Are AGW climate models a failure

You still have it wrong. The ARGO buoys did not show an increase in temperature. That is what was included in the previous iterations showing an hiatus. Karl et. al. Modified the ARGO record by favoring ship intake data and bucket records.

 

Yes - almost.

Karl was looking for the correction, which required carefully comparing buoy-only and ship-only data. Everybody believes the buoy data is more accurate. Everybody.

Karl found that buoys reported cooler temperatures. As more buoy data was used, it made the average look like there was a move toward cooling - simply because more of the buoy data was included in the average.

In the end, ship data was corrected and that corrected data is still used, because scientists believe the correction is good and the ship data goes back in history over the period where there were no buoys.

The result is that the "hiatus" was found to be an illusion caused by how ships measured water temperature in the past.

Here's a paper by Karl:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.abstract

Here's a description from Dr. Curry's site:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/22/a-buoy-only-sea-surface-temperature-record/

 

Gosh, that would explain why the surface/ocean temperatures now deviate even further from the satellite data.

Curry's post is a guest post, not hers.

It looks to me like ARGO data was tortured into global warming compliance between ERSSTv3b and ERSSTv4.

 

Curry selects what goes on her site. It's ridiculous to think I was trying to fool you on that!!

If you want to cite something about satellite data, feel free.

I pointed out advancements there, too, remember.


I just don't think this direction of civilians arguing with actual climatologists works.

I mean, really, what do you think the chances are that you're going to poke at something and then have the progress of climatologists the world over crumble at your feed?

 

Here's how science works, a phenomenon is observed and then a hypothesis is forwarded to explain it. This hypothesis is then tested over time to see if it stands up or not and if it does it moves towards becoming a theory. If it doesn't it is rejected.

Here's how AGW pseudo science works. A phenomenon is observed and and a hypothesis is forwarded to explain it. It fails test after test so other hypothesis are forwarded to salvage the failed AGW hypothesis. See the difference?

 

What's wrong is that we apparently have a "climate change denier" putting a spin on what the actual study found when we go to the source of the story itself. http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

Are the climate models 100% perfect? Of course not because there are so many variables that cause the increase and even where the heat absorption occurs. The scientists never claimed that the models would be perfect in predicting the short term changes in global warming down to the nth degree. As the study indicated there wasn't a "hiatus" at all, that climate deniers kept trying to use as an argument, but instead that the increased global temperatures weren't quite as much as expected (or possible that the heat has been absorbed where we're not measuring it) over a short period of time.

There are two important statements that need to be remembered. First and foremost that the planet is getting warmer because of AGW (greenhouse gases and deforestation) which is what the models predict.

Next is that this is about scientists tweaking their models, not discarding them because the models are wrong, to address short timeframes and not long term predictions:

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

 

You have an interesting way of putting your own spin on the links provided in the OP which clearly state the models have failed. Most go on to try to look for an explanation why they have failed with new hypothesis which is another subject but the point is they failed.

You then go on to provide links that say it has warmed as predicted if you look at things with your mouth held just right and that's fine but at least you need to admit there is now a fracture in the AGW movement itself. One group is saying yes models failed and then come up with a new hypothesis to explain why. The other group stubbornly refuses to even acknowledge the models failed at all. The AGW hypothesis is imploding.

 

The researchers didn't find that the models had failed nor does it in anyway contradict the fact that AGW is very real. None of the scientists are claiming that AGW isn't real (except the one's that work for the fossil fuel industry).

Here's what the lead researcher actually said.

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

A mismatch is not a failure especially because this is referring to a very short time period in climate change of just a couple of decades. Also note that the temperature measurements did not stop increasing but instead just the increase wasn't as significant. There can actually be two reasons for this. First is less heat absorption but the other is far more interesting. When the troposphere stopped showing an increase in the late 1990's the scientists found that the oceans, that hold a hell-of-a-lot more heat energy, had started to warm. So what if the Earth is absorbing more heat but it's not in the lower atmosphere or where we're measuring temperatures in the oceans? What if the solid surface of the Earth is absorbing the extra heat but we haven't measured it yet?

In any case it was only a minor mismatch between one set of models and the actual measurements for a very short timeframe and it's no big deal. It takes a little tweak of the model and we're back in sync with the actual measurements. Scientists do that all of the time and it's of more interest to the scientist than it is to anyone else concerned with the data.

 

The oceans hiding the heat is just another unproven hypothesis. Are you aware of what heats the oceans? It isn't the atmosphere. In fact it is the other way around, the oceans significantly affect atmospheric temperatures. For instance the recent super El Nino may (or may not) make 2016 the warmest year yet that ended the middle of 2016 and now satellites have seen the largest drop in temperature during the satellite era, 1C.

