According to Dr. Clive Best, A key prediction from the 2007 IPCC WG1 report fails statistical tests.
Abstract: Global temperatures measured since 2005 are incompatible with the IPCC model predictions made in 2007 by WG1 in AR4. All subsequent temperature data from 2006 to 2011 lies between 1 and 6 standard deviations below the model predictions. The data show with > 90% confidence level that the models have over-exaggerated global warming.
Background: In 200o an IPCC special report proposed several future economic scenarios each with a different CO2 emission profile. For the 2007 assessment report these scenarios were used to model predictions for future global temperatures. The results for each of the scenarios were then used to lobby governments. It would appear that as a result of these predictions, there is one favoured scenario – namely B1 which alone is capable of limiting temperature rises to 2 degrees.
Full story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’ll be on the front pages of all major media tomorrow morning, I’m sure.
/
this is terrific ! I want to try and get this poster into local middle and high schools.
“the models have over-exaggerated global warming.”
Simple exaggeration wasn’t enough, they had to go and OVER exaggerate!
Great article.
What? The IPCC was wrong. Too bad. We just dismantled our heavy industry.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,816669,00.html
I’ve said it before and say it again that there is already a ready-made scare just waiting on the shelf to be dusted off…
Then down the memory hole it will all go…..
Doubleplusgood….
Um, this isn’t very good. Sure, it has been cooler than the models predict, and that’s important, but the confidence levels quoted are based on the error in measurements of global temperature only. Nobody ever claimed they could predict year-by-year temperatures with accuracy of +/- 0.05C, but that’s what’s been falsified.
I’m pretty sure if you look at the source of those A2 / A1B etc. curves there’s some error bars and they’re bigger than 0.05 degrees. Sorry I don’t have time to check.
So does statistical significance work in both directions?
And it still makes no difference, the political process will continue to grind along, as long as it can be dragged out for.
This response on Dr Best’s website bears repeating.
So, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck then it is definitely catastrophic global warming.
Congratulations to Boudumoon for that gem!
Hands up anyones who is surpirsed .
Even if the alarmist theories were to be correct why is 2C considered to be safe given that the MWP was 2-3C warmer and the RWP 5C warmer than today and the alarmist estimate of CO2 levels back then is 280ppmv. So with CO2 levels so low what caused the warming. Certainly neither the Romans nor Medieval people drove SUVs.
DirkH says:
February 29, 2012 at 11:32 pm
/////////////////////////////////////
It is difficult to understand what the politicians have been thinking these past 15 to 20 years.
High energy costs are simply madness, especially to an industrial based economy; it increases the costs of manufacture and the costs of distribution. For many industries, the cost of energy is the largest component in the costs of raw materials.
If it turns out that the case for CO2 emission reduction has been over egged whether because of incorrrect assumptions as to sensitivity (or otherwise), there will be severe back lash on this issue. It is something that will not simply disappear quietly given the unemployment and poverty resulting from the pursuit of green policies. The public will not only be demanding answers but also baying for blood.
Merkel’s decision with respect to nuclear was very strupid coinciding with mounting evidence of the high costs, unreliability and grid problems associated with wind and solar. She has given France the real prospects of a stranglehold over Germany. I envisage that the Germans will long rue the hasty and knee jerk decision made to close down much of their nuclear generating plants. .
John Marshall says:
March 1, 2012 at 2:03 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
For anyone who claims that 2, 3, 4, 5 deg C warming would be catastrophic, it should be a pre-requisite for them to demonstrate what catastrophicc climate/weather problems beset man living during the MWP, the RWP, the Minoan Warm Period and the Holocene optimum. As far as we know from history, during the MWP, the RWP and the Minoan Warm Period, it was a time of plenty and man thrived.
The probability argument concerning the data is simply this :
The quoted error on a single temperature anomaly measurement is 0.05 deg.C (see here). If you measure the shortfall between the 6 anomaly measurements and the lowest of the 3 scenarios – B1 then you find shortfalls of (1,3,4,2,2,6) standard deviations. If this was due to noise then one would expect +- 1 or 2 standard deviations at most. The probability that randomly all of them lie so far below the scenarios is naively the product of each probability. This leads to a very low probability that the scenario predictions are correct. A proper analysis (curtesy of bbbeard) using the spread of measurements (0.08 deg.C) gives a probability of 1%. So the statement > 90% confidence is correct. The reason why all this is important is because these very scenario curves have been projected into long term predictions and then used to argue for drastic curbing of carbon emissions to limit warming to 2 degrees.
