Take a look at Figure 1.4 from the AR5 draft (shown below). The gray bars in Fig 1.4 are irrelevant (because they flubbed the definition of them), the colored bands are the ones that matter because they provide bounds for all current and previous IPCC model forecasts, FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4.
Look for the surprise in the graph.
Here is the caption for this figure from the AR5 draft:
Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.
So let’s see how readers see this figure – remember ignore the gray bands as they aren’t part of the model scenarios.
I’ll have a follow up with the results later, plus an essay on what else was found in the IPCC AR5 draft report related to this.
@occupyjane says:
December 18, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Mario Lento: Surely you agree the trend is up!? There is no ‘new red line’ showing ht etrend over 15 years! And what about the Arctic summer sea ice http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-of-doubt-escalator-updates.html – why is that melting faster and faster if we are in a cooling trend? The sea ice is even more important than the overall temperature rise as the melting of the permafrost and the release of the massive amounts of methane stored there is one of the tipping points climate scientists are concerned about. Once the ‘methane bomb’ goes off it’s all over Red Rover.
++++++
occupyjane: This is what I wrote “Jane that new red line which starts below average at the start and stripes right to the max of today… and still the new red line shows cooling of 0.5C over the past 15 years!”
Now let me explain it so even you can understand it. The line that appears when the graph changes, is misleading. The red trend line does not follow convention. It starts below the average at the start in 1970 (to artificially cool the past) and then ends up at the top of the current range (to artificially warm the present). However, if done correctly, it would start and end in the middle of the range from start to finish. If that trend line started at 1970 (in the middle of the range) and then when to the middle of the range in 2000) that would show show a steeper slope from 1970 through 2000 than a proper trendline from 1970 through present. Can you understand this or is it too complicated for you?
We have patience here for people if we believe they are interested in honest debate and seek truth. If this is not your goal, then it’s your loss and you can play with Red Rover or something.
mpainter says:
December 18, 2012 at 8:08 pm
I disagreed with your assertion that climate models are designed only to produce warming. That is in no way contradictory to my statment that models are not designed to take into account unpredictable events such as volcanic eruptions and el nino/la nina events.
D Böehm says:
December 18, 2012 at 7:37 pm
I set up no straw man. I simply pointed out that your objection to the role of CO2 in climate models applied equally to the role of natural forcings and was equally incorrect. All I can say is go back and read my posts carefully. Your failure of comprehension and capacity to miss the point is beyond my patience to go over again in more detail.
@Tzo:
Your post at December 18, 2012 at 11:08 am says in entirety
“Ignore the grey bands”
LOL.
Yes, ignore everything that doesn’t fit your argument. That’s a solid method for a rational argument.
+++++++
Tzo: You just showed everyone here exactly on a public forum where you level of intelligence is. You make a wisecrack arrogant comment without having the slightest idea of what your words even mean or refer to.
Read some of the post or ask the question before you make such a fool of yourself again. That is my free advice to you, that if taken can only help you in the remainder of your sad life of being so impotent.
occupyjane says:
December 18, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Mario Lento: Surely you agree the trend is up!? There is no ‘new red line’ showing ht etrend over 15 years! And what about the Arctic summer sea ice http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-of-doubt-escalator-updates.html – why is that melting faster and faster if we are in a cooling trend? The sea ice is even more important than the overall temperature rise as the melting of the permafrost and the release of the massive amounts of methane stored there is one of the tipping points climate scientists are concerned about.
yet when we calculate actual irradiation levels on the water at the time of minimum arctic sea ice (at the equinox during the month of September each year) we find that exposed sea water loses more heat to evaporation than ice-covered sea water. And we find further that – at the very low sun angles all day during the time of minimum sea ice, the exposed water does NOT heat up due to solar energy.
the much-feared “arctic amplification” due to ice loss is a bust: the more ice is lost, the cooler the air above the water becomes. Which, in fact, when you look at the DMI summer arctic temperatures from 1958 through 2012, is exactly what you see.
no increase in arctic temperatures at 80 north despite the increase in CO2 that is feeding plants and increasing growth further south. (A slight cooling trend, increasing actually the last few year as sea ice decreases.)
