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
Venter says:
June 11, 2011 at 9:25 am
But when it comes to Climate Models, he’ll accept Mosh or any other believer’s words and does not need to see any data, methods etc. Yes, very scientific indeed.
Anybody can look at figure 2 and see that the IPCC low projection is not too bad. Allow for the 0.1-0.2 degree solar cycle variation that people claim they find simply from the observed variation of solar TSI and the agreement becomes even better: We would expect the observed data to be 0.1C above the projection around solar max in 2000 and 0.1C below the projection around solar min in 2008-2009 and that is, indeed, what we see. Pretty good science, so far. Now, a projection can be correct for the wrong reason, but that is another problem, and I have not myself done the analysis so can’t really form my own firm opinion what precisely those wrong reasons might be.
Leif: “I looked at the data [the curves] and saw for myself what the effect of shifting the curves would be, so you can spare us your snide remarks. ”
And yet you couldn’t spare a single mouse click to get you to Dr. Best’s site where you would have immediately seen a chart of the data going through the 1990 point and where you would have seen that your rough eyeball method of “looking at the data” was not exactly correct. Yes, with such a high standard of “looking at the data” I can see where you only have time to criticize skeptics data.
Leif: “I have better things to do than look at Mann’s stuff [perhaps you have not].”
And yet you find the time to hang out at threads that discuss his work and offer comments.
Steve Mosher wrote: 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. BUT if you are interested in TESTING a prediction, then having a volcano in the observations makes a fair test harder, ESPECIALLY if the incident happend at either end of the test period and your looking at trends.
Computing power continues to get cheaper, and will continue to do so. As new data about the CONDITIONS of the last few decades are accumulated, the old models can be rerun to determine whether they were accurate models had the CONDITIONS been known. If the model makes correct CONDITIONAL modeled values, then it might be taken seriously for projecting the future based on current knowledge. Model predictions can be updated annually.
If all you do is say, “The models were conditional, and the conditions turned out to be different from what was assumed”, then you present a model that is not, even in principle, disconfirmable. Such a model is vacuous. All that has been shown to date is that the models are too inaccurate for informing policy decisions about CO2, and that might be because other CONDITIONS overwhelm the CO2 effects.
Leif: “Anybody can look at figure 2 and see that the IPCC low projection is not too bad.”
It’s the LOW projection, Leif. And it’s below the low projection. Your argument is that if we just give the IPCC more than the ample space they already gave themselves, they will be right.
Leif: “Allow for the 0.1-0.2 degree solar cycle variation that people claim they find simply from the observed variation of solar TSI and the agreement becomes even better: ”
All of the things that you want to “allow” should be covered by the IPCC allowing themselves a wide range of projection. I assume that the IPCC already considered solar variation in their range. Do you want to give it to them twice?
When do NEGATIVE FEEDBACK mechanisms kick in. there must be some negative feed back mechanisms somewhere, there can’t just all be positive, otherwise we would have all died out long ago, a dinosaur farts and we escalate into a gw hell. So where are the negatives. are they in there models
Tilo Reber says:
June 11, 2011 at 10:32 am
And yet you couldn’t spare a single mouse click to get you to Dr. Best’s site where you would have immediately seen a chart of the data going through the 1990 point and where you would have seen that your rough eyeball method of “looking at the data” was not exactly correct.
My bad that I called Figure 1 on Bests’s site Figure 2. I meant to say that was the second Figure I looked at. I did mean the graph where all curves go through 1990. It is on that graph that you can see how good the projection actually is [taking into account the solar cycle variation.
Tilo Reber says:
June 11, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Leif: “Anybody can look at figure 2 and see that the IPCC low projection is not too bad.”
It’s the LOW projection
It is labeled the ‘Low’ projection
I assume that the IPCC already considered solar variation in their range. Do you want to give it to them twice?
You ‘assume’? You did not think to go check? If the solar variation was in the projection it would undulate like the Figure on Best’s site. [or it should if they were to plot the actual projection – it is possible they only plotted the linear trend – and I did not check this]
I’m at a loss why you think I’m a supporter of IPCC and Mannian math. Perhaps you in your pent-up anger missed the hints in what I said: “Mann probably has his reasons [e.g. it fits better that way]. I have no particular opinion about his ‘work’. ”
Note the disparaging ‘it fits better that way’ and the quotes around “his ‘work'”.
The fact is that [for better or for worse] the IPCC Low projection [allowing for solar cycle effects that many people find] is actually a good fit. But you can always curve fit to match anything. It is called numerology, except when it fits your pet agenda, then it is called “physical phenomenology”. The bottom line is whether the linear trend will continue. That we don’t know, and can’t tell from the data yet.
Leif: “You ‘assume’? You did not think to go check?”
Aren’t you assuming they didn’t.
Leif: “If the solar variation was in the projection it would undulate like the Figure on Best’s site.”
