Anthony Watts published an illustration and an excerpt of the draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers due out later this month. See the WUWT post Excerpts from the Leaked Summary for Policy Makers. Included with his post is the IPCC’s Figure SPM.1. See my reduced size copy in Figure 1. Based on the numbering, that’s the first illustration policymakers and the public will see when they open the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers.
That lead-off illustration is obviously one of the IPCC’s focal points. It includes:
- in the top graph of cell a, annual surface temperature anomalies from 3 suppliers (who all rely on the same source data, so it’s overkill) from 1850 to 2012;
- in the bottom graph of cell a, decadal surface temperatures from the same suppliers for the same time period; and
- in cell b, a surface temperature trend map on a Robinson projection, in which the contour levels have been tweaked so that it appears the Earth is ready to burst into flames.
Figure 1
(Original from WUWT post is here.)
The IPCC then goes into a detailed discussion of the warming of global surface temperatures.
BUT
With all of the discussions of the recent hiatus period, this is what the public and policymakers will take away from their discussion:
Blah, blah blah.
And this is what the public and policymakers will concentrate on and understand from Figure SPM.1. (See my Figure 2)
Figure 2
STATUS OF MY BOOK CLIMATE MODELS FAIL
I’ve redone about 40 graphs from scratch and completely rewritten 2 of 10 sections—all at the recommendation of the (non-technical) person doing the proofreading. And I’m more than halfway done incorporating the other recommended changes to the text, which make it much easier to read. (I’m having to tone down the language of the person doing the proofreading—she is becoming more and more critical of climate models being used by the IPCC as she progresses through the book and sees how poorly they simulate sea ice, precipitation and surface temperatures.) All in all, I believe Climate Models Fail will be published and available in pdf and Amazon Kindle formats before the IPCC releases their SPM for AR5.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is clear, once again, for the 10 to the 6th power time, that the CO2 drives warming religion will simply NOT die. This is a gunfight, stop bringing the knives to this shoot out. Somebody with DEEP pockets needs to start buying some national media time to expose the “church of global warming” ! Boy, would I love to win the Mega lotto drawing.. Next step would be to find a national right wing ad agency with some un booked time. After that, identify media that have been the least prone to spreading the lie, and start buying time.
POUND the liberals and greenpeace and the sierra club with current climate science !
So they have pushed doomsday out 30 – 60 more years. What a bunch of unscientific nonsense. Cherry-picking the future, based on their past batting average of 0.000.
It is more likely that global temperatures will decline over the next six decades. If so, where do taxpayers go for a refund?
Bob (or anyone else), is there a good reason for why the decadal boxes are compacted post 1970?
This gives the impression that something exceptional is going on for that period, though inspection of the line series shows the prior rise during the century’s first half is roughly on par.
Aah the old – Lets wait a bit longer to see if it happens because in 60 years I will be long dead so no one can prove me wrong – meme. When will they roll over and admit that their pet theory is nothing but collective wishing for something to happen?
Steve in seattle says “time to bring .”..agreed . I would love to see a temp chart from the lowest to highest temps. These one degree charts are misleading,
Amazing how much colder the 1930’s and 40’s have gotten over the last couple of decades.
Failed prophets always move the doomsday’s due date.
The rent seeking climate clowns are a predictable shallow obvious group.
so, is it getting colder or warmer ?
The cooling from the 1940s through the early 1970s was far more than what they show, even globally. And, for the Northern Hemisphere, actual temperature history over the past century was like a double peak with recent years unimpressive, as implied by original thermometer readings like those in a 1976 National Geographic issue (illustrated about half-way down in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg ).
Of course, anyway, media spin is what matters more for public perception than the IPCC report’s details, like Doran & Zimmerman 2009’s “97% consensus” 2-question trick poll reporting was successful since, as they presumably knew, not 1 in 100 people (doubtful if even 1 in 1000 amongst the total public) would actually look up and read the paper anyway, as opposed to just a media report of it.
The media loves to drop out numbers except when particularly desired, so I bet a common spin will be like “perhaps a brief hiatus before global warming returns with a vengeance,” often giving no numbers for the length of the former and giving more specific doom predictions for the usual 2050-2100 A.D. years (set to be after the authors have retired and are forgotten about).
Sad that climatological time began 150 years ago as far as most people are concerned.
They want what ? 60 More years to build their hypothesis ? Your time is up, SS CAGW, please return to port.
I would like to see some commentary on those temperature series, comparing them to others, and to the unadjusted numbers. Clearly, this decade was not dramatically warmer then the 1930s. We all know that, so these series must have some fun number fiddling.
The second thing I noticed was the scale. This is the first time I have seen a -0.6°C – +0.6°C scale. This is the smallest scale I have seen yet. Of course, using this small scale makes everything so much worse. While it looks very dramatic, it is what, 0.7°C warming total over 100 years? Not quite the 4° they keep ranting about.
Thirdly, we are talking about 0.7°C when we have all seen from Anthony’s Surface Station project that these station’s sighting likely make them off by degrees. The likely error is well in excess of the claimed warming.
The trick in communicating climate science is to frame it. Not to presenting the data in an objective way. So how do they hide the recent period of no global warming? They trick the viewers, which are politicians, business people and journalist by hiding the recent none warming period, Tehy do this by showing the previous rising points as straight lines giving these straight lines the same length as the last period. This is hilarious.
They most have hired creative psychologists to come up with this inventive way to present data.
Small random observation to add, something I just noticed:
Their plot shows cooling in the North Atlantic over 1901-2012 (probably since too much to eliminate). IIRC, the North Atlantic is where there has been a much hyped substantial increase in storms, which alarmists love to cherry-pick and misleadingly present as if representative of the rest of the world (while, in reality, hurricanes have gone down over recent decades in many other places). That fits cooling increasing the temperature gradient relative to the equator, driving extra convection and extra storms. As usual, it is cooling, not warming, which tends to increase mid-latitude storms more.
This report whilst it will be published in 2013, is in fact going to be judged in 2015 when the next climate conference takes place. It will be then that the battlegrounds and negotiations will take place.
So much will depend on how the next two years pan out. Will the temperature hiatus continue? Will global temperatures begin to show a slight fall? Will there be an ENSO event that will push up temperatures (but with warmists will align with AGW)? Will Arctic ice show even more of a recovery? Will the Northern Hemisphere continue to experience cold winters, and will these put a strain on energy demands? ETC.
Of course 2 years is not that long, but in 2015 we may be coming close to 20 years without warming (may be even longer with some data sets especially if temperatures begin to fall slightly) and one can envisage that there will be further papers between now and 2015 discussing climate sensitivity and these new papers (assuming that the temperature hiatus continues) are likely to suggest a lowering of climate sensitivity.
I foresee quite some difficulties for the 2015 conference, not least that China in Rio stated that it was going to do nothing before 2020, and because it is likely that the economic woes of the developed world will not have been cured by the time of that conference so the developed world will not be flush with cash to give away.
Time (and it would also appear nature) is not on the IPCC’ s side and we have probably already withnessed peak climate alarmism.
Exclude 500 Siberian weather stations from your data set, and you get…
THE LARGEST FINANCIAL SCAM IN HUMAN HISTORY.
Streetcred,
Our engines are dead and we are taking on water. Unable to comply with request to return to port.
Face it. We are in a marketing war. Scientists generally do not make good salesmen. It is an entirely different mindset. Charlatans make good salesmen, because they can infuse belief into their own self interest.
One degree charts are absurd, but that’s not all … the sea mostly shows up the same as the land.
Suspending disbelief, I zoom in to my corner of the planet (west Pacific Ocean). Willing to accept that average temperature at my nearest station has gone up 1 degree since 1953. It is at the airport. Surrounding population has increased 5 fold, every few minutes a jet aircraft instead of the occasional propeller rig. Thing is, the above image has the ocean, out to about 1800 km east, showing the same temperature. RSS indicates that the Pacific hasn’t warmed for 20 years, and 70% of the airflow to the measuring station comes from this direction.
This is now the fifth time this scam has been presented? Why not I suppose – the scam that keeps on paying out.
“Against stupidity, the Gods themselves are helpless.”
I was carrying-out a water control test in the power station I was commissioning, I had a graph up that I had zoomed in on so I could better see what was happening, a clients engineer came by and asked for a print out, my boss came in later and said the client was not happy and the control needed working on and a new test, I said wait a moment, I clicked on the graph zoomed out elongated the time scale, printed it out and handed it to my boss.
My boss came back to me a couple of days later, and said okay the client has agreed that it is fine now, we had a chuckle together, the exact same data but a different presentation.
Sadly, they will just keep keepin-on till the very end. Everyone loves that feel-good save the world mantra.That is until the cost of this folly finally impacts the average Joe. And it finally is.
Even more sad is the fact that the general populace will turn on the warmists, not because of their fraudulent science, but because they don’t like the feel of another hand in their pocket.
@Bob Tisdale: I’m very much looking forward to your book release!
Even ignoring the required manipulation of recorded temperatures: they still had to remove the first 50 years in Cell B to get the required scary red colours. They show the trend between 1901 to 2012. In Cell A, the dates were between 1850 to 2012.