This post made me think of this poem, The Arrow and the Song. The arrows are the forecasts, and the song is the IPCC report – Anthony
I shot an arrow into the air,
It fell to earth, I knew not where;
For, so swiftly it flew, the sight
Could not follow it in its flight.
I breathed a song into the air,
It fell to earth, I knew not where;
For who has sight so keen and strong,
That it can follow the flight of song?
– Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Guest Post by Ira Glickstein.
The animated graphic is based on Figure 1-4 from the recently leaked IPCC AR5 draft document. This one chart is all we need to prove, without a doubt, that IPCC analysis methodology and computer models are seriously flawed. They have way over-estimated the extent of Global Warming since the IPCC first started issuing Assessment Reports in 1990, and continuing through the fourth report issued in 2007.
When actual observations over a period of up to 22 years substantially contradict predictions based on a given climate theory, that theory must be greatly modified or completely discarded.
IPCC SHOT FOUR “ARROWS” – ALL HIT WAY TOO HIGH FOR 2012
The animation shows arrows representing the central estimates of how much the IPCC officially predicted the Earth surface temperature “anomaly” would increase from 1990 to 2012. The estimates are from the First Assessment Report (FAR-1990), the Second (SAR-1996), the Third (TAR-2001), and the Fourth (AR4-2007). Each arrow is aimed at the center of its corresponding colored “whisker” at the right edge of the base figure.
The circle at the tail of each arrow indicates the Global temperature in the year the given assessment report was issued. The first head on each arrow represents the central IPCC prediction for 2012. They all mispredict warming from 1990 to 2012 by a factor of two to three. The dashed line and second arrow head represents the central IPCC predictions for 2015.
Actual Global Warming, from 1990 to 2012 (indicated by black bars in the base graphic) varies from year to year. However, net warming between 1990 and 2012 is in the range of 0.12 to 0.16˚C (indicated by the black arrow in the animation). The central predictions from the four reports (indicated by the colored arrows in the animation) range from 0.3˚C to 0.5˚C, which is about two to five times greater than actual measured net warming.
The colored bands in the base IPCC graphic indicate the 90% range of uncertainty above and below the central predictions calculated by the IPCC when they issued the assessment reports. 90% certainty means there is only one chance in ten the actual observations will fall outside the colored bands.
The IPCC has issued four reports, so, given 90% certainty for each report, there should be only one chance in 10,000 (ten times ten times ten times ten) that they got it wrong four times in a row. But they did! Please note that the colored bands, wide as they are, do not go low enough to contain the actual observations for Global Temperature reported by the IPCC for 2012.
Thus, the IPCC predictions for 2012 are high by multiples of what they thought they were predicting! Although the analysts and modelers claimed their predictions were 90% certain, it is now clear they were far from that mark with each and every prediction.
IPCC PREDICTIONS FOR 2015 – AND IRA’S
The colored bands extend to 2015 as do the central prediction arrows in the animation. The arrow heads at the ends of the dashed portion indicate IPCC central predictions for the Global temperature “anomaly” for 2015. My black arrow, from the actual 1990 Global temperature “anomaly” to the actual 2012 temperature “anomaly” also extends out to 2015, and let that be my prediction for 2015:
- IPCC FAR Prediction for 2015: 0.88˚C (1.2 to 0.56)
- IPCC SAR Prediction for 2015: 0.64˚C (0.75 to 0.52)
- IPCC TAR Prediction for 2015: 0.77˚C (0.98 to 0.55)
- IPCC AR5 Prediction for 2015: 0.79˚C (0.96 to 0.61)
- Ira Glickstein’s Central Prediction for 2015: 0.46˚C
Please note that the temperature “anomaly” for 1990 is 0.28˚C, so that amount must be subtracted from the above estimates to calculate the amount of warming predicted for the period from 1990 to 2015.
IF THEORY DIFFERS FROM OBSERVATIONS, THE THEORY IS WRONG
As Feynman famously pointed out, when actual observations over a period of time contradict predictions based on a given theory, that theory is wrong!
Global temperature observations over the more than two decades since the First IPCC Assessment Report demonstrate that the IPCC climate theory, and models based on that theory, are wrong. Therefore, they must be greatly modified or completely discarded. Looking at the scattershot “arrows” in the graphic, the IPCC has not learned much about their misguided theories and flawed models or improved them over the past two decades, so I cannot hold out much hope for the final version of their Assessment Report #5 (AR5).
Keep in mind that the final AR5 is scheduled to be issued in 2013. It is uncertain if Figure 1-4, the most honest IPCC effort of which I am aware, will survive through the final cut. We shall see.
Ira Glickstein
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s very important in this debate to not accept IPCC outputs at face value. Doing so yields far too much ground.
None of the IPCC predictions include physically valid error bars. Therefore: none of the IPCC predictions are predictions. Those T vs time projections are physically meaningless.
We’ve all known for years that models are unreliable. Demetris Koutsoyiannis’ papers showed that unambiguously.