Only if it was accounted for on a temporal basis. It it was simply accounted for by the way that the high and low range were selected, this would not be the case. And if you are trying to account for a number of factors, not just solar, the undulations may not look like solar undulations. For example, for any specific solar cycle, the effects could be overcome by ENSO or PDO or something else. Also, the strength of any future solar cycle would be unkown, so you wouldn’t expect to see something like a continous .15C of undulation as a part of the prediction. What I’m saying is that if the high and the low don’t include the uncertainty due to known elements of variation, then why bother having a high and a low. When you put in a low you are not saying that you think that line is as likely as any other. You are saying your middle line is the most likely and you low and high are possible but unlikely. And you should be saying that there is no reasonable expectation of going lower than your low. Let’s be honest Leif, at this point in time the projection is a failure.
Regarding Mann, my personal opinion is that his work is fraudulent. I expect that honest scientists, even good scientists, will make mistakes. In Mann’s case there are many errors and they all serve the cause of AGW alarmism. And when these errors are pointed out to him he refuses to correct them. The Tijlander series is a typical example – but there are others. So I think that with Mann it is about more than just errors. I think that it’s possible to have an honest disagreement about the question of Mann’s work being fraudulent. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me there. But I can’t understand why any scientist of integrity would not at least stand up and say, “What Mann is doing is not science, and the way in which he is using science is bad for the reputation of scientists.” The confidence of the public in scientists is hanging in the balance. If there is not some indication from main stream scientists that people like Mann are the minority, then the public will simply assume that most scientists can’t be trusted. I don’t want that to happen because I trust most scientists. It’s a little like the problems that the church encountered with paedophelia. They thought that there would be more benefit in hiding it than in confronting it. Obviously they were wrong. That is why I called on you to step up in the “Kill It With Fire” thread. So, Leif, you can wait for a strong rise in temperature and the hope that the right results will justify the wrong approach; or you can do what is right regardless of what the temperature does in the next 10 or 20 years.
Tilo Reber says:
June 11, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Leif: “If the solar variation was in the projection it would undulate like the Figure on Best’s site.”
Only if it was accounted for on a temporal basis.
I know for a fact [having asked Gavin specifically about this] that the models have a built-in solar cycle. They can’t predict the cycle, but can with reasonable justification use an average cycle repeated every 11 years. That the cycle does not show up in the projection I ascribe to simplification in presentation [one can argue if that is good or bad].
You are saying your middle line is the most likely and you low and high are possible but unlikely.
They are not my low and high. Best plotted the points which are observations. They are above the linear projection at solar max in 2000 and below at solar min in 2009, as expected.
at this point in time the projection is a failure
At this point the projection is spot on. If in the next several years the observed points keep falling lower, then the projection is a failure.
But I can’t understand why any scientist of integrity would not at least stand up and say, “What Mann is doing is not science, and the way in which he is using science is bad for the reputation of scientists.”
Such a strong statement cannot be made unless one is familiar with his data and procedures. All I have are second hand accounts [which likely are true, but are second-hand, nevertheless]. My integrity prevents me from making a statement like yours based on second-hand info. If I felt strongly about it I might like McIntyre try to dig deeper and see for myself. But I do not feel strongly about this. Let the chips fall where they may. Science is self-correcting and in a century [or two] they will all know. A century horizon is not uncommon in astronomy and astrophysics. The ‘climate debate’ is not really science, but politics. Bad politics is also self-correcting in the long run. Bad politics hurt people, but a people has the politicians they deserve [they voted for them, didn’t they]. Using science to influence the voters does not sit well with me. That others do it is not a valid excuse for me to do it too.
then the public will simply assume that most scientists can’t be trusted.
Some part of the public already assumes that. Another part does not. For skeptics to spread the notion that scientists cannot be trusted also does not sit well with me. As in all human affairs there are bad apples.
So, Leif, you can wait for a strong rise in temperature and the hope that the right results will justify the wrong approach; or you can do what is right regardless of what the temperature does in the next 10 or 20 years.
A rise in temperature will not settle the matter. A continuing drop will. That is what I wait for. What is right is not to jump the gun and already declare the battle over a priori.
Now that we have the FAR temperature projections (thanks Dr. Best) (and I am satisfied that these are the numbers), here is how the IPCC predictions are doing so far starting from the period the forecasts were submitted
AR4 and TAR mean under the A1B scenario and for FAR (noting the GHG numbers they assumed are a little high – not enough to change the line materially however).
I put the natural variability-removed temperature value for today at about 0.3C if someone wants to raise that issue again.
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9103/ipccipccpredictions3.png
And we shouldn’t assume uncertainty needs to be taken into account here. If the climate models had uncertainty levels that predicted “no warming” or “cooling” since they submitted their forecast, then the IPCC should be very clear about this. Therefore, the temperature change of the last 10 years is certainly outside the uncertainty levels for the models and the theory.
Albert Frankenstein says:
June 11, 2011 at 8:36 am
WUWT covers a broad church of readership, and my comments were directed there.
