People send me stuff.
The IPCC has announced (via a “leak” campaign only to selected media outlets, such as Reuters, NYT, WaPo) that they are now 95% certain. From Reuters:
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
I’m glad they pinned down “…since the 1950s”, that’s important.
According to this MotherJones report:
According to Jonathan Lynn, who is head of communications at the IPCC, the organization expects that leaks will occur because report drafts wind up in so many different hands. Lynn cautions that “there’s no question that the final report will not be the same as the drafts.”
I’ve been in touch with IPCC secretariat Mr. Jonathan Lynn, and while he’s glad to point out issues on WUWT, neither he nor any of the media outlets that have the “leaked” report are willing to provide WUWT with a copy. No matter, we’ll simply go with what we know.
Here is the statement again, emphasis mine:
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
OK, so here’s the 64 thousand dollar questions for IPCC cheerleaders:
- Which side is which time period?
- What caused the warming before CO2 became an issue to be essentially identical to the period when it is claimed to be the main driver?
- How is the IPCC 95% certain one side is caused by man and the other is not?
h/t to Burt Rutan, but I believe the original comparison concept was by Warren Meyer.
BTW, the answer should be obvious which is which due to the telltale 1997-1998 El Niño signature in one graph.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The null hypothesis wins.
No reason to imagine that the more recent warming is any less natural in origin than the prior.
This is why I’m not buying the whole “Brightening” theory presented yesterday all that much…
Anthony Watts:
This has often been pointed out on WUWT and I have often seen dbstealey post the graph with two trend lines showing the same trend for the two twentieth century warming periods.
Perhaps he could post it again here?
Richard
Ooh ooh, I know the answer.
95% is a figure provided by the politically naive to the numerically ignorant – just like the rest of the IPCC report, that is…
Obviously there needs to be a whole lot more adjustin’ goin’ on.
Why are you using Hadcrut 3? I know it’s probably more accurate and I presume it proves your point better than Hadcrut 4. But the warmists will be onto it in a flash.
The one that looks like a hockey stick.
richardscourtney,
Was this the chart you asked about?
And here is another chart based on Phil Jones data.
That is a most telling comparison. It requires a great deal of concentration to pick which is which. It is a clear example of history repeating itself. Only the Warmistas could say there is a difference.
Let’s not forget that these IPCC models are considered to be the antithesis of the “physics-based notion that sound science equals reductionist, high control, high precision science.” That quote was supporter Briane Wynne in a 1994 book.
When you read my sources they pretty consistently say that the ‘science’ involved at the IPCC is actually sociology. Which many of us do not believe deserves the label.
The argument is that the traditional definition of scientific knowledge “tacitly reflects and reproduces normative models of social relations, cultural and moral identitie, as if these were natural.”
Can’t have that even if it takes a hockey stick to be the wrecking iron.
The only “evidence” the IPCC has are their models which allegedly show only natural + anthropogenic forcing can explain the latter 1957-2008 warming.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/fig/figurespm-4-l.png
Of course, they conveniently leave out of the models ocean oscillations, global brightening, accumulated solar energy anomaly [the “sunspot time integral”], etc. which can more than explain the 1957-2008 warming.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/natural-climate-change-has-been-hiding.html
CNN was touting this and emphasizing the Greenland glacier melt causing massive sea level rise. Of course they didn’t mention that the temps haven’t gone up in over 15 years and sea level rise has not changed.
@ur momisugly Bob, lol.
dbstealey says:
August 20, 2013 at 3:53 pm
The slight difference in warming per decade on Jones’ chart during the 1975-1998 period as opposed to 1975-2009 implies cooling since the end of or some point in the shorter period.
Just wondering, why was CRUT3 used? Aren’t they on 4 or 5 by now?
I’d recommend going back and using CRUT4 data. I just went over to woodsfortrees and plotted it and the shapes still remain the same. Using CRUT3 data just allows it to be completely dismissed by the other side.
The 95% percent confidence is a politically derived number. It has no scientific basis.
Odd that the IPCC would ignore the fact that there are nine (9) cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record. The warm periods correlate with grand solar magnetic cycle maximums and the following cold periods correlate with Maunder like minimums.
The regions of the planet that warmed during the nine (9) Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are the same regions that warmed in the last 70 years.The nature vs man question as to the cause of the warming will likely be answered as solar cycle 24 progresses.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
Nicola Scafetta provides a model that accounts for both warming periods and the “pause” since then.
REPLY: I no longer assign any credibility to Scafetta’s model, its seems little more than hindcast curve fitting – Anthony
The leak to Reuters was a test flight of their next excuse. I think it safe to say it crashed and burned on contact with a truth missile.
Expect AR5 to come up with some other slogan … as a student of rhetoric, I will not help them.
Be “funny” if you plotted the decline in temperatures (from the 1890’s into 1920’s), the static temperature curve between 1965-1978 (as it curved back into the 1975-1998 heating), and the decline (between 198-45 into 1968) and the recent 15 year static period as well.
Then, just to be “honest” mix them up with a “CO2 rising” under the “wrong ones” ….
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
The weather was more extreme in 1913. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/how-extreme-was-us-weather-in-2012/
The Climate models being used by the IPCC to justify “skyrocketing” fuel costs to “save the earth” have no relationship with reality and harm the poor the most who cannot afford to pay for the high fuel costs. High fuel costs = more poor people = more children dying. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/15/james-hansens-policies-are-shafting-the-poor/
“When the climate models do not agree with the reality”, Vahrenholt thundered, “then reality is not what’s false!” http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/15/vahrenholt-thrashes-leading-ipcc-former-ncar-scientist-in-hamburg-debate-the-wound-of-climate-science/
There were few climate change jobs before 1950.
I think one might find that climate change attribution to humans corresponds with the number of paid climate change alarmists. But the good side is this, once the temperature fails to warm, the number of employed alarmists will fall, and so will the general attribution of climate change to humans.
As Al Gore himself said, ‘it’s difficult to get someone to understand something, if their salary depends on them not understanding it’. This sort of thing has always been a thorn in those who advocate social change, they never seem able to apply their principles and criticisms of others to their own arguments, people, and agendas.
The actual quote should be:
“The IPCC is now 95% certain the Climate Model Ensembles
are crapdo not reflect reality.”IPCC GRAPH of Models vs global temperature.