Werner Brozek says
At least three data sets show no warming for the last 16 years when rounded to the nearest year.
Henry says
Actually 16 years is not that a good yardstick as one solar cycle is 11 years. So by taking it to 16 years you are looking almost at 1.5 solar cycle which is a bit dumb.
better take a look at the past 11 which shows we are cooling:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
As you know, 1998 was the top of the of the end of the warming period, looking at energy-out.
Looking at energy-in we will continue to cool until at least 2038, but there could be some 3 year lag as well. So we are looking at cooling until ca. 2041. It seems most of the guests on this blog here have no idea what is all still going to come.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/
But if you count back 88 years you will realize that we have been there before.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
@Graham W says:
December 18, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Well that’s ridiculous Gail. Not saying that I don’t believe you, saying I think that’s ridiculous…you can make as many model predictions as you like, it’s not like we don’t have the computer power.
++++
Graham what you fail to comprehend is that just guessing and putting in every conceivable combination of forcings into a MODELS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO MEET AN AGENDA will lead to a larger bunch of garbage. If one or more of those matches observations, what conclusions would you come up with? When you get the several results with different forcings to match some observations, what would the results even mean? They would mean that guessing sometimes can correlate with observations. But they would not tell you anything that matters. Even some of the models of the IPCC come close to observations, but those didn’t show what they wanted!
Too late Shehan, I have you on record as saying that climate models cannot project anything but a warming trend. You can’t wriggle out now. Besides, the policy makers need to know these things.
Yes, Mario, you’re right and I agree with you. As I said in an earlier comment, the frustrating thing is that now would now have to redo everything from the start as far as the modelling is concerned. This is because, as you say, the models seem to have the agenda of CO2 is the most important driver, and warming will be the result. All I was saying is that I still believe modelling could be used objectively in some way going forward. Since you obviously can’t do the “dual Earth” experiment but you can attempt to simulate the climate of “an Earth” using modelling (or should I say you might be able too one day?)
“mpainter says:
December 18, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Too late Shehan, I have you on record as saying that climate models cannot project anything but a warming trend. You can’t wriggle out now. Besides, the policy makers need to know these things.”
I wrote no such thing. Please direct me too the alleged comments with time and date.
HenryP says:
December 18, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Werner Brozek says
At least three data sets show no warming for the last 16 years when rounded to the nearest year.
Henry says
Actually 16 years is not that a good yardstick as one solar cycle is 11 years…..
_________________________________________
The 16 years were not our choice it was the choice of the climate scientists as to what they would consider a statistically significant absence of warming.
NOAA
Santer, Mears, Doutriaux, Caldwell, Gleckler, Wigley, S. Solomon, Gillett, Ivanova, Karl, Lanzante, Meehl, Stott, Taylor, Thorne, Wehner,. Wentz
GrahamW says
would now have to redo everything from the start as far as the modelling is concerned. This is because, as you say, the models seem to have the agenda of CO2 is the most important driver, and warming will be the result
Henry says
if you want to do some fitting or modelling you have to have some sort of known relationship within certain boundaries which you can then extrapolate to the unknown future.
But you cannot do anything if you have no measuring points at all. You cannot calculate that which has never even been measured. This is was the initial AR report (2004) did. They looked at the observed warming versus the increase in the various GHG’s and made an allocation (forcing) based on the noted increase of the GHG. But they never had any actual measurements that would prove a relationship….
It is the worst mistake scientists can make: assume you know the cause of a problem and then trying to work your way back to try and solve it…..
An example is this blue line in this graph
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
which has 4 measuring points that was each an average from 47 samples that make up the blue stretch. From there, you can try to model what the future will look like.
We are cooling and we will continue to cool. Buy some extra cloths. We will drop 0.3 K in the next 8 years. And the curve proves that this is a natural relationship. It was in His design.
Philip Shehan
Let me see if I understand you correctly, now. You hold that the climate models are not restricted to projections of warming, but also project periods such as the last sixteen years, when there was no warming. Is that your position?
Graham W says: December 19, 2012 at 12:40 am
This is because, as you say, the models seem to have the agenda of CO2 is the most important driver, and warming will be the result.
===============================================================
This is also my understanding of climate models. They incorporate the AGW theory into a clutch of algorithms which simply makes them contrivances that project an uninterrupted trend of warming as future climate. Obviously this is bunkum, so to cover this scam, the modelers use a special type of modeler-speak, as illustrated by Philip Shehan on this thread. Not everyone is profficient in this tricky dialect, and Shehan is having his problems.
Graham W says:
December 19, 2012 at 12:40 am
This is because, as you say, the models seem to have the agenda of CO2 is the most important driver, and warming will be the result.
=======================================================================
This is also my understanding. The climate modelers simply incorporate AGW theory into a set of algorithms and thus produce a contrivance that projects an uninterrupted warming trend indefinitely. This result is then presented as climate of the future. Obviously this is bunkum, so to cover up, modelers have devised a special type of speech: model-speak, as exhibited by Philip Shehan on this very thread. This type of speech is somewhat tricky, and Shehan is having his problems with it.
The modelers present the projected warming as the basis for policy decisions, but when confronted with the models’ failures when tested against observations, they say that the models do not forecast but make projections and that such failures are irrelevant for evaluating projections. Thus model-speak.
Terry Oldberg says: December 19, 2012 at 7:35 am
mpainter:
If you were to hold the sarcasm and attempt the proof of a conclusion, perhaps this conversation would lead in a useful direction.
==========================================================================
Actually, the burden of proof concerning AGW lies on you. But we both know that you have no proof to offer, nor any evidence in support of AGW theory. Your theory is refuted by observations, in the view of skeptics. Simply put, CO2 goes up but temperatures do not, water vapor does not.
So proceed with your rebuttal, because proof you have not.
mpainter:
In lieu of the underlying statistical population, AGW theory can neither be refuted nor validated.
@Henry P
I had a look over the links in your last two posts to me and now I understand what you mean. So CO2 also cools the atmosphere by re-radiating incoming sunlight as well as warming it by re-radiating the infra-red reflected from earth. So the overall warming (or cooling) effect will be the net effect of those two interactions. And this balance has not yet been fully determined…so any models incorporating this as yet unquantified effect into their projections cannot produce reliable results…as can be seen in the graph from the AR5. So if more investigation into the balance was to take place, more reliable projections could perhaps be made?
Thanks for the information.
mpainter says:
December 19, 2012 at 6:41 am
I take it that, unable to reproduce the alleged statements I requested in response to your assertion “Too late Shehan, I have you on record as saying that climate models cannot project anything but a warming trend. You can’t wriggle out now”, you have retracted that accusation.
You now write “You hold that the climate models are not restricted to projections of warming, but also project periods such as the last sixteen years, when there was no warming. Is that your position?”
No. And in view of your rudeness and sneering remarks (mpainter says:
December 19, 2012 at 6:58 am “Shehan is having his problems”) I will not once again restate my position but direct you reread my earlier comments with the assistance of a responsible adult who can help you with your reading comprehension difficulties.
Terry Oldberg:
Sixteen years is long enough for anyone to draw conclusions, unless they hate the conclusion. if you dispute this, you dispute the NOAA, which see. Warming will not resume any time soon and cooling seems more likely than warming. The AGW position is untenable.
Philip Shehan
If you understand how the climate models are devised, (and I feel certain that you do) then you know that climate models are contrivances that project warming, and warming only.
Those who advocate that policy be formulated on the product of such a contrivance do the world a disservice, and unconscionably.
mpainter:
The number 16 is irrelevant to the prospect for validating or falsifiying the model. It is the number of observed events in the sample that is drawn from the underlying population for the purpose of validating or falsifying the model which is relevant. The number of these events is zero. As it is zero, there is not the possibility of either validating or falsifying the model. The 16 years without statistically significant warming is a myth that has been perpetrated through burial of empirically unsupportable assumptions of linearity, normality and statistical independence among the elements of the non-existent statistical population that contains the global temperatures of the past 16 years..
Terry Oldberg says:
December 19, 2012 at 11:42 am
In lieu of the underlying statistical population, AGW theory can neither be refuted nor validated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is not what the ‘experts’ seem to think.
NOAA
——————————–
Santer, Mears, Doutriaux, Caldwell, Gleckler, Wigley, S. Solomon, Gillett, Ivanova, Karl, Lanzante, Meehl, Stott, Taylor, Thorne, Wehner,. Wentz
Gail Combs:
Apparently these “experts” plugged numbers into a formula and turned the crank without having the wit to question whether the underlying assumptions were supportable by evidence. Based upon this performance I’m inclined to doubt their expertise in the area of mathematical statistics
@Henry says
if you want to do some fitting or modelling you have to have some sort of known relationship within certain boundaries which you can then extrapolate to the unknown future.
But you cannot do anything if you have no measuring points at all. You cannot calculate that which has never even been measured. This is was the initial AR report (2004) did. They looked at the observed warming versus the increase in the various GHG’s and made an allocation (forcing) based on the noted increase of the GHG. But they never had any actual measurements that would prove a relationship….
++++++
Well said!! All the technical detailed talk, where these AGW scientists try to confuse everyone with the details, they fail to provide any big picture view and substantiate it.
Terry Oldberg:
re your post at December 19, 2012 at 5:12 pm.
You are missing the point.
It does not matter what you think. It does not matter what I think.
And it does not matter who is right.
As Gail Combs says, all that matters is what the modelers themselves have said about their models.
In 2008 NOAA defined that 15 years of no discernible warming at 95% confidence could not happen according to the models. As 15 years of such a period neared then Santer et al. stretched it to 17 years.
The recent period of16 years of no discernible warming (at 95% confidence) invalidates the models according to the NOAA criterion.
And if the period extends to 17 years then that that would invalidate the models according to the modelers; i.e. Santer et al..
The modelers built the models and they operate the models.
Either they know what the models do, or they don’t know what the models do
If they know their models and they have defined the criterion to reject the models then the next year is important because they have defined that an additional year of the imperceptible warming (at 95% confidence) would invalidate their models.
And
If they don’t know their models then that invalidates their models, too.
The modelers have dug the hole they are in, and I fail to understand why you are trying to give them a ladder for them to climb out of it.
Richard
richardscourtney:
Would it be sound public policy for us to place the inmates in charge of the asylum?
Terry Oldberg @ur momisugly 4:51 PM:
“The 16 years without statistically significant warming is a myth that has been perpetrated through burial of empirically unsupportable assumptions of linearity, normality and statistical independence among the elements of the non-existent statistical population that contains the global temperatures of the past 16 years”
==================================================================
I think, Terry, that 4 years hence, we need only to insert the figure 20 where 16 is now, if we wish to have your views on the matter. Thank you for your contribution at WUWT.
mpainter:
If an additional 4 years were to elapse without “statistically significant global warming” this would be as irrelevant as the passage of the previous 16 years.
Michael Faraday:
“When I make observations that contradict my theory, I adjust my theory to accomodate those observations. What do you do ,sir?”
We have not been given the reply of Faraday’s interlocutor. Perhaps this fellow was like so many climate scientists: a rigid, doctrinaire theoretician incapable of assimilating observations and accomodating them into his theories. Such scientists never contribute much to the progress of understanding.
GrahamW says
So CO2 also cools the atmosphere by re-radiating incoming sunlight as well as warming it by re-radiating the infra-red reflected from earth.
Henry says:
Exactly. You got it. You figured it out. It cools by back radiating some of the sunshine. It warms by back radiating some of the earth shine.
Also, remember: plants and trees need both CO2 and warmth to grow.
So more vegetation (as observed on earth in the past 4 decades, both on land and in the oceans) also extracts energy. So there is also some more biological cooling caused by the CO2…….
Mario Lento says
Well said!!
henry says
Thanks.
Actually, there was a spelling error
should be:
This is what the initial AR report (2004) did.
/////////
They applied the relationship deltaT that causes deltaCO2 backwards.
i.e.
More heat + HCO3- (gigatons of bicarbonates in the oceans) => CO2 (g) + OH-
(like the first smoke from a kettle starting to warm up)
was simply put the other way around:
more CO2 causes more heat
.////////
how stupid can you be….
smoking causes cancer, but does cancer also cause smoking?…….