From Global Warming Questions -IPCC
How the IPCC invented a new calculus
A new form of calculus has been invented by the authors of the the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), in order to create the false impression that global warming is accelerating.
How the new IPCC calculus works
Here’s how it works. Look at the following graph:
Now consider the following question:
Is the slope of the graph greatest at the left hand end of the graph, or the right hand end?
By just looking at the graph, or by using old-fashioned calculus developed by Newton and Leibnitz, you might think that the slope of the graph is similar at both ends. But you would be wrong. In fact, the slope is much greater towards the right hand end of the graph. To prove this, we need to apply the new calculus developed by the IPCC. To do this, we draw a sequence of straight-line best fits backwards from the right-hand end-point:
This clearly shows how the slope of the graph is in fact increasing.
How IPCC calculus is used in the IPCC report
Here is one of the key graphs from the AR4 report:
The graph is Figure 1 from FAQ 3.1, to be found on page 253 of the WG1 report. The slope over the last 25 years is significantly greater than that of the last 50 years, which in turn is greater than the slope over 100 years. This ‘proves’ that global warming is accelerating. This grossly misleading calculation does not just appear in chapter 3 of WG1. It also appears in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM):
“The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years“.
Thus, policymakers who just look at the numbers and don’t stop to think about the different timescales, will be misled into thinking that global warming is accelerating. Of course, we could equally well start near the left hand end of the graph and obtain the opposite conclusion! (Just in case this is not obvious, see here for an example). A similar grossly misleading comparison appears at the very beginning of chapter 3, page 237:
“The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade).“
How did this get through the IPCC’s review process?
The IPCC reports are subjected to careful review by scientists. So how did this blatant distortion of the temperature trends get through this rigorous review process? The answer to this question can now be found, because the previous drafts of AR4, and the reviewer comments, can now be seen on-line. (The IPCC was reluctant to release these comments, but was forced to do so after a number of freedom of information requests).
The answer is quite astonishing. The misleading graph was not in either the first or the second draft of the report that were subject to review. It was inserted into the final draft, after all the reviewer comments.
It is not clear who did this, but responsibility must lie with the lead authors of chapter 3, Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones. Here is the version of the graph that the reviewers saw in the second draft:
Note that in this version there is only one trend line drawn.
So why was this graph replaced by the grossly misleading one? Did any of the reviewers suggest that a new version should be drawn with a sequence of straight lines over different time intervals? No. One reviewer made the following remark:
‘This whole diagram is spurious. There is no justification to draw a “linear trend” through such an irregular record’
… but his comment was rejected.
It is the same story with the misleading comment in the SPM mentioned above (“The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years“). This statement was not in the original version reviewed by the scientists. It was inserted into the final draft that was only commented on by Governments. The Chinese Government suggested deleting this, pointing out that:
‘These two linear rates should not compare with each other because the time scales are not the same’.
Well done to the Chinese Government for spotting that. Too bad their valid comment was ignored by the IPCC.
h/t to Roger Carr
I suspect that there may be a lot of people in the general public who do not know the scientific difference between the terms ‘increasing’ and ‘accelerating, ‘ perhaps thinking that word ‘accelerating’ just indicates increasing at a relatively high or dangerous rate. Of course, anyone who has passed a high school physics course should know or once did know the difference.
Everyone knows that yellow lines are always the hottest. And with Earth’s mantle at millions of degrees now, this graph is completely understandable: We’re cooking from within.
Does this weaken the consensus?
Just laugh.
I am amazed at those claiming this is a non-story.
1. The data has been deftly ‘dressed up” to demonstrate something that is not in fact mathematically correct (SPPI have reported on this, but not this aspect exactly, just that there are preceding identical trends).
2. The ‘scientist’ review process was entirely circumvented by slipping this in fraudulently after their review was complete.
3. When the governmental review was undertaken, the new, fraudulently inserted graph was called out by the Chinese government, and the valid (and extremely succinct and to the point – very un-Chinese!) criticism was entirely ignored.
I think it is time we made it clearly known that the IPCCs reports have become so knowingly fraudulent that they should be ignored by policy-makers. If the IPCC wish to claim otherwise, they should be forced to defend this and other behaviour, such as the glacier data remaining even when known to be invalid.
In a fair world, it would be in a court of law with their very jobs at stake, if not their liberty, but we well know that UN is so far above any laws that it will never happen.
In fact, I believe we can assume that the arrow will never reach the tortoise……?
Zeno called out the IPCC 2,500 years ago!
Spector & Layne Blanchard,
It’s even worse than that: click
This is not science; it’s deliberate misinformation. People who peddle such information should be put behind bars, not rewarded with more tax dollars. However, since the world is being turned upside down, as per Orwell’s predictions, things will get much worse, thanks to the large proportion of brain dead people in the world. Enjoy the ride as best you can – that’s all we can do.
Great observation by: Feet2theFire (16:22:07) that the total throw is around 1 degree C.
The big question that won’t occur to the Big Government Scientist types is what makes it decrease the 3-4 deg C worldwide that puts us into another ice age?
After time, what pulls us out? And why?
Love it, Smokey.
Similarly, there is no way to determine the slope of a parabola, because depending on the part of the curve you focus on, the rate of change can range from 0 to infinity:
http://tinyurl.com/y74evwm
P1? P2? P3?
There’s just no way to fit a linear trend to a parabola, so parabolas cannot be used in science.
☹
The point that is being ignored is that there is a warming trend approximately every 60 years since the invention of the thermometer and written temperature records. [That is about 1860.]
The warming cycles are 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1970 – 1998. The first two were probably not caused by CO2 so why do they think the third one is !
Even Phil Jones of CRU infamy acknowledges this.
Question: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
Dr Phil Jones: An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/#more-16418
How long until we all realize the pols are stringing the ‘scientists’ along.
All of this is non-sense piled on non-sense.
1st The ‘scientist’ determined they needed to Fake all of the temperature records to make their simplistic models work.
2nd The ‘scientists’ used some discredited 100 year old CO2 experiment and attempted to extrapolate the results from a very small experiment to the entire earth’s climate – an extreme stretch.
3rd The IPCC realizes that even after faking it all along – they need to SNEAK fake info into the fraudulent document.
We have been scammed and when are the real ‘scientists’ going to stand tall and admit this.
The entire scientific community will suffer for generations when enough people learn of this.
Anu (17:28:19) :
“There’s just no way to fit a linear trend to a parabola, so parabolas cannot be used in science.”
No, it means the only legitimate trend line that can be fitted to a parabola is a parabola.
“”” H.R. (13:57:04) :
Dr. Bob (13:18:02) :
“[… And this goes along with Geroge E. P. Box’s famous comment:
Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.
Box, George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. Wiley. pp. p. 424. ISBN 0471810339. […]“ “””
Well I’m not sure I agree with that. I know that Gaia has a model that works very well; gives the correct results every time.
The problem with Gaia’s model is that is completely intractable so there’s no way we can play with her model.
That said; what is it that is wrong about other models. some of them can be manipulated with great dexterity (mathematically speaking).
The main problem is they don’t turn out to be models of any real planet we know of.
The basic IPCC theory is that there are NO natural cycles or natural drivers of the climate in action right now (a small solar impact of 0.08C only).
Through this, they can claim the 1975 to 1998/2006 warming was caused by greenhouse gas forcing only.
But we know the ocean cycles of the ENSO certainly impacts temperatures and (I believe) so does the AMO and the Southern Atlantic’s cycles.
These cycles can explain the ups of 1850 to 1880, 1910 to 1945 and 1975 to 2006 and also the downs from 1880 to 1910, 1945 to 1975 and 2006 to 2009. And it works on a monthly basis.
If you remember the global temperature model based on the ENSO, AMO, Southern Atlantic AMO and CO2, it continues to work pretty well and matches the historical temperature record very closely (without any smoothing at all). It is hard to imagine this is a fluke.
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9611/hadcrut3modelfeb10.png
The warming trend is less than 2.0C per doubling (even after a projected 30 year lag as the warming in the ocean pipeline catches up).
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/1367/hadcrut3warmingfeb10.png
Now near as I can tell, the CO2 temperature rise forcing starts at about 50 PPMV (Gavin thought that this was reasonable). SO take a starting temp of about 14*C as the starting point for all the factors at that CO2 point, let’s say. Then take a mid-point range from the ipcc of say 3.3*C rise for every doubling – 50/100 100/200 200/400, this should have added approx. 10*C to our 14*C starting point. Hmmmmm………..
George E. Smith (15:21:47) :
“Don’t ask me how; I reckon it is magic.”
Or quantum mechanics, same difference.
My favorite statement in investing (located in every prospectus) which seems to be forgotten when it comes to climate science:
“Past performance does not guarantee future results.”
Original Mike (13:54:47) :
I hope you’re joking.
Print the graph & by hand draw the trend from 1910 to 1940.
DaveE.
As Richard S Courtney said, this has been known for a while.
What surprises me is that there are a couple of commenters who are defending this fraudulent misrepresentation.
I think it’s called “bloodymindedness”
Smokey (17:03:46) :
Beautiful illustration of climate science!!!!
Anu (17:28:19) :
There’s just no way to fit a linear trend to a parabola, so parabolas cannot be used in science.
Certainly not when you attempt a linear solution. Of course, if you flip it just right, you can have a circular argument!!!
Peter of Sydney (17:15:24) :
This is not science; it’s deliberate misinformation. People who peddle such information should be put behind bars, not rewarded with more tax dollars. However, since the world is being turned upside down, as per Orwell’s predictions, things will get much worse, thanks to the large proportion of brain dead people in the world. Enjoy the ride as best you can – that’s all we can do.
I don’t share your cynicism, but I share your immediate concern. Bolivia seems to be worth a study. Apparently, the next climate treaty is to contain money that is prohibited to nations that don’t sign on. This includes money already being given on a regular basis. Evidently, Bolivia says they won’t sign, but it isn’t fair that they can’t have the free money……???????……..??????? Has the educated world really gone this far?
If you can’t sustain yourself, and are dependent upon someone else to feed you, can you really stipulate the conditions upon which you receive the money? If you can sustain yourself, why are you receiving the money? Why are we giving the money? We were giving the money prior to the climate hysteria. Have the conditions changed that required our generosity? If they have, why are we still doing so? If they haven’t then the requirements are still there.
Sadly, I sense that we’ve kept them on the teat only to coerce them into things latter that we might want…………as I write yet another check to the United Way.(It allows me a sense of entitlement. 🙂 )
If the nations and the people of the world would simply do for themselves, then the world could and would collectively tell these alarmists to get a real job and piss off. Unfortunately, the world has decided interdependency in preferable to self-sufficiency. This allows the tyrants of this world an opportunity to cajole many entities of this world to see things their way. We’ve convinced people they can’t, therefore, they won’t and are complacent to comply with the whims of our tyrants.
Hey, I thought they got rid of that 1940s blip thingy! And it still has a higher slope…hmmm. Interesting…guess they forgot their History Rewriting 101 training.
A trend cannot be computed honestly with the High Priests of Climate selecting the data subset to fit the pre existing and important beliefs?
Seriously, ALL the linear trend lines computed from supposed 20th century temperature averages yield false conclusions. Since we know that from the methods of selecting curve fits and the nature of the data, there is no scientific reason why there should have been ANY straight line fits in said graph.
Further, you have here the implicit use of a straight line fit as “predictive”. It is no more predictive than drawing a line through stock market data.
Lord Monckton discussed this chart in his address in Brisbane. He showed that 1860 – 1880, 1910 – 1940 and 1980 – 2000 all had the same slope yet 1860 – 1880 was pre industrialisation therefore CO2 could not be the cause of the warming.