Fixing the Facts – By Steve McIntyre
Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.
Here is Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft, showing post-AR4 observations outside the envelope of projections from the earlier IPCC assessment reports (see previous discussion here).
Figure 1. Second Order Draft Figure 1.4. Yellow arrows show digitization of cited Figure 10.26 of AR4.
Now here is the replacement graphic in the Approved Draft: this time, observed values are no longer outside the projection envelopes from the earlier reports. IPCC described it as follows:
Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments.
Figure 2. Approved Version Figure 1.4
So how’d the observations move from outside the envelope to insider the envelope? It will take a little time to reconstruct the movements of the pea.
Read more: http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Pay no attention to [that] man behind the curtain!” – The Wizard of Oz
(Darn typos…)
“1984” all over again.
Consider that if the ‘observations falling within the range of the model outputs’ is to be deemed a measure of goodness of fit, all one would need to do to ensure a better fit would be to add more instability to the models (or remove negative feedbacks that limit excursions) to guarantee to enclose the observations.
In other words, make the models worse in order to be able to claim an improvement.
That does seem a stereotypical approach for the CAGW paradigm, though.
I knew it! The IPCC must have hired John Cook to do their graphs.
Never mess with McIntyre. He will tear this thing apart line by line.
The IPCC doesn’t have a chance.
The draft Figure 1.4 appears to have been incorrectly baselined – set to the 1990 peak rather than the actual trend at that time.
However, the actual caption for the draft figure (as per the leaked document) states: “The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and 16 internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading.” In other words, the grey area shows the range of variability around model projection means, which are shown by the colored bands. Observations fall well within the range of projections – something McIntyre somehow… failed to mention.
The IPCC has throen the gppd name of science into disrepute.
Are they so stupid that they think that nobody would notice or are they so sure of themselves that they are certain that they will get away with this?
“Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments.”
The sentence implies that it’s easier to make a long range forecast than a short range one.
And that, while they also tell us that there’s positive water vapor feedback. Systems with positive feedbacks tend to go off the rails at some point; the climate scientists used to postulate the existence of a tipping point. Now, this rather unstable system is EASIER to predict the farther one goes into the future?
The remaining scientists at the IPCC must be total whores.
Interesting article at Yahoo news by Mikey Mann; I commented on that one and a previous one, and almost immediately the comment(s) and the article(s) both disappeared.
It was also interesting that the majority of comments at Yahoo were in line with WUWT and JoNova et al. The general public is not drinking the Kool-Aid anymore! (and, isn’t “Kool” – Aid antithetical to the IPCC and Mikey-baby?)
Mark H.
Sorry, the last should read “thrown the good” name…..
Look at 1990 in the second graph.
In the first graph all the projections start from the 1990 observed value. In the second graph the projections start from below the 1990 observed value, because they are correctly plotted as anomalies with respect to the 1961-1990 mean.
Something of a simple error in the production of the first graph – possibly because someone did not have all the data to hand when they were creating it, or made a mistake as they were in a hurry.
DirkH says:
October 1, 2013 at 8:47 am
Your presume too much, Dirk.
There are no “whores” at the IPCC because there are no scientists. Had there been, there would be (whores, that is).
🙂
@Jim Stevens at 8:26 am
I knew it! The IPCC must have hired John Cook to do their graphs.
You may be right. They are a bit cartoonish and SkS seems to be leading their defense.
Dyrewulf says:
October 1, 2013 at 8:15 am
“Pay no attention to [that] man behind the curtain!” – The Wizard of Oz
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As long as the IPCC cranks out the propaganda, officials like Kerry can refer to its findings to justify policy.
To Alistair Ahs:
Your comment is perfectly reasonable, but there is some important extra content here:
http://xkcd.com/882/
Somehow I don’t think that’s the last we’re gonna see of slight of hand here. As good old Vladimir Illych Ulianov, said way back when, “if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth!” Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, “the mass of the people are more likely to believe a big, than a small one!” 😉
Looking at the replacement graph, I guess the Pea has been replaced by a Mexican Jumping Bean.
If they supply the “pulled out of thin air” data for the “98% certainty” figure of “human induced climate catastrophe” for Steve McIntyre to analyse, the pea will turn into an Elephant.
This appears to be scientific fraud on a massive scale. It appears to be an example of post hoc alteration of results to acheive a desired result.
Anyone who did this in Medicine or Pharma would be dimissed and disgraced. It makes Climategate look very tame.
I suspect that there are respectable scientists around the World who are sickened by the antics of these climate “scientists”.
I can only suggest that every scientist writes to their national academy and points out World policy is being made on the basis of scientific fraud and that they should perform an investigation. Since the IAC’s recommendations were ignored by the IPCC, this seems a good place to start.
Alistair Ahs:
Your entire post at October 1, 2013 at 8:49 am says
I am curious to know if you really are called Alistair Ahs because I find it hard to believe anybody would put their own name to so stupid and pathetic an excuse as you have written.
Anomalies can be normalised to any reference value. The correct reference value for a projection is from the empirically observed value at the time of the start of the projection.
Richard
I released my own detailed analysis of those two graphs many will find very, VERY interesting:
http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-wg1-leaked-graph-conspiracy/
It adds details from The Guardian’s article today that McIntye does not cover.
@DirkH at 8:47 am
The sentence implies that it’s easier to make a long range forecast than a short range one.
It is true on several accounts.
First, Las Vegas casino managers should be able to make better monthly take estimates than the take on any one day. That said, overestimating the take day after day doesn’t look good for the casino’s (and the manager’s) long range outlook.
Secondly, it is easier to make long range forecasts (right or wrong) if you don’t plan to be around on the day of reckoning. Conversely, short term forecasts where you will be personally held accountable are really hard!
Steve is onto something big. The chart that Dr. John Christy of UAH presented to Congress on the pause in testimony on 9/20/12,, and that he and Dr. Spencer later put up in their website, used 38 CMIP5 models for total TAS, and 73 CMIP5 models for the tropical mid troposphere (20n to 20s) respectively, and both methods clearly show the divergence. That archive is frozen, and publicly available. Worse, the AR1-AR4 prediction bands are a matter of written IPCC record, and have somehow been stretched here compared to what was previously published. Did the IPCC really think no one would remember, or check?
This will become their Waterloo.
As this decade proceeds the IPCC’S climate projections will become worse and worse.