For example: Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis (2010) A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55 (7), 1094–1110.
Abstract: We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections do not correspond to reality any better.
I’ve not checked yet, but would be unsurprised if that paper does not appear in the AR5 SOD reference list.
So all they have to do to make their models work is divide their CO2 sensitivity (fudge factor) by two or three. That still would not explain a probable future downward trend in global temperature.
The FAR, SAR and TAR arrows appear to me shown as landing slightly
above the midpoints of their target ranges. It appears to me that this can
cause appearance of exaggeration of IPCC projections.
I see need for IPCC to adjust itself to some recent helpings of reality, and
their favored scientists to adjust themselves to reality, as opposed to totally
discarding their previous findings.
Let’s see what the next decade or 2 brings. We are going into a combined
minimum of ~60-year and ~210-year solar cycles, likely to bottom-out close
to the minimum of the ~11-year cycle and the ~22-year “Hale cycle”, which
will probably be in the early (possibly mid) 2030’s. It’s looking to me that this
will be a short, steep-&-deep solar minimum as far as ~210-year-class ones
go.
As for effect on global temperature: I expect global temperature sensitivity to
solar activity to be just high enough, and global temperature sensitivity to CO2
to be just low enough, (after applicable feedbacks), that global temperature
will roughly hold steady over the next 20 years. Fair chance, decrease by
1/10 degree C.
I feel sorry for England and nearby parts of “continental Europe”, and
northeastern USA and some nearby parts of Canada. It appears to me that
dips in solar activity, including the otherwise-probably-insignificant ~22-year
Hale cycle, hit these regions hard.
Dr. Ira Glickstein
This is great! If I could suggest a possible improvement on the visualization: a separate “actual” starting at each IPCC release point or perhaps the submission cut of dates. The observed lines would get progressively flatter from FAR to AR4 illustrating the IPCC reports getting farther and farther from reality even to those less scientifically inclined.
I do wish people would stop drawing straight lines through this stuff as if it proved anything. What is the likelihood that a system as complex as the Earth’s climate system responds in a linear fashion?
“As Feynman famously pointed out, when actual observations over a period of time contradict predictions based on a given theory, that theory is wrong!”
A rather radical idea. I can’t see that catching on at the IPCC.
Not to belittle Feynman, but he was just explaining how science has been done since Galileo’s time.
The facts are that the New speakers quote unprecedented heat and continued warming. This year was the warmest in history. Heck I heard a representative of the ski industry bemoan warm weather and attribute it to global warming which if we don’t do something now will go up 4-10 degrees by 2100. News reader agreed. Hard to imagine a speaker for CO2 reduction representing a leisure industry with higher carbon footprint.
Logic has lost. End of the world, doomsday, repent-the end is nigh has won.
The Sirens song…..is for another post.
But, Anthony started it 🙂
It has its parallels.
Sorry all.
Yeah, been reading some alarmist excuses, which essentially state that the predictions of the IPCC in 1990 were right, even though they are now wrong, because once you have made ‘adjustments’ to the temperature trend since 1990 due to the lack of volcanic activity and ENSO, the IPCC predictions of 1990 are spot on.
In other words, what the alarmists are saying is this: I predict the New York Giants will beat the San Francisco 49ers. But when the SF 49ers win, I can say my prediction was correct, because the New york Giants would have won if the 49ners hadn’t scored so many touchdowns, kicked so many goals, and intercepted so many passes.
This is where science has passed into fantasyland.
l think things are only going to get worse for the IPCC as am seeing increasing signs of climate cooling within the global weather system.
l think the best they can hope for is that the temps will remain flat.
I stand in awe of the IPCC. An organization who, over a period of nearly 25 years, has produced more meaningless fluff than can be imagined. I’d like to say “you just can’t make this stuff up”, but it really looks as if they have. Remember that this so-called ‘global’ warming is 0.16 of a degree. You cannot actually measure this change with instruments; you have to coax it out of data purporting to represent an ‘average’ temperature relative to an arbitrarily-determined baseline (oh, sure, you could argue that the baseline is somehow meaningful, but c’mon! In relation to what?). We are talking billions of dollars and millions of air miles to determine something so tiny? And just how, in the minds of the warm-mongers, can such a small amount of heat translate into such a dramatic scenario of destruction like Unicane Sandy? Or all the other grand leaps in intensity caused by a basically immeasurable change? It boggles the imagination.
Listening to the meme-spouters shriek and wring their hands, while “Prominent Professors” at Berkeley and elsewhere translate this into the stuff of moral decay, makes one wonder: Has academia gone insane? Better yet, haven’t they something better to do than to force-feed us all of this snake oil?
Scepticism about this dog-and-pony show is almost silly if you look at it this way, but sceptics must keep revealing the truth as much as they can…even if it means an apparent waste of time. The alternative is the insidious creeping cancer of control by organizations like the UNFCCC. This cannot be permitted, ultimately. How can it continue….? I am glad that AR5 leaked. It shows, once again, the inner workings of a juggernaut swollen with special interests and agenda scientists, continuing gleefully–despite exposés like Donna’s book–to produce reams of meaningless drivel aimed at the ignorant and fearful.
