Time to Fix the thermometers
Posted by Jeff Condon on August 7, 2010
I updated this article since yesterday to include Chad’s blogland work on the subject. Climate needs to address this issue as it is central to their conclusions.
I was reading at Niche Modeling today and ran across another McKitrick, McIntyre paper on the trends vs measurements in models. This paper also includes Chad Herman whom from the comments is probably Chad fr0m treesfortheforest who replicated and extended Santer’s paper in blogland some time ago. This, however, is the first peer reviewed and published correction to the Santer08 paper which made the claim that models were supported by the data. It’s published in a Atmospheric Science Letters a statistical journal and it demonstrates that model trends are well ahead of the data.
First, Steve’s previous reply to Santer was rejected by the journal it was sent to. This is despite the fact that it used the same methods and data as the original, it just updated the data to 2009 and came to a different conclusion. From the climategate emails, we know that criticism of models is not acceptable difficult in climate science.
The paper is not behind any paywalls and can be read here. I hate paywalls.
Anyway, models are often compared to surface level data rather than the satellite data. The sat data measures a thickness of atmosphere without interference from ground clutter, so the comparison should actually be better.
But it’s not! The best image of the paper is the comparison below- with Santer style confidence intervals. This passed review in a statistics oriented journal.
Models are running 2 to 4 times higher in trend than the measured data over the same interval.
In our example on temperatures in the tropical troposphere, on data ending in 1999 we find the trend differences between models and observations are only marginally significant, partially confirming the view of Santer et al. (2008) against Douglass et al. (2007).
The methods presented nearly confirm the Santer et al. paper which although published in 2008, didn’t use any data after 2000. Why is anyone’s guess, except for those of us who know that the quote from Trenberth in 2009.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our
observing system is inadequate.
Anyway, this is why there are scientific skeptics out there. We know the models are having problems, so do the other guys. We know the climate environmentnalists won’t allow people to point them out in the IPCC or in the Journals, yet we know the problems exist. How fun is that?!
Anyway, another fun quote from the conclusions.
The observed temperature trends themselves are statistically insignificant.
I find that quote a little surprising but that just means the methods they used estimated large confidence intervals — a plus for the climate modelers.
I do like to save the best for last. It is a paper so my bold of course.
Over the 1979 to 2009 interval, in the LT layer, observed trends are jointly significant and three of four data sets have individually significant trends. In the MT layer two of four data sets have individually significant trends and the trends are jointly insignificant or marginal depending on the test used. Over the interval 1979 to 2009, model-projected temperature trends are two to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are statistically significant at the 99% level.
The 99% level when you use all the data, OUCH, that’s not good.
Anyway, check out the paper, and call your favorite climate modeler to let them know they’ve got the wrong answer. Either that or call the balloon and satellite guys and tell them to add some trend back in.