My suggestion, to quell your passion and to keep this thread on topic is for you to gather your facts and submit a topic here.
Saying Quoting bits of Wikipedia which you half understand is insulting and a waste of time.
Leif: “At this point the projection is spot on.”
You have a funny definition of “spot on”. I would only use that word in the case where it followed the line called IPCC Best (2.0). I call outside the High, Low, range, “failed”. You call it what you like. We should be at solar max in the next 2 to 4 years. So according to your theory, the actual should swing above that LOW trend line some time in the next 4 years. So let’s place a little bet. I have a hundred bucks that says it won’t be above it. We can start the bet today and we can determine the outcome either 2, 3, or 4 years from today – your choice. What do you say; do we have a bet?
Leif: “Such a strong statement cannot be made unless one is familiar with his data and procedures.”
The evidence is more than strong enough. I’ve been open to any explanation from Mann, or from anyone speaking for him, for using the Tijlander data upside down. There is none. I’ve been open to any explanation for Mann continuing to use Graybill data when Ababneh has shown clearly that the trend is due to the trees going split bark. Mann will not change to the Ababneh data and I hear no explanation of why. And regarding his data and procedures, McIntyre has a library of investigative information on it. I’m sure that you have seen much of it. So I don’t accept your excuse for not standing up and calling his work what it is – garbage. Of course you don’t care what I accept and what I don’t accept, and that is why I simply said above, “Thanks. I understand you better now.”
Why the offset between UAH and CRU?
Why the partial year 2011 data?
Why the use of monthly data (rather than smooth curve) to start 1990 comparison?
Cheers,
Ken
Tilo Reber says:
June 12, 2011 at 12:05 am
You have a funny definition of “spot on”. I would only use that word in the case where it followed the line called IPCC Best (2.0). I call outside the High, Low, range, “failed”. You call it what you like. We should be at solar max in the next 2 to 4 years
What I said is that the IIPCC Low projection looks pretty good. This means that if one is inclined to go along with IPCC, but is unsure which one of their projections to use, one should follow the Low projection.
So according to your theory, the actual should swing above that LOW trend line some time in the next 4 years.
I have no ‘theory’ on this. I’m saying that today we cannot pass judgement on Pass or Fail: http://www.leif.org/research/IPCC-Projections.png
The next few years will tell as indicated on my Figure.
So let’s place a little bet. I have a hundred bucks that says it won’t be above it. We can start the bet today and we can determine the outcome either 2, 3, or 4 years from today – your choice. What do you say; do we have a bet?
Science is not settled by bets. People’s convictions may be judged by the bets they are willing to take, but I have no conviction either way [you shouldn’t have in science]. Let’s watch which way it goes, before forming a ‘conviction’ about it.
So I don’t accept your excuse for not standing up and calling his work what it is – garbage.
Well, people’s level of integrity varies. My threshold may be a bit higher than yours. As I said, if asked I could defer to other people’s opinion, without labeling it as my own.
Of course you don’t care what I accept and what I don’t accept, and that is why I simply said above, “Thanks. I understand you better now.”
Everybody must be responsible for what he accepts, but I don’t think that you understood me better, rather your statement was intended as a put-down. Did you understand that I can only put my name to an opinion if I myself have investigated the case? did you accept that that was a reasonable thing to do? or are you chiding me for not putting my name on other people’s opinion? And do you even care what I say? Your use of ‘excuse’ perhaps indicates that you do not.
As I said, science is self-correcting and the standard way of dealing with poor science [what you call ‘garbage’] is simply to ignore it.
@Lief
Apologies if you already covered this, but why do you suggest comparing agains IPCC “low” rather than “best”? I know why IPCC high is a red herring (GHG emissions were lower than that scenario, Pinatubo happened). Is there a reason why “Low” is a more reasonable scenario than “best”? Is it because of recent low solar activity?
John
John B says:
June 12, 2011 at 3:58 pm
but why do you suggest comparing against IPCC “low” rather than “best”?
I assume [could be wrong] that IPCC consider their LOW projection consistent with the models [albeit at the lower end of what is allowed]. I then note that the LOW projection is consistent with observations to date [or rather to 2009] allowing for the small solar cycle influence that many people advocate, which means that we cannot, today, exclude the possibility that IPCC is correct [but that their LOW projection should be followed]. They have not failed yet. If the temperature continues to drop, the IPCC will have failed, but we don’t know that yet [we will in, say, 5 years].
@Leif
Thanks. That’s pretty much what I said to Richard S Courtney.
And why the linear interpolation?
Ken
Why not use IPCC CO2 science without feedbacks? That correlates much better than the 1990 IPCC “Low” prediction.
Would be funny to watch the gravy science climatologists claim that such correlation does not “prove” CO2 is the main forcer of “climate change” and also debunk the significant positive net feedback effect of increasing CO2. They would have to go nuts because a .5-1.5 degree increase in GT with CO2 pre-ind. doubling is hardly “scary” enough to continue their own funding and junkets and credit trading schemes.