the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Real Climate Doubletalk – Blog Food

Posted by Jeff Id on January 24, 2009

This is why I don’t respond to references from real climate. They will say anything to support their theory of the moment is. Their latest is in direct contradiction to their latest from February, yet they already knew all of it and it is all perfectly consistent with ‘accepted’ global warming.

Here’s an quote by RC on the recent statistical paper used to “predict” that past temperatures were cooler in the antarctic.

January 09

State of Antarctica: red or blue?


Some comment is warranted on whether our results have bearing on the various model projections of future climate change. As we discuss in the paper, fully-coupled ocean-atmosphere models don’t tend to agree with one another very well in the Antarctic. They all show an overall warming trend, but they differ significantly in the spatial structure. As nicely summarized in a paper by Connolley and Bracegirdle in GRL, the models also vary greatly in their sea ice distributions, and this is clearly related to thetemperature distributions.

and another piece of gold.

That means that a sensible projection of future Antarctic temperature change — at anything smaller than the continental scale — can only be based on looking at the mean and variation of ensemble runs, and/or the averages of many models.

I do love that one. Individual models stink so let’s average a bunch together until we get a flat uprising trend that is nearly guaranteed to give a better r value.
Well what did they say in February 08

Antarctica is Cold? Yeah, We Knew That

Despite the recent announcement that the discharge from some Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century.

The article finishes up with this.

The pioneer climate modelers Kirk Bryan and Syukuro Manabe took up the question with a more detailed model that revealed an additional effect. In the Southern Ocean around Antarctica the mixing of water went deeper than in Northern waters, so more volumes of water were brought into play earlier. In their model, around Antarctica “there is no warming at the sea surface, and even a slight cooling over the 50-year duration of the experiment.” (4) In the twenty years since, computer models have improved by orders of magnitude, but they continue to show that Antarctica cannot be expected to warm up very significantly until long after the rest of the world’s climate is radically changed.

Bottom line: A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that.

A comment from gavin in the thread from the link above.

[Response: That’s exactly Spencer’s point. Models did improve once they had dynamic oceans (which the Hansen 1988 runs did not). And the predictions for the Antarctic dropped. But that happened a while back. – gavin]

And here’ s another one from 2006 which discusses polar amplification.  It goes on quite a bit about the antarctic and arctic but here’s a small piece.

Polar Amplification

Due to the successful treaty to reduce ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) emissions, ozone levels in the stratosphere are expected to recover over Antarctica by about 2040, so eventually Antarctica begins to warm somewhat in climate model predictions of the 21st century (see Fig 2) (WMO, 2002).


I had to add this one where gavin was responding to some skepticism about models in the comment thread second link above.

[Response: First off, the ensemble mean or long time scale is not the field to compare to the single realisation of the real world (as discussed previously). Secondly, all of the radiosonde data set are being reassessed to deal with known biases. If those revisions end up looking more like the model means, will you then accept that the models have some validity? I don’t think we will have that long to wait… – gavin]

So in February we shouldn’t compare the ensemble mean to the data now we should.

9 Responses to “Real Climate Doubletalk – Blog Food”

  1. Phillip Bratby said

    Doubletalk brings 1984 to mind. It wouldn’t surprise me (based on many years’ experience of using large computer codes (models) from different organisations) if all the climate models have the same basic models/assumptions built into them. Without proper independent validation, each model is worthless and unless all models are totally independent as well as validated, the ensemble is also worthless.

    And we mustn’t forget that the results of computer models are not evidence and we must also remember GIGO.

  2. Chris H said

    What Real Climate says also tends to be mirrored by the AGW movement as a whole, which is why I treat AGW with some scepticism (I do not dismiss it entirely). If they would just make some concrete predictions AND STICK TO THEM, then we would have the basis for verifying if they are correct or not.

    But as it is, they keep changing their computer models & proxy analysis, thereby never being disprovable – doesn’t really sound like science as we know it. More like politics, or a form of Cargo Cult Science. At best it seems like a (young) proto-science, which can’t yet be relied upon to say anything definitive – hardly the basis for far reaching global policies!

  3. Page48 said



    Do these people understand – or even care – how they sound? Do they really expect anyone to take them seriously?

  4. Page48 said

    I guess they do.

  5. x said

    We are now at war with Eurasia.
    We have always been at war with Eurasia.

  6. Henry Galt said

    We all make the same mistake.

    We ask; There MUST be some science in there somewhere, surely? UHhh HAAnghhh. Wrong. Plenty, plenty politics, but zero science, nasty destabilizing troublesome stuff that just makes true believers uncomfortable.

    The Team cannot be wrong. It exists by delegated coercion. Its members do as they are ordered. Their salaries depend upon the myth, perpetuating the myth and defending the other keepers of the myth. Their careers (and reputations) also. They have been made promises. NASA will not even ask gavin how come he has so much time on his hands to pontificate, moderate and agitate, let alone take him to task over why he does so on the company’s time.

    Us “tinfoil hat” wearers have long known that “they” (the alphabet soup of establishment authority) are, in fact, all in it together.

    Points like this are where the flotsam and jetsam build into a major blockage.

  7. Matt Y. said

    They certainly have painted themselves into a corner. Settled science with constantly changing positions and predictions requires Owellian language to defend.

  8. Richard M said

    This whole thing about using the ensemble of the models is quite frankly … ridiculous. All it says is NONE of the models is close to the right answer which means NONE of the models are useful. Averages are nice if you’re actually trying to figure out an average, but when you want to UNDERSTAND what’s going on they tend to muddy the water more than anything else.

  9. Chris H said

    Just remember that you can’t compare an ensemble of models with one realisation (such as the real world). Or some nonsense like that, which basically means “you can’t disprove our results” !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: