Monday , April 24 2017
Home / Robert Murphy: Free Advice / Follow-Up From Pat Michaels on Jerry Taylor’s Climate Model Argument

Follow-Up From Pat Michaels on Jerry Taylor’s Climate Model Argument

Summary:
In a recent post, I linked to a 2015 blog post from Jerry Taylor. I was concerned that his own chart showed the opposite of what he claimed. Specifically, it seemed that the climate models that were published in the 2007 IPCC report had overpredicted actual warming from 2007 forward. And since you can calibrate the models (by adjusting parameters such as the reflectivity of aerosols in the atmosphere), the fact that the models “match” the observations before 2007 is not so reassuring. In a comment at my post, climate scientist (and Cato scholar, and my co-author) Pat Michaels wrote this: Of course, because of the discrepancy between the models and surface average temperature, the difference between modeled and observed ocean-only readings is large, and post -1998

Topics:
Robert Murphy considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Robert Murphy writes In Honor of the March for Science

Robert Murphy writes Is Jerry Taylor Doing What I Think He’s Doing?

Robert Murphy writes Would a Carbon Tax+Dividend Scheme “Financially Benefit” Poor Households?

Tyler Durden writes “The Planet Made Them Do It” – Scientists Claim Left-Wing Violence Is Caused By Global Warming

In a recent post, I linked to a 2015 blog post from Jerry Taylor. I was concerned that his own chart showed the opposite of what he claimed. Specifically, it seemed that the climate models that were published in the 2007 IPCC report had overpredicted actual warming from 2007 forward. And since you can calibrate the models (by adjusting parameters such as the reflectivity of aerosols in the atmosphere), the fact that the models “match” the observations before 2007 is not so reassuring.

In a comment at my post, climate scientist (and Cato scholar, and my co-author) Pat Michaels wrote this:

Of course, because of the discrepancy between the models and surface average temperature, the difference between modeled and observed ocean-only readings is large, and post -1998 only matches the models during the recent El Nino (too bad this reply section will not accept an illustration).

There’s the further problem that Taylor tries to sweep away: The satellite/radiosonde comparisons with the IPCC model average show a huge error in the vertical in the tropics. Given that the vertical stratification is what determines tropical precipitation, that means the modeled rainfall is systematically wrong. Given that the presence of surface water dramatically alters the partitioning of incoming radiation (less sensible heating of wet surfaces), that means the daily thermal regime is also mis-specified, which will further screw up the rainfall etc…

At any rate, as shown by Hourdin et al. in the latest Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society, the models are tuned to match the 20th century surface history often with physically unrealistic adjustments, possibly a cause of the huge vertical error.

Because Pat said he wished he could post an image, I emailed him and offered him the option. He took me up. So below is the chart he wanted to post, along with his further commentary:

Follow-Up From Pat Michaels on Jerry Taylor’s Climate Model Argument

Many things to note. Even in the land-only, the CMIP model mean tends to be too warm post 1998. You will also see that by showing the real datapoints that the fit looks much less fortuitous than in Jerry’s post. And in the other 70%–the ocean surface—every post-1998 datapoint is below the model average, and it only gets close in the recent El Nino. The consequence of getting the ocean surface warming rate wrong is that means the flux of water vapor is being overestimated (it may be tuned in retrospective mode) for the near term and in the future. The calculated water vapor feeedbacks have to assume the forecast is correct, which it most clearly is not.

That leads to a further speculation: If the water vapor flux is wrong in the models (too high) that means that the models will consistently overpredict temperature, so I would surmise that the only way they can match is if they are tuned. I’m sure you have seen Hourdin et al. in BAMS. And that just scratches the surface, so to speak!

PJM

Pat then added in a final email: “[D]on’t forget to re-emphasize that the models were tuned to match the past which is why they fit El Chichon and Pinatubo.”

0 0
Robert Murphy
Robert Patrick Murphy (born 23 May 1976) is an American economist, consultant and author. He is an economist with the Institute for Energy Research (IER) specializing in climate change and a research fellow with the Independent Institute, He was a senior fellow in business and economic studies at the Pacific Research Institute, and he is an associated scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. In addition to economic subjects, Murphy writes about, and has presented an online video class in, anarcho-capitalism on the Mises Institute website. Murphy also has written in support of Intelligent Design theory and expressed skepticism of biological evolution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *