Now I will come to the conclusion of this three-part series ad
show you how well Michaels and Knappenberger’s Climate Models
and Climate Reality: A Closer Look at a Lukewarming World has held up. Because if the trends indicating a gross
overprediction in the IPCC CMIP-5 model runs, a slower warming and a smaller
climate sensitivity, which are the Cato paper’s conclusions, are broken, then
their conclusions are liable to be ill-founded as well, which means we could be
right back at the IPCC’s median estimate of 3.0 deg C ECS (Equilibrium Climate
Science) sensitivity---give or take 1.5 deg C.
First, let me show you a very recent graph presented by climate
scientist Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s GISS:
Chart
G: Global Mean Surface Temperature Anomalies from the 1908-1999 Mean. Anomaly
measurements are in degrees C. The CMIP5 Ensemble used has not been blended
according to the Hadley Centre’s HadCRUT4 method of accounting for land surface
air temperatures and sea surface temperatures. The forcing-adjusted CMIP5 takes
into account the updated (historical) forcings to date. The NASA GISS’s GISTemp
plotted temperature rise is shown by the red line; the Hadley Centre’s HadCRUT4
by the blue line. Cowtan & Way’s plot and the NOAA NCEI plot are shown by
the orange and pale blue lines respectively. The estimated 2017 GISTemp
temperature plot and its uncertainty spread is courtesy Gavin Schmidt; the
estimated HadCRUT4 plot and its uncertainty spread for 2017 are mine, based on
the latest data available from the Hadley Centre website (accessed 11/07/2017).
Nota bene that the upper end of this
uncertainty spread is hidden by the GISTemp estimated temperature plot for
2017.
The above chart clearly shows that the original CMIP5 model
ensemble clearly overpredicts the amount of warming observed; the
forcing-adjusted ensemble, less so. The NOAA NCEI and HadCRUT4 temperature
plots dip below the 2.5th percentile line of the original ensemble and the
original ensemble mean is only hit by the GISTemp and Cowtan & Way
temperature plots for 2016, the year of a particularly strong El Nino. The estimated
temperatures for 2017 show a drop of approximately 0.09 deg C for both the
GISTemp and HadCRUT4 plots.
Clearly, we still have an apparent overprediction problem here even
though the planet’s mean temperature rise is no longer in the Pause. To check
this we can simply do the same sort of trend runs that Michaels
and Knappenberger did to indicate a slow rate of warming in their paper.
Chart H. The trends for the predicted annual average global
surface air temperatures taken from Chart G for the CMPI5 ensemble (pale green,
purple and pale blue lines), and for the Hadley Centre’s HadCRUT4 (blue line)
and NASA GISS’s GISTemp (red line) observed global mean temperatures taken from
their latest data for a blend of land and ice surface air temperatures and ocean
sea surface temperatures. Observed temperatures for 2017 are estimated as
explained under Chart G above. The trends were plotted for all years from 1975
through 2008; the trend lengths run from 10 years (2008-2017) to 43 years
(1975-2017).
It appears that in the above chart the CMIP5 Ensemble trends are
noticeably higher than for Figure 2 in Part 1. Only the Ensemble Mean trend for
26-year trend length, corresponding to 1992 the year after Mt. Pinatubo blew up,
is anywhere close to equal to the Multiple Model-run Mean (MMM) trend shown in
Figure 2, as checked in Chart D in Part 2.
The observed trends for longest trend lengths appear at about 0.18 deg
C/dec, well below the 2.5th Percentile line at approximately 0.20. After the
37-year trend length, the Hadley and NASA GISS lines begin to diverge. But the
shorter observed trend lines after the 26-year trend length---YIKES! They
diverge, run an arc and fly above the 97th Percentile line, crashing through
the roof! And this is the problem with using short trend lengths; Cato’s
figures 2 and 3 exhibit their shorter trend lengths showing trends dropping
progressively toward the bottom of the graph, falling into the subbasement.
The above graph shows the influence of the still-warmed global
mean temperature(s) of 2017 coming 0.09 deg C off the El Niño-influenced peak
temperature(s) in 2016. The trends for trend lengths shorter than 16 years also
show the influence of the Pause---the longer into the Pause, the higher the
trend. Trend lengths shorter than 10 years would show even higher trends approaching
0.85 deg C per decade.
The IPCC CMIP5 Model Ensemble still overpredicts the amount of
surface warming as can also be clearly seen in Chart G. This is because the
Ensemble does not take into account the blend of land and ice surface air
temperatures and ocean sea surface temperatures reflected in the observed data,
and because the forcings under the RCP 8.5 (also RCPs 6.0, 4.5 and 2.6) scenario
post-2006 were higher than the observed historical forcings after that year. Apparently
the historical forcings between 1992 and 2006 were also erroneous and had to be
updated, as shown in Figure 4 of the Cowtan et al 2015 paper, “Robust
comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean
sea surface temperatures,” accessible here.
And now I will show you the trends for the up-to-date
forcing-adjusted CMIP5 as shown in Chart G versus the trends from the observed
data:
Chart I The trends for the predicted
annual average global surface air temperatures taken from Chart G for the forcing-adjusted
(supplied with updated historical forcings from 1992 to date) CMPI5 ensemble
(pale green, purple and pale blue lines), and for the UK Met Office Hadley
Centre’s HadCRUT4 (blue line) and NASA GISS’s GISTemp (red line) observed
global mean temperatures taken from their latest data for a blend of land and
ice surface air temperatures and ocean sea surface temperatures. Observed
temperatures for 2017 are estimated as explained under Chart G above. The
trends were plotted for all years from 1975 through 2008; the trend lengths run
from 10 years (2008-2017) to 43 years (1975-2017).
The observed temperature trend plots are still low in the
long-term trend lengths when compared to the Ensemble Mean, but this time they
are within the 95-percent spread, i.e., at or above the 2.5th percentile line.
One possible explanation for this is that this CMIP-5 model, as the original
one, does not take into account the blend of ocean sea surface and land air
surface temperatures. If it did, Chart G would have stated as such. As in Chart
H, the observed trends start at 0.18 deg C / decade, there is a peak at the
26-year trend length, corresponding to 1992 the year after Mt. Pinatubo blew up,
and after that the observed temperature trends swing in an arc and fly through
the roof of the 97th Percentile line, indicative of the twin influences of the
Pause and the 2016 El Niño heat spike which the climate is still in, despite
the Pacific Ocean presently
exhibiting a La Niña. One last interesting tidbit: the Ensemble
Mean and the 97.5th Percentile lines converge at the 13-year trend length, a
curious coincidence.
It should be emphasized that in both Charts H and I the
observed temperature trends diverge after the 37-year trend length, with the
2017 NASA GISS line roughly exhibiting a trend of 0.20 deg C / decade and the
UK Met HadCRUT4 roughly showing a trend of 0.15 deg C / decade, before both
trend lines rocket skyward under the influence of both the 2016 El Niño heat
spike and the 2002-2014 Pause.
The one thing the Cato got right was that the original
and blended CMIP5 Model Ensembles with historical forcings to 2006
overpredicted the amount of warming compared to the amount already observed.
Cowtan et al also noted this with the original Ensemble and they made a double
comparison using 84 of the model runs: all surface air temperatures vs land
surface air temperatures, and historical to 2006 then RCP 8.5 vs updated
historical forcings and presented their findings in Figure 4 of their paper:
Chart J (Cowtan
et al 2015 Figure 4): “Comparison
of 84 RCP8.5 simulations against HadCRUT4 observations (black), using either
air temperatures (red line and shading) or blended temperatures using the
HadCRUT4 method (blue line and shading). The shaded regions represent the 90%
range (i.e., from 5% to 95%) of the model simulations, with the corresponding
lines representing the multimodel mean. (a) Anomalies derived from the
unmodified RCP8.5 results and (b) the results adjusted to include the effect of
updated forcings from Schmidt et al. [2014]. Temperature anomalies are relative
to 1961–1990.” The purple shading is the overlap between the red and blue
shadings.
Please note in the above chart that the multiple model
set of 84 simulations that had the best fit to the observed post-1991
(post-Pinatubo) temperatures was the set that was run with (a) updated blended
temperature anomalies (HadCRUT4 method) and (b) updated forcings to 2013. The
observed temperatures run through 2014. Neither the updated forcings nor the
observed temperatures include the years 2015 through 2017 which have the El Niño
warming spike that brought an end to the Pause.
For those years’ observed temperatures catching up to the mean
multimodel prediction, even with all surface air temperatures, see Chart G at
the top.
Now what does this mean for the Cato Working Paper No.
35? Despite the paper being correct about the CMIP5 Model Ensemble with its
original forcings grossly overstating the predicted warming, it does not follow
that the trend lines are levelling off toward zero or even 0.10 deg C / decade.
If anything, it shows that taking trends that are shorter than 30 years and
extrapolating a lower Charney / ECS climate sensitivity toward a doubling of
CO2 from them is a fool’s errand and that the longer trend lengths with their
observed trend values of about 0.18 deg C / decade are to be preferred in
roughly predicting any future warming. And what was the lower sensitivity
favored by the Cato paper? 2 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2, which is more
than enough to bring on the coming global superstorms that would wreck our
civilization. A higher sensitivity, say 3 degrees Celsius, is more likely given
the observed longer-term trend values and would be even worse for us because
the storms would arrive at a lower CO2 content, that is, sooner.
Furthermore, the difference in the surface warming versus
the mid-troposphere warming is creating a higher heat gradient between the
surface and the mid-troposphere, meaning that more water vapor is going up into
the atmosphere, creating more clouds and weirder and more extreme weather in
diverse places. After all, we do know our weather has gotten weirder and some
climate scientists are on record stating that it has become more extreme.
Cato’s Working Paper No. 35 has not held up well at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment