The Great Credibility Gap yawns ever wider

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Now that the UAH satellite data are available, we can update the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index, a devastatingly simple measure of how well (or badly) the IPCC’s official predictions of global warming are doing.

clip_image002

The 2013 Fifth Assessment Report backdated the IPCC’s predictions to January 2005. The interval of predictions, equivalent to 0.5[0.3, 0.7] Cº over 30 years or 1.67 [1.0, 2.33] Cº per century, is shown in orange.

By now, as a central estimate, there should have been 0.15 Cº global warming since January 2005, a rate equivalent to 0.5 Cº in 30 years, or 1.67 Cº per century, gathering pace rapidly after 2035 to reach 3.7 Cº over the full century.

However, the trend on the mean of the monthly RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies is, if anything, falling, leading to an over-prediction by the IPCC of 0.17 Cº – a sixth of a Celsius degree – in the 111 months January 2005 to March 2014.

 

The models’ overshoot over 9 years 3 months is equivalent to more than 1.8 Cº per century.

Though the IPCC has finally realized that the models are unreliable as predictors of global temperature change, and has slashed its 30-year projection from 0.7 [ 0.4, 1.0] Cº in the pre-final draft of the Fifth Assessment Report to 0.5 [0.3, 0.7] Cº in the published final version, it has not cut its centennial-scale prediction, an implausibly hefty 3.7 Cº on business as usual (4.5 Cº if you are Sir David King, 11 Cº and a 10% probability of the Earth not surviving the 21st century if you are Lord Stern).

It is also interesting to compare the IPCC’s original global-warming predictions in the 1990 First Assessment Report with what has happened since. At that time, the IPCC said:

“Based on current model results, we predict [semantic bores, please note the IPCC uses the word “predict”, and, if you don’t like it, whine to ipcc.ch, not in comments here]:

Ø “under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 C° to 0.5 C° per decade). This is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 C° above the present value by 2025 and 3 Cº before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.”

The IPCC’s best-guess near-term warming prediction in 1990 was equivalent to 2.78 Cº per century.

Real-world temperature change in the 291 months since January 1990 has been spectacularly below what was predicted. There has been just 0.34 Cº global warming, equivalent to a mere 1.39 Cº per century. The IPCC’s overshoot since 1990 amounts to another 0.34 Cº, or more than a third of a degree in 24 years 3 months, equivalent to 1.39 Cº per century. It predicted double the warming that has actually occurred.

clip_image004

Once again, the IPCC’s interval of predictions for global temperature change since 1990 are shown as an orange region. The lower and upper bounds for its 1990 near-term warming estimate were 30% below and 50% above its central estimate, equivalent to 1.94 and 4.17 Cº per century respectively. The real-world outturn, equivalent to just 1.39 Cº per century, is appreciably below the lower bound of the IPCC’s very wide prediction interval.

In 1990 the IPCC’s “Executive Summary” raised the question “how much confidence do we have in our predictions?” It pointed out that there were many uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

One look at the graph of projection against outturn since 1990 reveals that the IPCC has proven startlingly incapable of predicting the “broad-scale feature” central to the debate about greenhouse gases – the change in global temperature itself.

Here is a question that the legacy media should be addressing to IPCC director Pachauri, if they can distract him from authoring fourteenth-rate bodice-ripping pot-boilers for long enough.

Given global temperature rising for almost 25 years at half the central rate predicted by the IPCC in 1990, given no global warming at all for half the RSS satellite record, and given only 64 (or 0.5%) of 11,944 scientific abstracts published since 1991 stating that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade, on what legitimate scientific or other rational basis did the IPCC recently increase from 90% to 95-99% its “confidence” that recent warming was mostly manmade? Answer me that.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

174 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
alleagra
April 10, 2014 2:00 pm

http://labs.enigma.io/climate-change-map/ (model-free data – I guess) appears to tell a different story for the US at least.

heysuess
April 10, 2014 2:06 pm

Touche to all that and answer me this. If man-made CO2 has caused the atmosphere to warm in the past decades, what the hell caused it to warm equally in the decades before that?

April 10, 2014 2:13 pm

Well, it’s rational if you are in the nomenklatura class or aspire to get there.
Seriously the IPCC finally tied itself into the Great Transition as the OECD, the New Economics Foundation, and various UN entities already have. I really do not think it’s coincidental that the new website http://greattransition.org/ premiered virtually at the same time as the WG2 IPCC report.

Doug
April 10, 2014 2:18 pm

alleagra
“…for the US at least.”
6.6% of global land mass. Either it is global warming, or it’s not. Or, is this one of those “climate change” moments.

April 10, 2014 2:29 pm

@alleagra – Excellent! Graphs with no scales on the axis, and no error bars. Definitely produced by climate scientists. Provides almost no information at all.

JBJ
April 10, 2014 2:31 pm

Where are the confidence limits on your observed data???

wws
April 10, 2014 2:33 pm

This is very easy to account for, once you accept that it is all due to the Will of Gaia, Blessings be Upon Her Name.

Latitude
April 10, 2014 2:37 pm

They have been wrong every time, since the very beginning….
Temperatures have been at or below every projected scenario…every one of them since the beginning
THANKS Robbcab for this!
http://bit.ly/1mIpjmY

Raymond
April 10, 2014 2:41 pm

alleagra
UHI?

Monckton of Brenchley
April 10, 2014 2:42 pm

“JBJ” asks about the magnitude of the measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties on global temperature data. A suitable value is 0.15 Celsius degrees.

John@EF
April 10, 2014 2:51 pm

I see today’s “no warming” timeline is 9.25 years, vs. almost 18 years vs. about 13 years as claimed in prior posts. lol, place your bets on tomorrow’s timeline. Seems that MoB is responding to well deserved flack concerning earlier misleading postings.

Anonymousbot
April 10, 2014 2:55 pm

The Greenies at Grist are talking about a new type of science fiction called “climate fiction”. My nominees for best climate fiction writers are: Joe Romm, Michael Mann, James Hansen, and “Dr.” Jones of East Anglia U…
http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-change-the-hottest-thing-in-science-fiction/

Peter Pond
April 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Yet over the decades since 1990 we have continually been told by the world’s leading climate scientists and others that things are “worse than we thought”.

j ferguson
April 10, 2014 3:01 pm

“…. There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

It doesn’t seem surprising to me that models using varying assumptions in one part but similar in others might produce results which are consistent with each other, and yet not because of that be in any way validated (using the more general meaning of “validated.”

Michael D
April 10, 2014 3:02 pm

John@EF read the text and you will understand that the choice of the extent of each timeline was driven by IPCC published statements, rather than any attempt to be misleading. Read the text.

mark in toledo
April 10, 2014 3:12 pm

John@EF says:
April 10, 2014 at 2:51 pm
“I see today’s “no warming” timeline is 9.25 years, vs. almost 18 years vs. about 13 years as claimed in prior posts. lol, place your bets on tomorrow’s timeline. Seems that MoB is responding to well deserved flack concerning earlier misleading postings.”
You don’t keep up very well do you John? Lord Monkton’s previous post dealt with the RSS satellite data (the only other satellite based temperature set)…indeed it does show 17 years and 8 months of totally flat temperatures. This is the UAH (actually handled by two well-known skeptical scientists and it shows the least amount of pause of any of the data sets. That happens to be just over 9 years. The average of all 5 most trusted data sets is about 15 years of no warming.

Richard Mallett
April 10, 2014 3:14 pm

WUWT Global Temperature Page shows two graphs from UAH and four from RSS, and says they are incompatible, because they use different base periods. Which data sets do you use, and how do you combine them together ?

Gary Pearse
April 10, 2014 3:15 pm

John@EF says:
April 10, 2014 at 2:51 pm
“I see today’s “no warming” timeline is 9.25 years, vs. almost 18 years vs. about 13 years as claimed in prior posts. lol”
This isn’t no warming, this is 10 years of cooling. The other ones are no statistically significant warming. I’m sure you couldn’t LOL at this after having been LOLing for 30 years at the predictions of the IPCC. Well, chances are you weren’t old enough to laugh that long ago. You’ve bought the IPCC figures and you are sticking with them.

Monckton of Brenchley
April 10, 2014 3:15 pm

I see the trolls – John@EF – are back after a welcome absence. The head posting plainly states that the IPCC backcasts its predictions to January 2005, which was – whether you or I like or not – 9 years 3 months ago. Naturally, therefore, I compared 9 years’ 3 months of predictions with 9 years and 3 months of data, not with some other period.
On the RSS dataset, the first to report each month, there has been no global warming for 17 years 8 months. I reported that at the beginning of this month. On the mean of all five datasets, usually available by the end of the month, there has been no global warming for 13 years 2 months. I reported that at the end of last month.
The vaunted models predicted there would be significant near-term global warming. In the real world, however, global warming has occurred at a rate significantly below their predictions, and recently at a zero rate. Get over it. All I do is report what the data actually show. Don’t blame me if you don’t like the data: blame the Forces of Darkness for misleading you into thinking that the modelers knew what they were talking about when they made their silly, exaggerated predictions.

April 10, 2014 3:21 pm

In his latest article, the author continues in his past practice of drawing logically illicit conclusions from equivocations. That the IPCC is guilty of the same practice does not excuse it. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Admin
April 10, 2014 3:22 pm

I suspect the IPCC correctly estimated the chances of funding being withdrawn if they didn’t up the confidence estimate… 🙂

Admin
April 10, 2014 3:23 pm

Terry Oldberg
In his latest article, the author continues in his past practice of drawing logically illicit conclusions from equivocations. …
I say you are waffling BS – or do you plan to substantiate your accusation?

April 10, 2014 3:32 pm

My dear Christopher Monckton, yet another fine post filled with real world data. Always a pleasure to read your work. Thanks for taking the time.

April 10, 2014 3:38 pm

Rather, a minimum uncertainty in surface air temperature is (+/-)0.5 C; stemming from systematic temperature sensor measurement error.

Eliza
April 10, 2014 3:40 pm

The simple fact there is no warming. Lukewarmers etc.. should start reconsidering their position if the cooling trend continues. Also those who believe that C02 does cause some warming but we don’t know how much should also start reconsidering. As i understood it, during the ice ages C02 was 3000ppm or more. It would seem that C02 has absolutely no effect whatever on weather, climate etc. Its time to become a complete AGW DENIER me thinks… LOL

1 2 3 7