Climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. blasts this effectively anti-scientific method in his comment at Dr. Curry's post Evidence of deep ocean cooling?,
"When observations and models disagree, to accept the model is an inversion of the scientific process!...model results trump observations. This illustrates how absurd the discussion of climate attribution [how much is man-made] and projections [of temperature/climate] has become."Dr. Pielke's comment on twitter & Dr. Curry's post:
RE: [assumes] observations.. inaccurate.. the models were correct" http://t.co/zAiGkXze7g For model results to trump observations is absurd!
— Roger A. Pielke Sr (@RogerAPielkeSr) October 6, 2014
This is a remarkable statement
“the warming of the upper ocean predicted by these models did not agree with observations; particularly in the southern hemisphere.They inferred from this that upper ocean warming rates in the southern hemisphere have been underestimated – that it was the previous observations that were inaccurate and that the models were correct.”
When observations and models disagree, to accept the model is an inversion of the scientific process! This is a systemic problem with these studies. For example, in the 2006 CCSP 1.1 report
this is what is written in the Executive Summary with respect to “Tropical Temperature Results (20°S to 20°N)”
“Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere, some observational data sets show the opposite behavior. Almost all model simulations show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface. This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open.”Clearly, the message with that climate science community is that model results trump observations. This illustrates how absurd the discussion of climate attribution and projections has become.
Richard Feynman demolishes the anti-scientific method in 61 seconds in this classic clip:
The pure propaganda write-up on this junk "science" from New Alchemist Scientist:
18:00 05 October 2014 by Michael Selzak
It's worse than we thought. Scientists may have hugely underestimated the extent of global warming because temperature readings from southern hemisphere seas were inaccurate.
Comparisons of direct measurements with satellite data and climate models suggest that the oceans of the southern hemisphere have been sucking up more than twice as much of the heat trapped by our excess greenhouse gases than previously calculated. This means we may have underestimated the extent to which our world has been warming.
Paul Durack from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California in the US and colleagues have compared direct and inferred sea temperature measurements with the results of climate models. While these three types of measurements together suggest that our estimates of northern hemisphere ocean warming are about right, a different story emerged for down south.
The team estimate that the extent of warming in the southern hemisphere oceans since 1970 could be more than twice what has been inferred from the limited direct measurements we have for this region. This means that together, all the world's oceans are absorbing between 24 and 58 per cent more energy than has previously been estimated by direct in-situ measurements.
Wenju Cai from the CSIRO in Melbourne, Australia says the results mean the world is warming faster than we thought. "The implication is that the energy imbalance – the net heating of the earth – would have to be bigger," he says.
"There has been a general acknowledgement in the literature, that southern-hemisphere estimates of ocean warming are likely biased low," says Durack. "Our study is the first to attempt to quantify the magnitude of what this generally acknowledged underestimate is, using as much information as is available."
The study covers the period from 1970 to 2003. Cai says that, during that time, while the northern hemisphere has been well sampled by cargo ships and projects led by wealthy countries north of the equator, very few direct measurements have been taken in the south. So it's not surprising that the in-situ measurements have been wrong. "But this is huge," says Cai.
"One could say that global warming is ocean warming," Gregory Johnson and John Lyman at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote in a commentary accompanying Durack's paper. "Quantifying how fast, and where, the ocean is warming is vital to understanding how much and how fast the atmosphere will warm, and seas will rise."
Since around 2000, a network of buoys called the Argo floats have been collecting more accurate global ocean data, so more recent measurements of the southern hemisphere are more reliable.
Journal reference: Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2389
It is utter madness to argue models trump data. What climatologists ought to be doing is revisiting the energy budget. It is wrong. There is no missing heat. That is plain to see.ReplyDelete
The anti-scientific aspect here is NOT preferring the models. The real anti-scientific aspect is relying either on the models or the data, both of which are dubious.ReplyDelete
As Stephens et al. showed in their 2012 paper, the data is not precise enough to estimate warming of the oceans or the atmosphere. And since the models rely on parameters determined from the data, the models cannot be more precise than the data on which the parameters are based.
Graeme L. Stephens et al, An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations. Nature Geoscience Vol. 5 October 2012
As for the proposition that a scientist must immediately yield to observations, in 1967-1968 I built a model based on data collected by measurement made by others.
The first time I told my data providers they had made an error in measurement they laughed, saying the observations had to be correct and the model wrong.
After a dozen visits to advise them of transcription and other human errors in recording measurements, they learned to say, "OK, what have we got wrong this time."
The most glaring error arose because the action observed was interrupted by a tea break. The second worst error arose because a bus broke down.
In the case of climate models, the errors probably arise because of reversed sign of feedbacks or other mis-specified variables or parameter values.