Sunday, October 29, 2017

Cato Working Paper No. 35 — How Well Has It Held Up?

Note: Graphs and texts in blue are from the Cato Working Paper No. 35.

Back at the end of 2015, the Cato Institute published a paper titled, Climate Models and Climate Reality: A Closer Look at a Lukewarming World (Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger), which assessed that the rise in global mean temperatures expected under Global Warming and forecast by the various models were much higher than those temperatures that actually transpired almost through to the end of 2015. Almost, because their paper only covered a portion of that year. Needless to say, the actual means of 2015, 2016 (and so far in 2017) appear to indicate that the paper is not holding up very well in its main historical finding: that the globe is warming at a slow trend of only about 1 degree Celsius per decade, with an apparent deceleration from 0.17 (Hadley) / 0.19 (GISS) for 1993-2015 to 0.10 (Hadley) / 0.12 (GISS) for 2006-2015.


[Figure 1. Global average mid-tropospheric temperature variations (5-year averages) for the average of 102 models runs (red line). Circles (balloons) and squares (satellites) depict the observations.]

This paper starts with the finding of University of Alabama’s John Christy, presented to the US Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competiveness, that the mid-troposphere temperatures have been increasing by the more moderate trend of about 0.1 deg C per decade to 0.32 deg C in 2015, a far cry of the IPCC model runs’ predictions’ average of 0.2 deg C per decade and hitting about 0.86 deg C in 2015.

Fair enough. These temperatures are important, for they help determine what our weather is going to be like. But they also mean that what was to come weather-wise in these years wasn’t as bad as it could have been… and yet it was still bad… and weird! Like a tropical storm, for example, Epsilon, forming in the Atlantic late in 2005 and lasting into 2006. So what’s the reason for the mid-troposphere temperatures? Well, the Cato paper forthrightly states,

Rain and snow are largely dependent on the temperature difference between the surface and the mid-troposphere. When there’s little difference, air in the lower atmosphere does not rise, meaning that the vertical motion required to form a cloud is absent. When the difference is large, moisture-laden surface air is very buoyant and can result in intense rain events.

Getting the vertical difference systematically wrong in a climate model means getting the rainfall wrong, which pretty much invalidates regional temperature forecasts.  A dry surface (think: desert) warms (and cools) much more rapidly than a wet one.

The paper goes on to say this about the computer models and the data:

If the computer models are somehow getting surface temperatures right that could only be a fortuitous result if the mid-tropospheric temperatures are as far off as Christy’s data shows.

WRONG. If the mid-tropospheric temperature data are as far off from the models as Christy’s data shows and the surface temperature data are matching the temperatures predicted in the models, that means the temperature differences between the surface and mid-troposphere are getting larger, meaning more intense rainfall events! Maybe more intense windstorm events, too… we have had five major hurricanes in a row in the Atlantic oceanic basin including the Caribbean and the Gulf, a record first for this ocean, and a 185 MPH monster of a hurricane, boasting the highest tropical cyclone winds ever recorded in the Atlantic. It would be better for us if the surface temperatures are increasing only as slowly as the temperatures in the mid-troposphere are increasing, for that would mean the temperature differences between the two levels are not becoming any greater, and the weather is not becoming any weirder or any worse.

Except it is.

Which brings us to those pesky surface temperatures.
Michaels and Knappenberger present their decadal trend findings using the global mean temperature compilations from five sources: the UK Hadley Centre (HadCRUT4), Cowtan and Way (2013) (C&W), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA (GISS), and Berkeley Earth (BEST). The following graph presents the observed temperature trends:


[Figure 2. The annual average global surface temperatures from 108 individual CMIP5 climate model runs forced with historical (+ RCP4.5 since 2006) forcings were obtained from the KNMI Climate Explorer website. Linear trends were computed through the global temperatures from each run, ending in 2015 and beginning each year from 1951 through 2006. The trends for each period (ranging in length from 10 to 65 years) were averaged across all model runs (black line). The range containing 95 percent (dotted black lines) of trends from the 108 model runs is indicated. The observed linear trends for the same periods were calculated from the annual average global surface temperature record compiled by several different agencies described in the legend (colored lines) (the value for 2015 was estimated from January through October, average).]

As you can see, the paper shows a leveling off of the decadal trends at trend-length of 41 years (1976-2015, inclusive) onward at roughly on average about 0.19 deg C / decade until the trend-length of 23 years (1993-2015) where it then decelerates unevenly to a rough average of 0.11 deg C / decade at trend-length of 10 years (2006-2015). The decadal trends indicated by the Hadley Centre and the NASA GISS data decelerate from 0.17 to 0.10 deg C / decade and from 0.19 to 0.12 deg C / decade, respectively. The observed temperature trends fall below the multiple model-run mean (MMM) and for several trend-lengths they lie very close to or even below the 2.5th percentile margin for all the model runs.

But before going on, I have an explanation of this graph to describe.

The forcings used for the model predictions are not consistent throughout—the IPCC included the historical forcings up until 2006 but after that year used the four various RCP forcings to predict “future” warming rates under their respective scenario.  For the purpose of this study Michaels and Knappenberger picked the RCP 4.5. I was hoping the authors’ technical help would have reprogrammed the models to use the historical forcings to as recently as possible for greater accuracy, and to really see if the models are way off even with historical forcings throughout, but I suppose that in the end they were stuck with one of the four forcings. But then it doesn’t matter which one is picked, for all four of them are virtually identical in forcing predictions under “business as usual” until the year 2020.

Also please note that the lower the trend for past years, the higher the past year’s global mean temperatures is in respect to the 2015 means, when compared to adjacent years of higher trend value. Conversely, higher trends are indicative of the respective past year’s lower temperatures when compared with its neighbors. This is important.

Now I have a bone to pick over this graph.

If you notice, the trend peak that is roundabout the 25 years’ trend length (1991-2015) is located at 23 years (1993-2015). This is true for both the model runs (except for the 2.5th percentile plot line which is at 22 years) and all the observed temperature trends. Unfortunately, these are all a year off toward 2015; because, since Mount Pinatubo blew up toward the end of 1991, the observed temperature records show in reality a low point for the global means in 1992. I have seen other plots of the IPCC-CMIP5 and they show the models’ low point in 1992 also. The above discrepancy is a gross error and should not have been allowed to be presented to the public uncorrected.

Now we go on to the next graph.

The reason for this next graph is important, because Cowtan, K. et al, 2015 (“Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures.” Geophysical Research Letters, 42, 6526-6534, doi:10.1002/2015GL064888) noted an inconsistency between the IPCC models and the observed data, the same discrepancy the Cato Institute noted nine months before and it was that

observed compilations combine air temperature measurements over the land with sea surface temperatures into a global average, while climate model compilations use air temperatures over both land and oceans.

This variance was compounded by another inconsistency the authose of the two papers found, which was that

observed temperature compilations include regions of missing data (i.e., incomplete geographic data coverage) while climate models include the entire surface

meaning that the model probably has a slight warming bias compared to the observed data, or that the observed data are underestimating the actual warming! So a new model dataset (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/robust2015/methods.html) was developed and made available that took into account the different temperature data takings between land and sea—and it shows a slower global warming mean in the model, one that is roughly consistent with the observed data until the 41-year trend length (1975-2014 [see below]) at which point the two lines start to diverge from one another, showing a warming bias still in the adjusted models.


[Figure 3. The annual average global surface temperatures, derived from a similar methodology used by the UK’s Hadley Centre in compiling temperature observations, from 109 individual CMIP5 climate model runs forced with historical (+ RCP4.5 since 2006) radiative changes. These were obtained from the University of York website (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/robust2015/index.html), see Cowtan et al., 2015 for more details. Linear trends were computed through the global temperatures from each run, ending in 2014 and beginning each year from 1951 through 2005. The trends for each period (ranging in length from 10 to 64 years) were averaged across all model runs (black line). The range containing 95 percent (dotted black lines) of trends from the 109 model runs is indicated. The observed linear trends for the same periods were calculated from the annual average
global surface temperature record compiled by the UK’s Hadley Centre (red line).]

Now the above graph appears to have some really gross errors introduced into it; for what reason I cannot say.

First, the Hadley trend-line is at wide variance from that shown in Figure 2. Either they ran the observed temperature trends with reference to 2014, or they really put some really fat-fingered errors in it, to wit: The plot line of trends has been bent or otherwise “adjusted” at the 18-year trend length and the 35-year trend length so that it slopes further down for the smaller trend lengths, compared to those of the same line in Figure 2. Even the slopes of the line between the 18-years’ length and 10-years’ length is noticeably different to the naked eye. And of course, this reflects variances in the trend values from those in Figure 2, especially so for the shorter trend lengths. This in my book is a gigantic mistake: either Michaels and Knappenberger computed the trends from the data sets with the reference years at a one-year variance between Figure 2 and Figure 3 (i.e., 2015 and 2014), or they “adjusted” the data from the one figure to the next. This last is inexcusable.

Second, the model runs in Figure 3 are different (reference year 2014) from those in Figure 2 (reference year 2015). This to me is just as big a glitch as the second error I discovered, for we are no longer comparing apples to apples, but apples to oranges.

I cannot say this emphatically enough; the model runs and the Hadley Centre’s observed data plots ought to be identical in both Figures 2 and 3! There should be no room for such gross discrepancies as this.
Before I verify or debunk the these findings, allow me to take an excursis back to the mid-tropospheric temperature trends as the Cato authors do in their working paper.


[Figure 4. The annual average global mid-tropospheric temperatures derived from 102 individual CMIP5 climate model runs forced with historical (+ RCP4.5 since 2006) forcings were obtained from John Christy (personal communications). Linear trends were computed through the global temperatures from each run, ending in 2015 and beginning each year from 1975 through 2006. The trends for each period (ranging in length from 10 to 40 years) were averaged across all model runs (black line). The range containing 95 percent (dotted black lines) and the minimum (dashed black line) of trends from the 102 model runs are indicated. The observed linear trends for the same periods were calculated from the annual average global mid-tropospheric temperature record compiled by several different agencies (and include compilations derived from satellite observations as well as weather balloon observations) described in the legend (colored lines) (the value for 2015 was estimated from January through October, average (data provided by John Christy).]

The above shows that the observed mid-tropospheric temperatures ran far below what the IPCC model runs predicted. So bad, in fact, that some of the observed data trend-lines run below the minimum model run line and they all basically run below the 2.5th percentile line for a good portion of their length before rising to a mean average of about 0.16 deg C / decade at the 10-year trend length, with Christy’s data trend, UAHv6.0, coming out at 0.18 deg C / decade for the ten-years’ trend length. Still, the general rough average trend for all years is about 0.1 deg C / decade, with obvious variations, of course.

And I notice that the longest trend length is 40 years, with the data starting in 1975 according to the caption and ending in 2015. Yet 40 years inclusive from 1975 would bring us to 2014. And if the ten-year trend length is set to begin in 2006, the 1979 data would appear in the 37 years’ trend length, which it does! For proof, see the Christy / Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville (orange) line above and his data in Figure 1 at the top. And the orange line appears to show a higher trend when compared with Christy’s data in the top figure—because the above line goes by the annual averages and the Figure 1 data are annual five-year averages. Ugh!
I’ve run through 2300 words now so the rest I’ll have to include in later parts.


