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
Mosher: For volcanos, its simple. The average over 100 years doesnt include any cooling (temporary) from volcanos. I dont think we want to count on volcanos to keep us less warm.
Steve, with all due respect, I don’t think we want to count on the lack of volcanos to keep us less cool. The fact of the matter is volcanos have been with us thoughout history and they’re not going away, so anyone who makes a prediction based on the fact that volcanos won’t be erupting at all in the future is a fool and their prediction an epic FAIL.
Mosher: “If your wife spends more than you make, you will go broke.
The math governing that is clear. What’s not clear is whether you can control the spending.”
What should be equally clear is that spending isn’t the only variable and any prediction based on spending being the only variable is destined to FAIL.
What about concentrations?
They seem to increase by less each year despite emmissions rising.
How do the CO2 levels of model scompare to actual levels? And how do assumed emission and CO2 levels hold up in models?
quoted for truth. Bottom line is the IPCC prediction (or projections as they’ve taken to calling them) failed. These are the predictions governments the world over were taking as fact (without regard to any “conditions” other than CO2) in order to drain economies of trillions of dollars in order to fight a non-existant climate disaster.
RR Kampen:
I do not know if you are picking cherries on purpose, but 1984 was a low year for GMT — lower than 1980. And of course, 2010 was a high year — most likely higher than what you will see for 2011. So you have picked the years that will show the highest growth rate of GMT.
Clarification, actual CO2 emissions are running ahead of the assumption in Scenario B. However, actual CO2 ppm is running less than the model’s projection. One possible explanation — the model does not capture a key feedback loop — flora growth is enhanced by increased CO2 and actually stores more CO2.
Well let’s be clear : the prediction is supposed to be centered on 1990 with the temperature at the time, would it be HacDru or the other. When doing that, one can easily note that the prediction of tte IPCC was spot on!
Yes, yes.. tranlsate IPCC bets to the actual 1990 temperature of the sets and you’ll see!
Steven Mosher says:
June 9, 2011 at 1:22 pm
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.
I disagree. The correct sentence is “THEN you MIGHT see temperatures go up like so.”
The IPCC and Climate Science continue to view the future like Victorian Age physicist. As though it was simply a clockwork mechanism. We now know that is an illusion. The “law of averages” has mislead the IPCC and Climate Science into assuming that we can average the past to predict the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_averages
I have a weather App on my phone, I constantly see things that amaze me. Example “today high 24 low 16” “currently 10” these numbers are on the same network? Oddly enough “The Weather Network” They can’t even predict within 5 degrees the current temperature, and these models are accurate to tenths of a degree for century? Climate science is to science, what astrology is to astronomy. It is a distantly related, goofy and rich cousin.
aaron says:
June 10, 2011 at 6:31 am
What about concentrations?
They seem to increase by less each year despite emmissions rising.
We know from the Paleo records that temperature leads CO2, contrary to the predictions of AGW, the IPCC and mainstream Climate Science. We also know that human CO2 is only a small portion of the total CO2 output of the planet.
This tells us the most likely driver of CO2 in the atmosphere is temperature, not human activity. Thus, even though human CO2 output is increasing near exponentially as India and China industrialize, we are not seeing the same rate of increase in planetary CO2. Another nail in the coffin of AGW, the IPCC and mainstream Climate Science.
Mosher: “If your wife spends more than you make, you will go broke.”
If your wife spends more than you make, time to get another wife before you go broke.
Just a point of clarification, our emissions have been increasing at 3.0% per year recently (and were 4.46 ppm CO2 last year) while the CO2 level in the atmosphere has been increasing at 0.5% per year (and increased 2.3 ppm last year).
So, there are different percentages for the emissions versus the concentration changes. (Before our emissions started, there was already 270-280 ppm in the atmosphere). And then plants, oceans and soils are absorbing about half of our emissions (this is probably just a coincidence as the absorption by plants oceans and soils is more related to the given concentration in the atmosphere versus how much we emit each year).
The author errs in stating that his comparison is between predicted and observed temperatures. In fact, it is between projected and observed temperatures. To confuse a “prediction” with a “projection” is to create the appearance of the falsifiability of the IPCC’s models when this is not in fact a property of these models.
or, if she’s a particularily hot wife, just take away her credit/debit cards and checkbook (and thus her ability to spend more than the cash she has on hand).
Of course, Mosher’s analogy is fatally flawed, consider:
1) if you are independantly wealthy already (IE an idle Billionaire who has no job) she can easily spend more than you make (you make nothing, having no job) without having to worry about going broke in you or your wife’s lifetime.
2) she spends more than you make, but not more than you and her combined make, thus you won’t go broke
3) she spends more than you make *now* (say because you are currently unemployed) but in the near future (when you start that new job on monday) you’ll be making more than she spends – again, you won’t go broke.
4) she spends more than you make *now* (because she just bought a house that will take 15 to 30 years to pay off, or a car that will take 4-5 years to pay off) but that is an anomoly, which over time will be mitigated by that fact that normally she doesn’t spend more than you make.
5) she currently spends more than you make, hence why you will get a second job (or, gosh forbid, have her get a job) to cover the extra expense and then some.
bottom line is, if you limit youself to a small subset of all the variables, it should come as no surprise when your prediction turns out to be wrong.
Leif: “I have no particular opinion about his ‘work’.”
Thanks. I understand you better now.
Mosher: “So if you had time and money enough to study this parametrically you would.”
I assume that you are talking about variations in solar forcing, because that is what is going to effect your trend. And since we have no ability to predict variations in solar forcing, I don’t see what you are proposing that we study. In any case, like I already said, solar variation should be one of the elements that is already included in the upper and lower bounds of the predictions.
Mosher: “In the case presented above the observations had a big plunge down. Not predictable. of course the temp recovers, but the start of your curve is pegged lower.”
What?
Mosher: “The reason you would make the prediction with no volcanos is simple. 1 you cant predict them. 2. The effect doesnt last long. 3. you cant count on them to keep things cool. ”
First of all, I wasn’t asking about just volcanoes, I was asking about all of the elements that you say makes it so hard. So given all of the excuses that you gave for why it’s so hard, why waste time doing it? Are you saying that someone is holding a gun to these people’s head forcing them to make predictions when they don’t have the information to make the predictions.
Second of all, you use volcanoes as one of the excuses for getting the predictions wrong, then you come back with this: “2. The effect doesn’t last long.” So are volcanoes an excuse for getting a 30 year prediction wrong or not? Is solar an excuse for getting a thirty year prediction wrong or not? I don’t think that either of them comes close to being an excuse for getting it wrong. The prediction isn’t wrong because of solar and volcanoes, the prediction is wrong for one of two reasons – those being, A. The climate sensitivity number is wrong, B. We don’t understand the elements of natural variation well enough to model them.
Terry Oldberg. “To confuse a “prediction” with a “projection” is to create the appearance of the falsifiability of the IPCC’s models when this is not in fact a property of these models.”
Maybe you should explain what you mean. If the models don’t predict anything and if they cannot be falsified, then of what use are they? Why are we spending money one them? Why do people propose that we make policy decisions based upon them. Just what, exactly, do you see as being the purpose of a “projection” or a “prediction” or whatever you consider the models to be in your cryptic comment?
What is the observed exponential carbon emission growth rate that was forecasted to be 1.5% in Hansen et al., 1988?
The observed carbon emission curve is shown in the following graph.
http://bit.ly/mBXivS
From the above data, the approximate annual global carbon dioxide emission in G-ton from 1970 to 2007 = 3.67*4.3*e^(0.0164*(year-1970))
As a result, the annual exponential growth rate is 1.64%, a bit higher than the 1.5% assumed by Hansen et al, 1988.
CONCLUSION:
The observed exponential carbon emission growth rate is about 1.64%, which was forecasted to be 1.5% in Hansen et al., 1988. As a result, among the three scenarios, scenario A is closer to the reality.
Here is the comparison of the three forecasted scenarios with observation (GREEN).
http://bit.ly/iyscaK
When is this mistake going to be admitted and corrected?
I will note that the misleading graphic is STILL on the front page.
I will also note the following.
The projections for emissions in this scenario did not materialize. Let me see if I can explain once and for all.
To do that I’ll do a simplified example so you all can get the logic. This will help you form a BETTER criticism than the criticism given here. THAT is the whole point
In 1990, The people studying this investigated 4 scenarios ( I will simplify them)
1. BAU. in Business as usual, C02 and other GHGs were projected to rise RAPIDLY, with C02 reaching over 400 ppm in 2010.
2. Three other scenarios, A, B, C. In these scenarios C02 DOES NOT reach 400 by 2010. Lets say, that we have one scenario where it reaches 390 ppm.
So, You have one scenario that projects 400ppm by 2010 and another that projects 390. Since we cannot control this experimental variable, we have to make projections. what happens at 360? 390? 400? 500?
Now, when you go to see how the projection and prediction did, you MUST pick the emission scenario that comes closest to the truth. You cannot compare observations to predictions under BAU, because BAU DID NOT HAPPEN.
BAU projected a very high rate of growth in GHG. Consequently, the temps it predicts will be high. NO SURPRISE THERE. Further, the real effect of C02 takes much longer than 20 years to develop.
The response to a doubling of C02 will take 100s of years to be seen. At 20 years, we can barely begin to
draw a conclusion.
The way you want to do your criticism is to pick the scenario that is closest to what really happened. That will give you the strongest test.
The IPCC’s and Hansen’s
projectionspredictions were wrong.Sorry about that, but there it is.
It was business as usual (and then some with China getting ever more into the game) and GHG concentrations didn’t match what they claimed business as usual would be. So that right there shows that their assumptions were way off-base.
tilo.
The problem the you face with comparing observations from 1990. In 1991 of course you had Pinatubo.
What does that do to your observations?. It cools them with a forcing that was not assumed in the scenario.
So, picking 1990 to start a trend analysis in observations is not going to be a good idea. can you see why?
It would be like starting a trend analysis at the peak of el nino. no responsible analyst would do that.
There is clearly a lot of things you don’t get about parametric studies.
1. Its hard but not impossible. My point is that Clive has botched the job pretty badly. THERE IS A BETTER criticism but it requires more work than clive has done. His work is misleading.
2. hard things are not a waste of time. Hard things done wrong are.
3. We make predictions all the time under uncertain information. that is the POINT of parametric sensitivity analysis.
4. I don’t use volcanoes as an EXCUSE for getting it wrong. I’m telling you you have to ACCOUNT for the fact that volcanoes cannot be predicted. This takes more care than Clive used.
5. It depends where the volcano effect occurs, how large it is, etc. having one at the beginning or end of the period is especially problematic.
The prediction in question is wrong because the SCENARIO was WRONG.
BAU assumed
1. rapid growth in all GHGs ( page 333). This didn’t happen.
2. No volcanoes: heck we had one in 1991.
I don’t have the data on what they used for solar forcing. Anyways, under the BAU the projection was .3C per decade, plus or minus .2C.
I think we can conclude that there are ways to assess the FAR models as reasonably accurate:
– if we start the line in a different place;
– if we just use a scenario that forces “a little warming at the beginning but then no increase starting in Year 8”; or,
– if we pretend there was a forcing that offset most of the increase in GHGs over the period (it can’t be aerosols or solar or the temporary volcano one however).
Mosher: “The response to a doubling of C02 will take 100s of years to be seen. At 20 years, we can barely begin to
draw a conclusion.”
So it’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis right now. You are admitting that there is insufficient data to support it either way Mosh.
BTW, I don’t agree that there cannot be evidence. Where’s that “big red spot”. Should be evident by now if there is any recent warming by the suggested processes. AR4 Fig 9.1 is expressed in deg C per Century – it really should be evident in obsevations if it has any merit.
Time for less SHOUTING, and more thinking.
As Fritz RW Dressler said: “Predicting the future is easy. It’s trying to figure out what’s going on now that”s hard”.
I am sure that if you had of asked the IPCC back in 1990 if they had factored in the odd volcanic activity they would have said “YES”.
At the same time they would have also factored in SC24 as being “A BIG ONE”