forecast dates I seldom get to see it so clearly presented mt Posted Jul 15 2013 at 12 53 PM Permalink The predicted data in the right panel looks a lot like page 6 from this presentation which I think is showing the average from some number of models in the Decadal Forecast Exchange Steve I presume that the right panel is taken from Smith et al 2012 Clim DYn which I don t have The old curve that I posted is the average of the 20 runs that the Met Office sent me I presume that slightly different permutations would lead to somewhat different versons and that the version in the linked PPT is a varied average from the HadCM3 model It seems to me that the relevant issue is the change from HadGEM2 to HadCM3 and then to HadGEM3 and to understand what caused the change mt Posted Jul 15 2013 at 2 01 PM Permalink The abstract for Smith 2012 starts with We present the first climate prediction of the coming decade made with multiple models initialized with prior observations This prediction accrues from an international activity to exchange decadal predictions in near real time in order to assess differences and similarities provide a consensus view to prevent over confidence in forecasts from any single model and establish current collective capability We stress that the forecast is experimental since the skill of the multi model system is as yet unknown This is describing a multi model prediction not an average of runs from one model I doubt the graph is just the Met Office model alone Steve I don t see that anything in this comparison turns on whether Smith et al 2012 uses multi models or not The plotted graphics are all from data provided or archived by the UK Met Office the model provenance of which is described Whether the right panel of the Nature article is HadCM3 only or HadCM3 plus some others is immaterial Nature News did not show the current HadGEM3 runs mt Posted Jul 15 2013 at 3 41 PM Permalink I think the Tollefson graphic is comparing apples to applesauce The left panel is almost certainly Met Office model output only I think the right panel is a multi model average from the forecast exchange not HadCM or HadGEM or HadWhatever I m just commenting on what the right panel is I agree with you that the most recent predictions should have been used None Posted Jul 15 2013 at 3 29 PM Permalink If the latest model is showing less warming ahead then this must be manifested within the model as some large scale PHYSICAL process change compared to previous model energy previously manifesting itself as global warming can not merely have disappeared According to the model where has it gone Kenneth Fritsch Posted Jul 15 2013 at 4 07 PM Permalink I first want to acknowledge the efforts of Geert Jan van Oldenborgh at KNMI for making the climate models from CMIP5 available in good form for doing analyses My analyses that I report here are rather simple minded and easy for anyone to do given the model data at KNMI and knowledge of R programming and thus I will not give the details here I calculated the t values for a comparison of the trends from 1970 2012 RCP4 5 CMIP5 scenario models with the 3 major Observed series namely HadCRU4 GISS and GHCN The trends were calculated using temperature anomalies for the mean global temperatures from 1970 2012 for the annual calculations and 1970 2013 May for the monthly calculations There were 106 separate model runs for RCP4 5 and 42 models I averaged multiple runs for a given model I used the method of Santer et al 08 in making these comparisons but adjusted the Observed series standard deviations by doing Monte Carlo calculations based on the 10 000 simulations of the best ARMA model fit of the detrended Observed series residuals The results are given in the link below and show a significant difference in trends between the models and the 3 Observed series for the monthly data and for 2 of the series GISS and GHCN for the annual series with HadCRU4 just missing significance at the 5 probability level Note that the monthly series allow an additional 5 months of data where the models and the Observed continue to diverge The failure of the models to track over 43 years has implications in that 1 the models may not be over fitted to the Observed but 2 with known forcings for model input it might be surprising that models do not track the observed See below also In another analysis that I reported at the Blackboard previously I compared 12 14 year trends of the RCP4 5 models with the Observed series over the period from 1916 2013 May With this simple minded analysis I found that the models appear to be differentiated by having rather random trend results over the time periods studied while the Observed trends over these periods appear to be biased to one end or the other of the distributions of trends In other words while one could say the models and observed series track reasonably well over that period of time the models and Observed series got there by very different routes http rankexploits com musings 2013 bayesian projection of rcp4 