Filed under: Global Warming, Cato Institute

Saturday, October 21, 2017

Star Wars scenes we'd like to see

On Dagobah in The Empire Strikes Back.
On board the Second Death Star in Return of the Jedi.
(Tip o’ th’ hat to Art Bell)

Vader:          Join me, Luke!  Together we shall rule the Galaxy as father and son. It is your destiny.
Luke:            You said that the last time! Why don’t you join me so we can work together to restore freedom to the Galaxy?  You were chosen to do this.
Vader:           What do you mean, son?
Luke:             Search your feelings, Father. You know this to be true.
Palpatine:     Don’t go into the light. It’s a trick!

On the Millenium Falcon in Star Wars.


On board the Second Death Star in Return of the Jedi.
(Tip o’ th’ hat to How It ShouldHave Ended on YouTube)

[The Emperor is about to unleash Force Lightning upon Luke Skywalker.]

Vader:          [Butting in] You said I killed Padme’ in my anger! Yet she bore me twins!
Palpatine:     She lost the will to live—so it’s true from a certain point of view.
Vader:           You LIED to me! I’ll KILL you!!

[Vader tackles Palpatine and the two fly out of view. Luke looks at the camera and shrugs as Force Lightning runs across the scene behind him.]

On board the Second Death Star in Return of the Jedi.
(This is an alternative to the above)

Now what was Vader thinking when Emperor Palpatine was unleashing Force Lightning upon poor Luke as he cries out, “Father! Help me!”?

I think it would have been something like this:

He’s killing my son; my daughter’ll be next! When he said I killed Padme’ in my anger, he lied—he lied to me! … I may not save my son, but I have to protect my daughter!

If George Lucas wanted to put something in the Special Edition to reflect on Vader’s state of mind, he should have included Vader’s thoughts, something like the above, instead of the insipid “No-o-o! NO-O-o-o-o-o!” that he actually put in there, which was derivative of the most insipid part of the final scene in Revenge of the Sith.

On Dagobah in The Empire Strikes Back.
In the Cantina in Star Wars.

Greedo:          … e leni ta crento oatka. Ta oaska! >That’s the idea. I’ve been looking   forward to this for a long time.<
Han:              Yeah. I’ll bet you have!
 [Han shoots poor Greedo before he has time to react. As he is frying, Han   walks out, tossing a hefty silver coin at the barkeep. The barkeep catches   it.]
Han:              Sorry about the mess.


Yes, I know this is the same as the scene as enacted in the 1977 Original.  But in 1997, what George Lucas went ahead and did was digitally reedit the scene so that Greedo shoots first. Greedo’s shot is directed so that he would miss hitting Han no matter what, but that wasn’t enough for George Lucas. He had Han’s whole upper body: torso, neck and head, tilt to the right (viewer’s left) in one jerky, neck-breaking movement, and then jerk back again. It looks like a department store dummy, and just stops the film right there. And in a perfect beat timing to Haddaway’sWhat is Love? . Of course this all reminds me of SNL’s sketch that inspired the film A Night at the Roxbury! (Tip o’ th’ hat to Hello Greedo on YouTube.) Newest Star Wars viewers are lucky in that in 2011 George Lucas hid this by cutting ten frames out of the action so that Greedo and Han fire almost at once. But those who saw the 1997 and 2004 versions had to suffer through this!

Saturday, October 14, 2017

SIXTH MAJOR HURRICANE IN THE ATLANTIC!

This time she's Ophelia, a Category 3 who's sideswiping the Azores. This is probably the first time since the Eemian period that a Cat-3 hit the Azores.

Category 3 Hurricane Ophelia.
Let's see: there's Harvey (Cat 4), Irma (Cat 5), Jose (Cat 4), Maria (Cat 5), Lee (Cat 3), and Ophelia (Cat 3).

From the Wikipedia
... as of October 2017, six major hurricanes, the highest number since 2005, the highest total accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) since then, and being tied with 18781886, and 1893 for having the greatest number of consecutive hurricanes—[ten] with Franklin through Ophelia all reaching winds of at least 75 mph (120 km/h). In addition, it has thus far been a very destructive season and likely the costliest on record, with a preliminary total of over $186.8 billion (USD) in damages, nearly all of which was due to three of the major hurricanes of the season—HarveyIrma, and Maria. The season is also one of only six years to feature multiple Category 5 hurricanes. Irma's landfall on Barbuda and Maria's landfall on Dominica make 2017 the second season on record (after 2007) to feature two hurricanes making landfall at Category 5 intensity. In addition, Irma was the strongest hurricane ever recorded to form in the Atlantic Ocean outside of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.[2] This season is the only season on record in which three hurricanes each had an ACE of over 40: IrmaJose, and Maria.
[2]  Ops, NHC Atlantic (2017-09-05). "#Irma is the strongest #hurricane in the Atlantic basin outside of the Caribbean Sea & Gulf of Mexico in NHC records"@NHC_Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-09-05.

Three records ties, three broken, the highest accumulated cyclone energy. And Global Warming is supposed to be a myth! And it really looks like the worst case climate change so far is that in the observed data and informational records... except for surface temperatures!




ON EDIT 10-15-2017: Ophelia has since weakened to a Category 1 Hurricane and is expected to hit Ireland at that strength. Of course, it's not like this hasn't happened before, but still...

ON EDIT 10-17-2017: Ophelia's gone ashore on Ireland and when the Sun came up, the skies were orange.

Friday, October 6, 2017

New Orleans will be on the weak side of the storm.

Gulf Hurricanes that threaten New Orleans always veer east. Nate is predicted to conform to type. The question now is how strong he will be, since he will be threading the needle between the Yucatan and Cuba, traversing over deep, hot waters as he goes.


Nate's going in at the Mississippi Gulf Coast but there will still be storm surges in Plaquemines and Saint Bernard Parishes.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Tropical Depression 16 forms in the S.W. Caribbean

The National Hurricane Center takes the five-day track over the Florida Panhandle as a Category 1 Hurricane, called Nate.

Source: Weather Underground.

The hurricane's predicted path takes it over hot water in the Caribbean and a loop current eddy in the Gulf of Mexico.
Source: Univ of Miami via Weather Underground.

The reason why the NHC chose to route the hurricane into Florida was that only one model, the GFS, showed a predicted path for the hurricane going into Louisiana and that, according to their analysis, the GFS had the trough that will be steering Nate to be too strong. Weather Underground's Dr Jeff Masters reported so earlier this morning.

Now we have an 11 AM update to the model runs and instead of just the GFS routing Nate into Louisiana, there are now four of them. Three of them put him right on top of Bogalusa, La. at 11 AM Saturday morning! And only two models route the hurricane into the Florida Panhandle or Alabama.

Source: Weather Underground.
If this thing follows the NAM track, the HMON track, or the TVCN track, it could become a very bad hurricane! We're not out of this yet.

Sunday, October 1, 2017

All things Yoda...

Okay, not all things that are about Yoda and are available on the internet. The vast quantity of those things has probably approached infinity. But all things in this blog article will be about Yoda.

And so we're off!


 True. Especially when someone swipes a photo of you as a young child.


But Yoda has learned wisdom over the years and so he doesn't let it consume him. But he is a bit particular when someone mentions his size.


And there was the time when Luke trained under him on the planet Atchafalaya ðŸ˜‰ in the Dagobah system. First was Luke's vision in the Cave of Death:



So Yoda knew Disney was going to take over Star Wars and fuck it up! Hence, The Force Awakens.

Then when Luke tried to lift his ship and couldn't do it (because he couldn't believe he could do it):


Then Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy showed up, and Luke proposed!


But enough about Luke, let's get to some wisdom, shall we?




He even has wisdom to those who rummage through other people's smart phones!


Of course, sometimes he's not the most tactful person...


Especially to trolls and buffoons, and most especially to trollfoons!



And if they don't like it? Here's his parting shot: