Submitted by Dr. Clive Best
The first IPCC report in 1990 chaired by Prof. Houghton made a prediction for a rise in global temperatures of 1.1 degrees C from 1990 until 2030. This prediction can now be compared with the actual data as measured up to now (May 2011).
Figure2: Comparison of yearly HadCru & UAH data with IPCC 1990 predictions
These results have been derived as described below. You can see the results here
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208
regards
Dr Clive Best
Hooray!
All of our efforts to fight Global Warming are paying off!
Time to kick back, enjoy the victory, put down our (solar) shields and our (wind generating) swords and enjoy the peace dividend; THE WAR ON CO2 IS OVER; WE’VE WON!
We beat the IPCC best case scenario by 0.3C! That is an incredible accomplishment. See what we can do if we put our minds to it? Why, there’s nothing we can’t accomplish . . . now, maybe the AGW crowd can accept victory, thank their lucky stars we’re done with this nonsense, and go away and hide, thankful they’ve been slipped off the hook.
I’d say that’s a big FAIL. Reality doesn’t even match their lower limit.
The graphs are clear evidence that the climate models are garbage. Those that attempt to say the models shouldn’t be judged based on actual results, particularly since these faulty model temperature predictions are used to try and quantify degrees increase as a function of global CO2 level, are just dealing in deception. Those pushing these flawed models demand massive taxes and life changing impacts be imposed on the global population without regard to models results being “conditional”. That claim is just a load of baloney by climate alarmists to try and hide the huge magnitude of their failures.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 9, 2011 at 1:54 pm
If as Mosh points out, the two temperature curves were shifted to go through the 1900 point, the low IPCC prediction looks right on.
Except that if the starting point is lowered in that way the slope would have to increase in order to hit their predicted 2030 targets – so it ends up looking even more alarmist in the long run and even less like reality.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 9, 2011 at 1:54 pm
If as Mosh points out, the two temperature curves were shifted to go through the 1900 point, the low IPCC prediction looks right on.
1990, not 1900.
But the numbers are different for 1990 too, because he’s graphing anomalies from different base periods. That’s why Mosh told him to use figure 1; that clear shows all 3 sets starting at the same point and both HadCrut and UAH well below the lowest of the 3 predictions.
Steven Mosher says:
June 9, 2011 at 1:22 pm
After you answer those questions, then you can start the comparison. That is one of the things that makes this kind of predicting very tough. The predictions are all CONDITIONAL.
Steve, you make good points but remember how the average taxpayer has heard the “debate”. “The science is settled”, “The science is robust”, “We must act now”. Well it turns out the science was far from settled and there were/are more unknowns than knowns. I’m sorry but it all adds up to a giant FAIL for Gore, Mann and company. I’d like to see prosecutions of the people who pushed this farce on us and misused taxpayer funds.
steve mosher,
You make a good point about conditions. However, even if we determine that the conditions were not met over the timeframe, it does *not* give us any reason to believe that the predictions would have been correct if the conditions had been met. At most we could say that the predictions might have been correct had all the conditions obtained.
Also, as others have pointed out, there are important policy implications flowing from the predicted outcome scenarios, and the scenarios have turned out wrong. So at the very least we currently *do* know the following: either (i) the predictions were wrong (even with correct conditions), or (ii) the assumed conditions were wrong. Either way, it should give plenty of pause for anyone considering policy action based on the predictions. It should also serve as a lesson that the assumptions, and error bars around all those assumptions, need to be clearly laid out when predictions are made, much more clearly than was initially done.
It is my understanding that CO2 concentrations exceeded the projections, volcanic emissions have a most been transitory and the Suns output has been relatively steady. The proper projection is the high projection and it has clearly failed.
If the prediction fails, which it has, then the hypothesis behind the prediction is wrong. CO2 induced warming is a failed hypothesis. QED
Here is another version of that chart, based on Hansen ’88 vs. UAH:
http://oi52.tinypic.com/30bfktk.jpg
I like to check my work. I didn’t make the chart except to extract only scenario A and C and omit B, plus extend the UAH curve. Let’s overlap it with today’s chart above:
http://oi54.tinypic.com/x1x6pl.jpg
The match of the lowest blue and green lines (mine and yours) is not great, but substituting yours doesn’t change the conclusion: actual T is below the best case scenario. I’m not totally happy with my version now, but will still use it until I have time to make a better version. I forgot where I got the original chart, but think it was a post here.
And also the scary thing is hasnt HADCRUT been adjusted? The actual margin could be even more.
Looks like an epic fail to me. Now we can see how hard Hansen is adjusting GISS to try and get it moving northward, so far off UAH it isnt funny.
Steven M’s view seems too forgiving to me. When an IPCC prediction is new it is heralded far and wide, not just in the media (who don’t include any caveats or qualifiers) but also by climate scientists in op eds, speeches, interviews etc. While one might argue to give the media a pass for propagating incorrectly simplified viewpoints, the alarmist climate scientists know better and are expected to include the caveats and qualifiers whenever the data is communicated (because these are a part of the data). But the alarmists don’t because it doesn’t help them tell the predetermined story they wish to sell.
My view is that it would be wrong (and anti-truth) to let them to have it both ways. If they choose to leave the caveats and qualifiers buried when trumpeting the model’s dire predictions, then when ‘judgment day’ for the model comes around, they shouldn’t be allowed to dig up the qualifiers and dust them off in an attempt to somehow lessen the apparent degree of the model’s failure. The 1990 IPCC model missed by a country mile and based on how they chose to play the data in the 90s, I”m in no mood to grant any qualifying fig leaves.
Yes, Duncan’s response (June 9, 2011 at 2:53 pm) was probably clearer than mine. As President Mosher says use the graph in figure1 but…
If you are making a prediction of DeltaT in 1990 then all your lines should pass through 0 at 1990 (red, blue and green in this case) because all DeltaT should be relative to the T prevailing at the moment of the prediction. If that is done than the slope(s) on the red line(s) must increase to reach the IPCC predicted 1.3 / 2.0 / 2.8 by 2030 and the “low” prediction would not then correspond to the empirical data for the same period any more than in figure 2.
Has the Hadcrut & UAH data gone through the Met office Data Spa yet for it massage and pedicure. Your date seems old and tired, Needs to be refreshened and UPlifted.
With respect, doesn’t the failure of these predictions also point to a failure of the notion that climate is somehow deterministic? Shouldn’t we revisit the view that climate is essentially chaotic and, therefor, unpredictable?
Steven Mosher wrote: The predictions are all CONDITIONAL.
Now that we know what the actual values of those variables were during that time, can we (can somebody?) run the model from 1990 onward to see what the model prediction is? Has this been done?
Mosh is of course correct that Hansen’s predictions were ceteris paribus; all scientific predictions are. That said, can you imagine the reaction of a bookmaker when asked to pay off on a bet when the horse lost, because,ceteris paribus, it should have won?
Mosher: “Simply: the forecast says : IF we see no volcanos after 1990, and IF the sun behaves as predicted, and IF the GHGs we putinto the atmosphere, THEN you will see temperatures go up like so.”
Shouldn’t those ifs be covered by having an upper and lower range. Why would anyone make predictions based upon there being no volcanos? Where did we get the idea that we could predict what the sun will do? We have never been able to do that. Just look at the range of predictions that came out about solar cycle 24. It was absolutely all over the map.
“That is one of the things that makes this kind of predicting very tough. ”
Then why are people taking credit for doing that which they cannot do?
Leif: “If as Mosh points out, the two temperature curves were shifted to go through the 1900 point, the low IPCC prediction looks right on.”
Leif, I’m still waiting for an answer from you on another tread. What do you think about Mann using climate proxies upside down?
You people are forgetting the first rule of climate modeling, if reality and the model differ its reality which is wrong . Therefore the model predictions are correct , its the numbers seen in reality which are wrong .
Can someone let SMc know we have another divergence issue.
Steve Mosher.( this isnt like the lab and simple lab approaches miss the point and the complexity. )
Good point!! So, why not stop all the BS attention grabbing headlines, data manipulation, Government intervention and tax theft etc, etc, etc, until such time as someone comes up with an ACCURATE forecast that is not based on politico//religious wankerism. EH??
regards
These jokers were dead flat wrong. Can we finally stop wasting time and money on them, please? Aw, who am I kidding…
/sarc
Mosher,
I do so wish that Alarmists would state the qualifiers before sending out alarmist press releases.
From you explanation I get the idea that nature is a more powerfull temperature supressant than previously thought. :O)
It is not just the IPCC AS1 (Assessment Report 1) but AS2 and TAR (Third Assessment Report) that have been proven incorrect. AS4 provides a graph of the 1st three IPCC global climate projections…
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-2.html
It seems to me that IPCC documents make the best argument there is against putting much confidence in any IPCC claim. Just go back and look at their predictions. They are all wrong … current global temperatures are below the IPCC “best case” (coolest) projections.
What are the odds the IPCC is providing honest and competent forecasts but global temperatures fell below their coolest projections … not just for AS1 but also for AS2 and for TAR? Perhaps someone can take up the challenge of posting AGW predictions (especially from the IPCC) along with an update on their status because it seems to me that IPCC forecasts of mass migrations due to rising sea levels, increased hurricanes and melting glaciers were also proved incorrect by Mother Nature?
Steven Mosher says:
June 9, 2011 at 1:22 pm
I’d say rather than “experiment” (especially with computer-putz’d models), take your CONDITIONAL (your emphasis) predictions out of the lab and apply it to the real world and sure enough (as you point out)–it completely (my emphasis) misses the point and the complexity.
Yet here is this august body of world-renouned poly-sci climsci “specialists” and “soothsayers” giving their shot at predicting the future of climate and the bottom line is the CONDITIONS didn’t match up–why, there should have been more CO2; the Sun wasn’t cooperating; the modeling computer was turgid; etc. etc. etc. (I’m shaking my head here.)
Why don’t we all just be honest and send ’em a rejection letter and recommend they flip burgers instead of foist their projections on a world too plastic to resist. Just THINK of the money they would have saved the world (not to mention the number of lives lost trying to fight a climate change ghost) if they’d have just said “We dunno”. CONDITIONAL or not, that’s the only pronouncement that’s accurate.
I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.
Between now and the year 2100 the sun will behave differently and volcanoes will erupt and the IPCCs scenarios will be all wrong.