Common sense and ice-core data are sufficient to demonstrate that CO2 sensitivity MUST be low.
First, in the core data, T always changes direction before CO2 changes. So CO2 cannot be the leading factor.
Second, T always starts to rise when CO2 is at its lowest concentration. Similarly, T always begins tofall when CO2 is at its highest concentration. QED, CO2 can not be the driving factor.
Tmax in interglacials and Tmin in full glacial periods are always about the same values. So the factors that affect T ranges must operate independent of humans, who have only [potentially] had any influence in the last 70 years.
Can we now dispense with this dross and actually focus on real problems ???
Ha ha – now that graph is a very ‘Inconvenient Truth”
Of course CO2 lagging Temp increases in the ice core graphs in that movie was in truth the movie by the same name ignored since it falsified their basic premise.
Bob says:
December 19, 2012 at 6:43 pm
The facts are that the New speakers quote unprecedented heat and continued warming. This year was the warmest in history. Heck I heard a representative of the ski industry bemoan warm weather and attribute it to global warming which if we don’t do something now will go up 4-10 degrees by 2100.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wouldn’t worry too much about the ski industry, at least in western Canada and Utah, we are having record snowfalls for this time of year. Skiing is as good as mid season already in lots of areas.
http://www.revelstokemountainresort.com/conditions/historical-snowfall
I’ve noticed some people saying the models are getting better. (Didn’t they just use 2 super computers on the latest and greatest?) That implies the past ones needed improvement. Have any warmests ever admitted even that, that the models need improvement? Let alone admit they’ve been just plain wrong? Yet they still insist we take immediate action based on the past flawed models.
It seems this whole mess started with Hansen’s predictions. Yet people still cling to them and his solutions to what hasn’t happened as he said it would.
I think I’ll buy a snowblower afterall.
Dr Glickstein said “The IPCC has issued four reports, so, given 90% certainty for each report, there should be only one chance in 10,000 (ten times ten times ten times ten) that they got it wrong four times in a row. But they did! Please note that the colored bands, wide as they are, do not go low enough to contain the actual observations for Global Temperature reported by the IPCC for 2012.”
Steady on: isn’t that an example of “prosecutor’s fallacy”, in treating the small probabilities multiplicatively? Surely it’s more likely that there was just systematic bias in the separate reports (which were of course ultimately under political control).
[Tim, thanks for your comment. I looked up “prosecutor’s fallacy” and it did not seem to me to apply in this case. Consider throwing a single fair die four times. The probability of getting a “1” on any throw is one in six, so the probability of getting four “1” results in a row is 1/(6 x 6 x 6 x 6) = 1/1296. If a prediction based on a given theory and associated computer model is supposed to be 90% certain, the probability it is wrong is one in ten. If the same theory and computer model is run again several years later, the chance that both are wrong is one in ten times ten, and so on for the four IPCC Assessment Reports. Please be more specific on where you think I went worng with this simple mathematical reasoning. advTHANKSance.
Of course I know that the IPCC changed their computer models to some extent each time, and the data they used included some new observations, but the fact they missed the mark four times in a row indicates that they have not chaged their underying climate model, based on an over-estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 levels and an under-estimate of natural cycles of the Earth and Sun. They are wedded to the same -now discredited- climate theory because they are politically motivated (IMHO) to want to believe that human activities, such as our unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and land use that changes the albedo of the Earth, are the main cause of the Global Warming we have experienced over the past century or so. If they change their theory, and accept the Svensmark explanation that solar cycles, not under human control or influence, affect cosmic rays and that cosmic rays affect cloud formation that, in turn, affects net solar radiation absorbed by the Earth/Atmosphere system, they will lose their government funding and their political goals will be frustrated. Ira]
I shot an arrow into the air,
It fell to earth, I knew not where;
I lose more damn arrows that way!
If the CO2 glove does not fit… then we must acquit. GK
At a total lose for words…ERCK…UGH…PFFFT…And W.Tell. it fell into that butt of some greenie screaming for more””””’………. you are being hacked…. or word press needs a betterbuck servers.
Without the fudged data supporting the alarmist view,,the IPCC becomes irrelevant. Does anybody really think the IPCC will advocate themselves out of existence.
Ira Glickstein:
Thanks for this. The models are even worse than I imagined. I note the AR4 projection has the steepest slope of all, as if they hope to make up for lost time. The modelers great strength is that they don’t care how ridculous they appear.
Sorry if this question is spelled out somewhere but please tell me why the graph of temp v time starts at +0.25degrees instead of the 0 point for 1990?
The IPCC and its contributing “scientists” have only been following this corollary of Murphy’s Law – First draw your graph, then plot the data that agrees with the graph. Until recently, I thought only high school students and undergraduates did this.