The question of model to model uncertainties: Here I think we have a different problem. Yes you are correct: the spread in model predictions seem to be getting larger leading to statements that the data are within the spread of models. This may be factually correct but that fraction of model calculations still consistent with the data are just those with low feedbacks.
A healthy scientific method should be as follows:
A theoretical model is developed to describe some physical process. The model will have a number of unknown parameters which determine the result. The values for these parameters start with best guess values and the model then makes predictions of measurable variables for experimentalists. Experiments then make the measurements and compare them to the theory. The model are then either modified with new parameters which can better describe the data, otherwise if this is not possible the model is rejected.
The problem with climate science seems to me that predictions of models made 22 years ago have had a massive political impact with the consequence that these predictions have been fixed in stone. This is not because the science has not evolved – it has. It is mainly due to the political fallout of being wrong. I fully accept the basic physics of AGW leading to ~1 degree warming for a doubling of CO2. The feedbacks (mainly due to water) however are rather uncertain and could even be negative. The models need to be tuned to fit the data and NOT the other way round !
Unfortunately, “It’s the Sun, Stupid” never goes down very well with our not so friendly warmists…..
Traditionally, the approach that they’ve taken is to try and erase from history or marginalize both the MWP and the RWP
The sooner people get used to the fact that we live with a bit of a variable Star the better really – Well unless they want to start claiming that the Romans invented SUV’s, which their Medieval counterparts rediscovered and started driving around 😉
Another excellent technical paper that falsifies the IPCC, surface warming predictions. It should, of course, lead to a dismantling of the most stupid effects of the Climate Act, such as wind generation and biofuels. And a complete rethink of energy policy. But, it won’t. The policy makers will just ignore it, and continue to walk around with their fingers in their ears and their blindfolds on.
I pointed a commenter to Gavin Schmidt’s site where a similar chart exists and stated:
“All surface temperature models are running warm compared to reality.”
So I did interpret the chart correctly, I’m not that thick after all!
He didn’t like my source:
“No I asked for scientific institution. That’s a dude on a blog.”
🙂
Hadcrut3 is now lower than every single one of the 23 climate models used in the IPCC AR4 (and there is quite a spread in these models).
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5937/ipccmodelspreadvshc3jan.png
This very well researched piece blows apart the latest rubbish. http://bit.ly/9NDJ5
Might “over-exaggerate” be considered a double negative?
The IPCC and the Gore-Mannian people are using the same flawed logic of the 18th century balloonist-would-be-astronauts who thought they could reach the moon if only they could pump in more hot air.
Garacka says:
March 1, 2012 at 4:53 am
“Might “over-exaggerate” be considered a double negative?”
Check it out here.
I agree with this answer:
“Exaggerate implies no degree, so it seems appropriate to indicate one sometimes: “He barely exaggerated!” or: “That was a huge exaggeration.” But I am not sure if “over exaggerate” is the same principle. It seems intended to describe a supposedly different concept, rather than a degree, but it doesn’t actually imply a different concept, because exaggerate does not mean “moderately exaggerate.””
Of course, with the IPCC, everything is an “over-axaggeration”! :^)
Meanwhile, the Earth’s temperature (according to the UAH AMSU Chan.5 daily temperature) is running quite cold…
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
So it sounds to me as if we need to reject the null hypothesis! There is sufficient evidence to conclude that these guys are full of it!
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis.
The alarmist have lost, or are losing, on each and every scientific point. It doesn’t matter, CAGW fear mongering is not about science, it is about control. They will simply role out more equally absurd claims, or change the name again, and continue on as if nothing is wrong. Their goal is not to get the science correct, but to make it plausible enough to sway public opinion. That being said, I don’t wish to downplay the importance of the people here exposing CAGWs faulty methods, predictions and shoddy science, it’s invaluable. Just expect the progressive media to trot out more name-calling, demagoguery and personal attacks for the ’cause’. Thanks, keep up the good work.