Now, do you know what happens to the warmth released by the Pacific during an El Nino? It can do many things and it does it across the NA and even affects the monsoon season in India. All that heat eventually is transported to the Arctic (and why ice melts) then escapes to space.

As far as models are concerned they give a spread of 1.5 to 4.5C so anything falling within that range could be considered to be 'forecast' but you could do the same with a model that gave -10 to 10 spread and call it a success. Problem is that observed temperatures have been dropping below the low end (the reason the IPCC dropped the low end from 2 to 1.5) before the last El Nino but it looks like we are headed right back to the 'hiatus' or 'slowdown in warming' which should give you a significant clue that the models are wrong as they did not predict that and scientists scrambled to come up with a reason why, of which there are around 60, the most popular one is that the heat is hiding in the oceans.

 

No, that's not even slightly what is going on.

Climatology is far more multidisciplinary than that. It has components concerning the oceans, land, stratosphere, ancient history, solar behavior, chemistry, physics, etc., etc. There are advances in every one of these.

Each of those includes tens of thousands of hypotheses that have been tested - with the majority being discarded. The remainder continue to be tested - there is NO theory or hypothesis that isn't subject to being tested and modified.

The very fact of the breadth of this topic is one of the reasons that conspiracy is impossible.

How could a chemist studying our stratosphere have ANY idea what his results would have to be in order to conform to some conspiracy?

There's just no way to do that.

 

You do realize they measure the temperature of the ocean...right?

 

Ocean? There are more than one and measurements are now better than they were but the duration of better measurements is very short.

 

So you must realize that the oceans are absorbing heat....right?

 

Do you know what heats them?

 

The earth heats the bottom and the sun heats the top. But heat always moves from hot to cold....therefore...if the air is warmer it will heat the ocean...and there is your hidden heat.

 

Direct measurement of sea temperature goes back to the 1800s.

I'm not sure what you mean by short duration, but that's more than 200 years.

You keep tossing out ideas like this, but you don't have any way of supporting them or connecting them to show a justification for some consistent position - other than just claiming it's all a conspiracy.

And, let's face it. No conspiracy on this issue could possibly go back that far.

 

Nope, the atmosphere heating the ocean would be like a fly moving a semi truck. Oceans have 1000 times the heat content as the atmosphere. The oceans store more heat in the uppermost 3 meters (10 feet) than the entire atmosphere (above it). Because ocean heat content is thousands of times greater than that of the atmosphere, it also takes thousands of times more energy to raise ocean temperatures by the same amount. The sun heats the oceans and the oceans slosh and flow redistributing that heat depending on winds or currents.The winds keep the warmed surface in the Pacific usually towards Asia but when the winds change, it sloshes back toward the Americas creating an El Nino (and raising the ocean level). When it is far west it brings upwelling from the deep, cold water and lots of nutrients, by the Americas creating a La Nina. We are in La Nina territory now.

Considering the difference in heat content and if the temperature has risen 0.2C per decade, the rise in temperature from 'global warming' can't even be measured since the accuracy of what we measure with does not measure in the thousands of a degree.

 

Heat goes from hot to cold. The warmer object heats the cooler object... always... no exceptions.

 

Sigh, did my post say anything different? No, but you just don't understand the difference in heat content.

 

If the ocean is cooler than the air the heat would travel from the air to the water cooling the air.

 

Just going to double down on not knowing what I wrote?

 

Sure there is.

I'm not going to cite a paper to support a logical argument that is self-evident to an average ten-year-old -- but not to an average AGW screamer.

I.e., a way was found to make the data agree with the theory.

All AGW screaming and GCMs that predict high CO2 sensitivity are based on assuming that the ~30-year period of rapid CO2 increase accompanied by rapid temperature increase ending in 1998 was representative of a reliable causal relationship between CO2 increase and temperature increase, and not just a coincidence. AGW screamers try to push the notion that temperatures are still rising by the dishonest tactic of "14 of the 15 hottest years on record occurred in the last 15 years," ignoring the fact that that would be expected if temperatures had reached a plateau related to solar activity, and unrelated to CO2.

There's always a way to make contrary data go away.

 

No, you're ignoring the effect of vaporization at the boundary, which transfers heat from the ocean to the atmosphere even when the ocean is cooler. See, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice."

 

To modify the AGW hypothesis you modify the main point of it which is earths surface temperature is directly related to man's C02 contribution. Since that test failed the AGW pseudo scientist on the government payroll have not modified the original hypothesis, they instead create new hypothesis in a desperate attempt to explain the failure of the original one. That is not how science works. In science a hypothesis is forwarded and then you test it to see if it's working, you don't forward a hypothesis and then do everything possible to prop it up when it fails real world test.

 

You do realize this is an entirely new hypothesis piggybacked on the failing AGW hypothesis don't you?