5 comment 117561 I have also done some spectral analysis comparing RCP4 5 and Observed series but have considered while there are differences between modeled and Observed spectra that difference arises from the differences in segmented linear trends between models and Observed series Those differences can be reduced eliminated when comparing the residuals of ARMA models of the residuals of the linearly detrended series segments In light of the foregoing the question then becomes one of whether those linear segments are just that or are the segments better represented by some cyclical part of a temperature series Either way the models do not apparently emulate the Observed series well with this structure Hilary Ostrov aka hro001 Posted Jul 15 2013 at 5 07 PM Permalink HadGEM2 red which was submitted to IPCC AR5 If I might be permitted a somewhat o t speculation from the perspective of the statistically challenged and relatively Uninformed Lay Person ULP that I am The stark contrast between the Red and the Blue which presumably was not submitted to AR5 suggests that the Red run almost appears to have been designed for want of a better word to coincide with how one imagines that a graph of the projections of the dreaded and rapidly increasing CO2 emissions might appear for the same time period But of course if such a visually dramatic coinciding were to materialize within the context of AR5 it could just be well coincidence Marion Posted Jul 15 2013 at 5 52 PM Permalink But according to the Met Office their forecasts are highly accurate At the time of writing this blog the Met Office is beating all of its forecast accuracy targets As an example 87 7 of our next day maximum temperature forecasts are accurate to within 2C The target is 80 2C no less And with an 80 target http metofficenews wordpress com 2013 07 11 the spectator how accurate is the met office charles the moderator Posted Jul 15 2013 at 7 16 PM Permalink Re Marion Jul 15 17 52 I don t have the chops to do it myself but I wonder if you replaced Met Office forecasts with the following Max Temp tomorrow Max Temp today 2 degrees C would that have comparable accuracy charles the moderator Posted Jul 15 2013 at 8 04 PM Permalink Re Marion Jul 15 17 52 Well I m really out of my element but using the station at Lerwick UK for the past year it appears that about 81 of TMax previous day 2C Richard Drake Posted Jul 16 2013 at 2 35 AM Permalink So in setting itself a target of 80 the Met is allowing its maximum temperature forecast to be less accurate than the stupidest model possible and still be judged a success For Lerwick at least I ve heard of setting the bar low but this seems a bit generous Tony Hansen Posted Jul 16 2013 at 4 28 AM Permalink Richard Why call it the stupidest model Wouldn t it be the most simple model charles the moderator Posted Jul 16 2013 at 4 09 AM Permalink Re Marion Jul 15 17 52 Hey I spent at least a minute thinking up that model But on a more less serious note you should go Marion s Met link The Met Office seems REALLY proud of their 3 hour 2C forecasts tty Posted Jul 16 2013 at 1 19 PM Permalink It is called the Persistence forecast and when I was reading meteorology it was regarded as a sort of a rock bottom value Anybody can say it will be the same as today so a forecast that can t beat the Persistence Forecast isn t even a forecast Incidentally we were taught that for a complete forecast temperature wind cloudiness precipitation the persistence forecast for the next day could be expected to be about 60 correct in Scandinavia that is jeez Posted Jul 16 2013 at 3 19 PM Permalink Yes but when you allow a Persistence Forecast to have such a wide margin as 2C the success rate can be much higher than 60 I can come up with an even better formula for the 3 hour forecast although it may need a supercomputer to calculate Temp in 3 hours Temp now Temp 21 hours ago Temp 24 hours ago 2C Where s my Met Office Bonus check for exceeding forecast goals TerryS Posted Jul 16 2013 at 11 02 AM Permalink From a magazine in 1950 my bold At Britain s meteorological headquarters at Dunstable in Bedfordshire scientists and engineers have combined to make weather forecasting much more accurate than it might sometimes seem from the wireless or newspaper reports In spite of the rapidly changing conditions over land and sea the official predictions made over 24 hour periods are about 90 per cent accurate and short term and localised forecasts can be very accurate indeed 63 years later and they are claiming an 87 7 accuracy It is good to know they are making progress Jeff Norman Posted Jul 16 2013 at 12 58 PM Permalink Terry The difference is that they use computers not and have greater confidence in the precision of their targets Jeff Norman Posted Jul 16 2013 at 12 59 PM Permalink now not not AntonyIndia Posted Jul 15 2013 at 9 19 PM Permalink Reading the title in thought Mother Nature hides the temperature decline from casual observers Only after reading further I see that you point at the publication Nature busy with their politics as they seem to be doing more and more William Larson Posted Jul 15 2013 at 10 34 PM Permalink The successive iterations of Met Office models more or less flap to the leeward of observations like a version of the Gambian flag in the trade winds Wow Love it And the scuttlebutt is that the same guy who wrote that also does some mean science and plays a mean game of squash as well Steve the choice of Gambia was intentional No one seems to have picked up why Gambia out of all the countries in the world charles the moderator Posted Jul 16 2013 at 12 10 PM Permalink Re William Larson Jul 15 22 34 So it wasn t a Bubu Steve Jeff Norman Posted Jul 16 2013 at 1 04 PM Permalink I thought Mr Larson got the Gambian reference but did not flag it in a way to banner his jack Dave Magill Posted Jul 16 2013 at 4 29 PM Permalink http www worldatlas com webimage flags countrys africa gambia htm Red blue green stripes in the same order as the Met Office Decadal forecast Pretty obscure Steve horizontal stripes as well The red blue green combo proved distinctive to Gambia I had to look for a couple of minutes to locate the right flag Brian H Posted Jul 16 2013 at 12 01 AM Permalink Warmist vs warmist Popcorn seems inadequate for the event Cracker Jacks at least tallbloke Posted Jul 16 2013 at 2 23 AM Permalink The MET O decadal forecast revision story was broken at the Talkshop on Jan 5 http tallbloke wordpress com 2013 01 05 major change in uk met office global warming forecast Richard Betts is now saying on Twitter that Steve has this wrong because it is not an initialised forecast wattsupwiththat Sure HadGEM2 not an initialised forecast so Steve is wrong to plot it from 2010 high point exaggerates difference Richard Betts richardabetts July 16 2013 Craig Loehle Posted Jul 16 2013 at 9 50 AM Permalink If the forecast is not initialized but you refer to it as hotter than today by 8 deg C then implicitly today is part of the forecast ie you are comparing it to today If MET or Nature wants to compare to the long term mean they should say so On the other hand the green and blue start off at almost identical initial values and green ends up 0 7 degrees higher in 2017 which is just a wee bit different eh bmcburney Posted Jul 16 2013 at 1 44 PM Permalink Exactly And not just 8 deg C hotter than today but also you must get there by 2018 That would be a full degree C anomaly on Steve s graph off upper edge of the chart Given those constraints it appears 1 Steve s graph under states the absurdity of the article and prediction s and 2 there are not very many options concerning where to initialize the model bmcburney Posted Jul 16 2013 at 1 47 PM Permalink Obviously I meant more than a full degree C anomaly Richard Drake Posted Jul 16 2013 at 3 00 AM Permalink Having looked at the Nature article properly with the help of Steve s graphs one is again gobsmacked by the brass neck of those that produce climate change articles and headlines Even allowing for the point Richard Betts has made on Twitter so where should the HadGEM2 have been plotted from the suspicion arises that the decadal forecasts have now bifurcated into two quantum like states 1 the story as told by Nature s headline and IPCC AR5 record heat 2 the story as told by the revised decadal forecast which doesn t make into the headlines but is much more likely to fit observations at a 95 confidence interval level All the thimbles one could want for the next generation of peas Steve I edited the graphic to show the HadGEM2 hindcast dotted Not because I think that the original graphic was unjustified but to remove Betts excuse which is tangential to the article Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 16 2013 at 7 47 AM Permalink Re Richard Drake Jul 16 03 00 The headline of the article was Naturemag using an older version of the Met Office decadal forecasts showing the elevated temepratures of their headline Although I did not discuss this in the article I presume that Naturemag fact checked with the Met Office Anthony asked for an explanation Betts said that my graphic of the Met Office CMIP5 contribution exaggerated the difference between the Met Office contribution to IPCC and the decadal forecasts First that has diddly squat nada to do with the difference between the old and new decadal forecasts and thus the misleadingness of the Nature article to which the Met Office has thus far made no objection Betts and Met Office employees should have pointed out the inaccuracy long before me Second my intent was definitely to highlight the difference between the Met Office contribution to IPCC and their decadal forecasts Betts seems to object to showing an uninitialized forecast and initialized forecast on the same page Given that the graphic also showed observations I think that it is entirely reasonable to show the most recent initialized forecast as an extension of observations to highlight the discrepancy with models particularly given von Storch s five years of waiting Nonetheless as a concession to Betts I ve plotted the pre 2010 portion of the Met Office contribution to IPCC in dotted red and noted that Met Office says that it is an uninitialized forecast though I think that it would be more accurate to say that it was initialized differently than the decadal forecasts Otherwise to my knowledge Betts has registered no other issues with the article oneuniverse Posted Jul 16 2013 at 4 19 AM Permalink The 2012 decadal forecast used a newer model HadGEM3 than the 2011 forecasts HadCM3 and that HadGEM3 was much more computation intensive As a result there were fewer runs 10 vs 20 and only a shorter time period 5 years vs 10 years The Met Office had the resources to ensure that HadGEM3 was thoroughly tested and more accurately reproduced temperature variations over the past few decades It seems a pity and somewhat pitiful that these same resources didn t extend to allowing runs of more than 5 years into the future and that at a limited number of runs AntonyIndia Posted Jul 16 2013 at 7 19 AM Permalink The MET Office had a new super computer system running in 2011 consuming 1 2 MW http www telegraph co uk news uknews 5365411 New giant supercomputer will better predict weather Met Office says html but that didn t do apparently as they just got a new new one sanctioned of 100 million pounds http www thesun co uk sol homepage news politics 4990100 Ministers approve 100m Met Office weather machine html The main question is do they need new hardware OR new software models according to Spectator http www spectator co uk features 8959941 whats wrong with the met office son of mulder Posted Jul 16 2013 at 6 27 AM Permalink There must be some pretty dramatic difference in the formulation of Hadgem3 vs the other 2 models as Hadgem3 has the 2nd derivative essentially negative all through whereas it varies positive and negative for the other 2 What are the key differences are they physics or fudge factors What odds will anyone give me that reality will have a positive 2nd derivative through the period with the same smoothing michael hart Posted Jul 16 2013 at 7 21 AM Permalink Whatever skill the models may display I might expect such skill to be most in evidence during the initial few years of the predictions before they leave the rails The change to 5 year forecast suggests the Met Office thinks so too With this in mind the initial rates of change show a huge difference between 2011 HadCM3 Decadal and 2012 HadGEM3 Decadal I wonder what the given explanation is oneuniverse Posted Jul 16 2013 at 9 33 AM Permalink Steve may I ask whether the claim reported in your post above that the increased computational intensity of the HadGEM3 runs informed the decision to switch from a 10 year to a 5 year forecasts originated from the Met Office It reads like it did but it s not clear or substantiated in the Met Office link that follows it Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 16 2013 at 10 13 AM Permalink I ve confirmed that the right panel of the Tollefson diagram contains a multi model mean decadal forecast which is very similar to but not a variation of the 2011 Met Office decadal forecast I ve amended the text to show this Nothing material in the post is affected Tim Ball Posted Jul 16 2013 at 11 37 AM Permalink I understand from Markov probability and the persistency factor of weather systems that if you say tomorrow is going to be the same as today you have a 63 percent chance of being correct Ross McKitrick Posted Jul 16 2013 at 6 17 PM Permalink This includes a comprehensive set of improvements based on the latest scientific understanding This is beginning to sound like a shampoo ad HadGEM3 has been thoroughly tested and has more accurately reproduced temperature variations over the past few decades and it has pro vitamins suggesting it shows greater skill than was available from previous decadal forecast systems Way to set the bar low Scottish Sceptic Posted Jul 16 2013 at 6 34 PM Permalink This reminds of a story I tell about the reason Stonehenge was built A long time ago some high priests made a complete hash of their prophecies Their king was not happy so he ordered them to get it right or else Knowing that they could not get it right they came up with a devious plan and told the the king we need a powerful instrument to get it right This instrument involved a massive building project that would occupy the whole kingdom for many years Unfortunately for the priests the king took them at their word put a huge effort into building the stone monument and all too soon it was ready Just replace High priest with Met Office climate forecasters Stonehenge with super high speed computers and the story is the same except we don t sacrifice our charlatans Ross McKitrick Posted Jul 16 2013 at 7 30 PM Permalink The interval between HadGEM2 which was modern enough for use in an IPCC report that hasn t even been published yet and the new HadGEM3 is a mere nanosecond in science Yet it is enough for near term climate forecasts for drop by an amount comparable to the entire 20th century mean temperature change And it all happened long after the science was settled The decadal forecast from Hadley is for the flatlining of the past 15 years to extend another 5 years or more That puts us past a deadline by which without serious warming modelers not merely von Storch have said would point to fundamental problems with models which embed all the main hypotheses of the scientific mainstream on this topic Hadley is in effect predicting a crackup of the mainstream And this happens just after the meme has been established that 97 of climate scientists are absolutely confident in the models and the science they embed and 97 of climatology papers endorse the hypotheses This is going to be good pottereaton Posted Jul 17 2013 at 12 56 PM Permalink They will not admit they are retreating They will say they are advancing to the rear tchannon Posted Jul 16 2013 at 10 02 PM Permalink Reblogged this on Tallbloke s Talkshop and commented A tangled web SteveM gets to work EdeF Posted Jul 18 2013 at 12 36 AM Permalink Do we know what the models predict for say 2050 Looks like large divergence is happening even with small forecast ranges of 5 10 yrs Richard Betts Posted Jul 22 2013 at 6 04 PM Permalink Hi Steve Perhaps it would be helpful if I expanded on my twitter response to Anthony Watts asking me about your post You asked Why are forecasts from the computationally intensive HadGEM3 so much lower than the corresponding forecasts from HadGEM2 The difficulty is that the question itself is not well posed because the HadGEM3 and HadGEM2 ensemble simulations are not corresponding forecasts Background note Both the HadGEM2 and HadGEM3 simulations are ensembles of several simulations with the respective model The HadGEM2 simulations were started from a climatological mean state with near pre industrial actually 1860 conditions and then run through the late 19th 20th Centuries and first few years of the 21st Century with observed changes in greenhouse gas concentrations aerosols and land use with the model simulating its own natural internal variability Since internal variability is unpredictable after a few years we don t expect such simulations to capture the specific timing periods of relatively faster or slower warming This is what I mean by an uninitialised simulation the initial conditions are not for a specific date and or are so far back in the past that they have no effect on the internal variability simulated by the model In contrast the HadGEM3 5 year simulations were an intialised forecast initialised with observational data in late 2012 There are 2 reasons why this difference makes it not useful to compare the 2 simulations over a 5 year period of specific dates in this case 2012 2017 1 For any particular 5 year period HadGEM2 doesn t know what climatic state it should be starting at eg 2012 in this case It s got it s own simulated version of the 2012 climate but we d never expect that to correspond to the real 2012 due to chaos Since the mean of the HadGEM2 runs does not include the hiatus of the 2000s the model s 2012 is warmer than the observed 2012 In contrast HadGEM3 does know the real observed climate of 2012 so it starts at a cooler state than the equivalent portion of the HadGEM2 run 2 The runs in the HadGEM3 ensemble are all initialised with observational data from 2012 so are simulating internal variability starting from the same conditions If there is any signal in the internal variability the different runs should agree to some extent In contrast the runs in the HadGEM2 ensemble all have their own individual versions of 2012 and hence their subsequent variability after 2012 will probably be very different Use of the ensemble mean tends to cancel these out to just give the GHG forced warming trend over the 5 year period So with HadGEM2 being uninitialised the ensemble mean starts at a warmer 2012 than in observations and then merely follows a GHG forced warming trend until 2017 with internal variability in the different runs cancelled out However HadGEM3 starts at a cooler 2012 as observed and is able to capture internal variability better Hence it s not at all surprising that 2017 in HadGEM2 started in 1860 is noticeably warmer than in HadGEM3 initialised in 2012 5 year forecasts could well be dominated by internal variability so don t particularly tell us anything about the long term trend We ve not yet done future projections with HadGEM3 so don t know how much warming it will project in the long term Incidentally HadGEM2 was not the only model submitted to CMIP5 IPCC AR5 by the Met Office We also submitted initialised forecasts with HadCM3 see here Hope this clarifies my tweet Cheers Richard Ross McKitrick Posted Jul 22 2013 at 6 42 PM Permalink Richard thanks for this Given chaos how can HadGEM3 know both 1850 and 2012 Richard Betts Posted Jul 25 2013 at 2 33 AM Permalink Hi Ross It can t not in the sense I meant above We don t do initialised forecast runs from 1850 because we don t have adequate data coverage especially below the ocean surface that s critical for kicking off the model in say the right part of the ENSO cycle When I said we start HadGEM2 with near pre industrial conditions I mean we give it the GHG concentrations for that period and let it find it s own equilibrium The model is therefore trying to simulate the climatological state around that time but not any particular year Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 24 2013 at 10 11 AM Permalink Richard thanks for commenting but your comment is not responsive to the main points First I had taken particular issue with the failure of the Nature article to show the most recent decadal forecast a forecast which contradicts their headline I presume that the Met Office was given an opportunity to fact check the Nature article If so the Met Office should have corrected Nature s omission of the most recent data If not the Met Office should have submitted its own comment to Nature pointing out that their most recent decadal forecast had lower results Your comment Second HadGEM2 comes in absolute temperatures In the graphic it was re centered on the same centering as the Nature article which was 1986 2005 following Smith et al The divergence comes subsequent to that recentering Your comment misdirects attention away from this Third you did not respond on my observation that SMith et al 2012 had also compared uninitialized models with initialized models over a time period commencing in 2012 Do you acknowledge that they did precisely the same thing that you criticize me for doing If not what is the difference Richard Betts Posted Jul 25 2013 at 3 05 AM Permalink Hi Steve Thanks for your response SM First I had taken particular issue with the failure of the Nature article to show the most recent decadal forecast a forecast which contradicts their headline I presume that the Met Office was given an opportunity to fact check the Nature article If so the Met Office should have corrected Nature s omission of the most recent data If not the Met Office should have submitted its own comment to Nature pointing out that their most recent decadal forecast had lower results Your comment Well we d have to ask Jeff Tollefson about his own thinking I ll tweet him but my guess is that he had seen the Met Office research news article pointing out that the 2012 5 year forecast ensemble suggests that Met Office the Earth is expected to maintain the record warmth that has been observed over the last decade and furthermore a substantial proportion of the forecasts show that new record global temperatures may be reached in the next 5 years and hence he realised that the 2012 forecast does not really make much difference to his story You ve shown the mean of the forecast ensemble but if you look at the range you ll see that it overlaps with the range from the earlier forecast SM Second HadGEM2 comes in absolute temperatures In the graphic it was re centered on the same centering as the Nature article which was 1986 2005 following Smith et al The divergence comes subsequent to that recentering Your comment misdirects attention away from this This doesn t affect my argument in fact it reinforces it As your figure 1 above shows the 2012 anomaly relative to the centring period in HadGEM2 ES is still larger than the 2012 anomaly in the observations Yes the mean of the HadGEM2 ES ensemble has indeed diverged from observations subsequent to the centring period because the HadGEM2 ES ensemble does not show the hiatus of the 2000s SM Third you did not respond on my observation that SMith et al 2012 had also compared uninitialized models with initialized models over a time period commencing in 2012 Do you acknowledge that they did precisely the same thing that you criticize me for doing If not what is the difference Please don t take my remarks as criticism In my eyes this is a scientific discussion But no Smith et al 2012 are not doing precisely the same thing as you because they are comparing initialised and uninitialised forecasts over a longer period enough to make

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/15/nature-hides-the-decline/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • decadal forecast « Climate Audit
    Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/decadal-forecast/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • hadcm3 « Climate Audit
    et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/hadcm3/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • met office « Climate Audit
    29 Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/met-office/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • synth_para191 « Climate Audit
    Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/12/23/cop21-emission-projections/synth_para191/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • TS_fig1_annotated « Climate Audit
    Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2015/12/23/cop21-emission-projections/ts_fig1_annotated/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive



  •