Thread: Models and reality

Another study that tend to go unnoticed, since it does not support global warming:

David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, and S. Fred Singer, 2007; A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, International Journal Of Climatology 27: (2007) (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

ABSTRACT:

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

From the summary/conclusion:

On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations, which indicates that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high....

This is looking more like the sciencific method. There is a hypothesis about greenhouse effect/global warming. There is math there are models that project and predict. While the alarmists are easily convinced solely on model output, there is one more step in the scientific method: testing. Test failed, hypothesis in trouble.

Look forward to reading it.

I'll take with a gain of salt though...The last paper from these authors a couple years back was riddled with math errors and deliberate cherry picked data.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Look forward to reading it.

I'll take with a gain of salt though...The last paper from these authors a couple years back was riddled with math errors and deliberate cherry picked data.

This one seems to have the same problems. RealClimate has done a fairly detailed critique.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ng/in#more-509

This is so groupthink. The inner circle speaks out their disgust and there you go, meticulous painstakingly, peer reviewed, validated work down the drain.

But you can't fool the honest experts (there should be more), one of them here of all places speaks up:

the study is published online in the Journal of Climatology, but it may be easier to download the .pdf

http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf

As you've pointed out, RealClimate.org has chosen to debunk the Douglass et al study. "A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends With Model Predictions" http://uahnews.uah.edu/newsread.php?newsID=994

It's a rebuttal I was eager to see, yet I'm seriously disappointed. I replied on RealClimate.org with this comment earlier...

"Gavin, did you write this? I find it intriguing that, as others have noted, there's no byline for this analysis. Any reasonable person would expect that if you're the author, you would stand behind this review. I hope you'll take the opportunity to correct this oversight. While I'm an avid reader of this blog, and inclined to support you, it certainly undermines your credibility.

"Several statements you've made here suggest either a stunning lack of familiarity with the actual mathematics of climate science or a willingness to knowingly misrepresent the data. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...#comment-75916

"I'm even further mystified by your acknowledgement that you had to manipulate the data set to prove Douglass et al wrong. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...#comment-75862

"Outside of the scientific review process there is no way to evaluate the merit of this post or its challenge to the study published in the Journal of Climatology. You've already written about the flaws in peer review, but to be accepted by science an idea has to survive rigorous scrutiny by the professional scientific community. The results need to be verified independently. Without this process, there is really no way to evaluate a scientific theory. Oddly, you have declined to submit your ideas to the court of scientific inquiry. Instead, you've taken this challenge right to the public where there is little chance for criticism except perhaps on Internet forums. It makes the rest of us who cite any of this work look bad.

"To help us regain a small shred of relevance to the AGW debate, may I politely suggest you submit your criticism for peer review, preferably to the International Journal of Climatology, and allow it to withstand scrutiny there?"

Sadly, it's unlikely that comment will make it past moderation.

I'm sure everyone reading this blog agrees: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a serious issue. It deserves sober, objective scientific study. Before any of us go about citing RealClimate.org on this one, please be aware: There's a reason Gavin doesn't take credit for his work. If you follow carefully, it just doesn't make sense.

A lot of people go to sites like RealClimate.org for objective, verifiable science. Unfortunately, after reading some of the careless work they've recently published as "scientific studies" I'm left with more questions than answers.

etc several more

I added a comment too.

LOL.

May I suggest that anyone interested enough to follow Andre's link read the whole thread and not just the part Andre wants you to read. For instance this post:

This whole comment string is dedicated to obsessing over the details of RealClimate's counterpoint to the Douglass, Christy, Pearson, Singer paper. And in pursuing that obsession, you have dragged the conversation away from the main point, which is that having stumbled upon a statistical anomaly that is apparently worthy of publication, Singer, et al, are representing it in the popular press and the blogosphere as categorical proof that AGW is somehow not happening.

You can parse Singer's paper and the RealClimate response till Greenland is wholly and entirely green (an event not far enough in the future), the fact remains that Singer and his denier buddies are still defrauding the public.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

LOL.

May I suggest that anyone interested enough to follow Andre's link read the whole thread and not just the part Andre wants you to read. For instance this post:

This whole comment string is dedicated to obsessing over the details of RealClimate's counterpoint to the Douglass, Christy, Pearson, Singer paper. And in pursuing that obsession, you have dragged the conversation away from the main point, which is that having stumbled upon a statistical anomaly that is apparently worthy of publication, Singer, et al, are representing it in the popular press and the blogosphere as categorical proof that AGW is somehow not happening.

You can parse Singer's paper and the RealClimate response till Greenland is wholly and entirely green (an event not far enough in the future), the fact remains that Singer and his denier buddies are still defrauding the public.

Thanks for that.

This just groupthink ad hominems. Only science counts.

Has anybody already seen the rebuttal of Schmidt G.A. et al (2008) in the Journal of Climatology?