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.
mpainter:
The global warming scam is ugly but it’s not the ugliest. Thirty years ago I witnessed another example of a pseudoscientific study disguised as a scientific study.
I had stumbled into a position that made me the director of this study. Thus, I was in a position to witness this phenomenon from up close and to view the actions of the perpetrators as they happened. I expose this scam in the peer reviewed article at http://www.ndt.net/article/v04n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm.
One of many parallels to the global warming scam is that the perpetrators covered up their work through applications of the equivocation fallacy; this made it necessary for me to disambiguate the language that was used in this field of research before exposing the scam via the above referenced article. For the same reason, I had to disambiguate the language of climatology before exposing the global warming scam in the peer reviewed article at http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ .
When I tried to stop the scam in the study that I directed, I met overwhelming resistance from people and institutions holding great power. This scam persists to this day. The strong parallel between the two situations makes me fear that rooting out the corruption of climatology is a major challenge. To succeed, I think, we would have to form a pressure group of great power.
correct. I meant rectitude. And so no cure?
Let’s just be honest, who really cares? Climatologists play a part. The IPCC plays a part. The UN wants this. The people want that. I can tell you for a fact that 95% of the general population simply doesn’t give a crap. Most people will read what’s in the press i.e for each molecule of CO2 breathed into the atmosphere a child of Africa dies. By driving a car you’re not only destroying the lives of your grandchildren you’re physically raping a cat. The simple fact of CO2’s physical reality is a blight on Nature’s otherwise beautiful womanly face. CO2 is like a dragon’s breath burned across the face of the innocent Thomas The Tank Engine atmosphere. To even question the belief that CO2 single-handedly controls and, to an extent, bullies the Earth’s atmosphere into submission is to suggest that God himself spits in the face of everything your mum holds dear. I dared to read the Guardian the other day for only 3 milliseconds and I was instantly assured that by being anyone but a massively sarcastic denialist of physical reality I must be a satan-jerking fascist dictator beyond the worst excesses of Hitler. By contemplating alternatives to my own disgusting ejection of CO2 into Gaia’s innocent young face as being the be all and end all of all observed climate reality I must be the most loathsome and despicable human being in the history of the Universe.
Basically until that changes, this is all just words.
GrahamW says
By contemplating alternatives to my own disgusting ejection of CO2 into Gaia’s innocent young face as being the be all and end all of all observed climate reality I must be the most loathsome and despicable human being in the history of the Universe.
Basically until that changes, this is all just words.
Henry says
You did not get what I have been telling you.
A tiny (helpless) child is also an almighty God.\ and a forgiving God….
we know the truth and can see it coming?
Follow the (obvious) binomial in the graph where we started in this thread
by 2015 we must be coming close to zero?
By that time people will come stand in line to ask questions (from the skeptics) about the coming cold…
– just be ready when that happens….
I think I have corrected my errors…..
By putting the Gleisberg solar cycle into a chart, as I have done, (and others can follow and copy??), I think it is possible for me to estimate for me that all observed warming is natural or very nearly completely natural. Please correct me if you think I am wrong.
Consider the fact that we really do not have a global temp. record to speak of since at least around 1925. In those days they just manufactured thermometers, never realizing that after time they need to be re-calibrated…..I have challenged anyone to bring me the calibration certificates of thermometers used in weather stations from before that time, with no response.
This means that if we look at my chart, which is looking at energy-in
(not to be confused with energy-out)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
we must rather look at the absolute value (positive) of the increase in the heat coming through the top of the atmosphere from 1927 (85 years ago) until 1950. This means an increase of ca. 0.037/2 (roughly integrated) x 23 = 0.43 degrees K. In the next period from 1950 to 1995, when records were firmly established we are seeing the warming that everyone started to fear, namely 0.037/2 (roughly integrated) x 45 = 0.83 degrees K. From 1995 until 2012 it looks we went down on the maxima by ca. 0.037/2 x 17 = 0.31
So I have 0.43 + 0.83 -0.31= 0.95 degrees K up on the maxima since 1927
I have also determined that the ratio maxima : means that pushed up the means by increasing maxima is 5 : 2
see here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/04/23/global-cooling-is-here/
So my final result for natural variation due to Gleisberg cycle is 0.95/2.46 = + 0.4 degrees K up on the means since 1927.
now look here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1927/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1927/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1927/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1927/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:1927/to:2013/plot/rss/from:1927/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1927/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:1927/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1927/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1927/to:2013/trend
there is no “extra’ man made global warming?
But, please do correct me if you think my reasoning is wrong.
henry says (to himself, seeing as they are all too dof here)
it looks like the warming from 1927 to 2012 is a bit more than 0.4
probably more like 0.5 or 0.6, on average, on the 3 relevant sets.
The difference would mean a considerable % of the warming being due to human influence.
true.
However, I also looked at my own data set again to find that the ratio of warming looking at
maxima : means
is not constant. It appears that in warming periods it is a lot higher than in cooling periods.
So the factor 2.46 that I used in my earlier comment based on my own data set (from 1974-2012) is simply too high.
But I do not have the maxima on the 3 relevant sets and my own set covers too short a time period.
The only data set I have that has maxima and means covered over the whole period 1927-2012 is the CET data set. In due time, I will see if I can work out the relevant factor over the period from that.
I still expect to find that all observed warming and subsequent cooling is and was completely natural.
HenryP:
The conclusion that, in a given period, the time rate of change of the global temperature was either positive or negative is based upon unsupportable premises of linearity, normality and statistical independence among the elements of a non-existent statistical population. I believe I’ve demonstrated this proposition to be true elsewhere in this thread.
BTW
this might be interesting for some people;
winter in Holland 1941-1942
-20 degrees C, packs of ice and snow, meters high,
1941-1942 + 88 = 2029-2030
http://www.winter42.wpl
just wait for it: it will come again….
(1941-1942 + 88 = 2029-2030)
Sorry, the correct link to that video showing the horrors of the 1940-1945 winter periods is here:
http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=winter42.wpl&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F21524100%2F12735163%2Fname%2Fwinter42.wpl&ei=zpnYULnHFoGV0QWiqYDIDg&usg=AFQjCNHrFgVwHqxPBwLeTxbtc-3hGjHq_g&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.d2k
Henry P, my last message was just a joke, really, not to be taken literally. Purely satirical. If you look at my other messages again you’ll see that I’m agreeing with you. In fact I said in one that in my opinion your predictions were more likely correct than the IPCCs. I think that the reason people are quiet is because its an old post now and everyone’s commenting on more recent ones. I don’t think anyone’s being deliberately ignorant. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
terry says
…..was either positive or negative is based upon unsupportable premises ….
henry says
Terry, I do my own research, took my own sample, and then compared my results with the other data sets.
i.e.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
which came from here;
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/04/23/global-cooling-is-here/
The speed of warming/cooling in degrees K/ year for maxima now is 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years).
…..just try and plot that for me>? what correlation do you find on a binomial plot for that?
The major data sets see a general upward trend due to natural warming, from 1927, as do I, looking at the relevant sine wave,
but I can also accurately predict the times when the signs changed, looking at the energy coming through the atmosphere. We changed from warming to cooling in 1995. Most data sets see that 1998 was the warmest (due to some lag between energy in and energy out).
We will be globally cooling from 1995 until ca. 2039.
Hope that helps.
HenryP:
The two of us are defining the term “population” differently. Yours is a set of weather stations. Mine is a set of independent events. Each event can be partially described by a value for the time and a value for the temperature. Virtually all of the elements of this kind of population are missing and thus your assumptions of linearity, normality and independence among the events in my kind of population cannot be validated.
Terry, no matter how many factors influence the means, eventually all those factors can only either delay or keep pace with the incoming energy as shown from the Gleisberg cycle. Accordingly we will now cool until 2040.
If they keep adjusting (cooling) the past, the 20th century will have been an ice age so they can show yet more present day warming – population or not. So maybe though we will be cooling through 2040, the charts will show a warming trend “worse than expected.”
Henry says
as stated earlier, I came, from my own results, to a reasonable estimate of an increase of 0.95 degrees K globally on the maxima from 1927-2012,
I have had a look now at CET maxima and found it rising by 0.0105 degree K per annum from 1927 – 2012. A total of 0.89 K from 1927 which confirms the correctness of my estimate.
I also had a look now of the increase of CET means and found it increasing by 0.0088 degree C per annum since 1927. This means the ratio of maxima/means is therefore estimated as 1.19.
This leaves me with an estimate of 0.95/1.19 = 0.8 up on the means which even is 0.1 K higher than the actual observed increase, as here,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1927/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1927/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1927/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1927/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:1927/to:2013/plot/rss/from:1927/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1927/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:1927/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1927/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1927/to:2013/trend
I think an error of 0.1 is not that bad so all of this leaves me with no warming caused by human beings, as I had suspected, from the very beginning,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
@HenryP: What you write about, CO2’s absorbing and radiating as well as photosynthesis’ affect on cooling, is fascinating. Measuring these things (absorption and re-radiation) takes special equipment of course. However, it makes sense that plants require energy to grow. The energy from the sun brings together relatively low energy CO2, H2O and Nitrogen containing compounds and forces them into higher energy storage matter (proteins, starches and sugar) while spitting out low energy Oxygen. Kinetic heat energy energy must be transformed and stored (in the range of 5 to 9 calories per gram) in the matter as potential energy. Thus, plant growth has a cooling effect on the surroundings. If there is a net increase in existing plant matter, there will be a net cooling effect. If there is steady state burning of plants (via consumption or other decomposition) the heat is returned to its surroundings.
An interesting experiment would be to compare two closed systems (aquarium) with the same ingredients and light/heat source. One would contain seeds that could grow the other would contain seeds that have been destroyed so they could not grow. Monitoring the temperature of these different aquariums should show different temperatures.
So the question is: Is earth accumulating plant matter faster?
Mario
Henry@Mario
Earth has been getting a lot greener in the past 4 decades:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
An experiment like you describe could /should be performed to try and quantify the cooling effect caused by CO2 due to the observed increased photosynthesis
HenryP says:
December 27, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Henry@Mario
Earth has been getting a lot greener in the past 4 decades:….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not only has the Earth been getting greener but plant matter is sequestered in the peat=> coal
coal forms when dead plant matter is converted into peat, and peat becomes coal after being subjected to pressure from overlying sediments for long periods of time.
One of the other commenters mentioned that Trenbeth’s energy balance leaves out all the energy that is converted to chemical energy through various reactions including photosynthesis. There is also energy that is stored in the oceans. The over turn or Thermohaline Circulation is something like 1600 years for the Pacific and 350 for the Atlantic (Little Ice Age?)
This is quite interesting because the Dansgaard-Oeschger Events, and Bond Events have a cycle time of about 1500 years….
E.M. Smith has some interesting things to say about these 1500 year events. link All seven threads are worth reading but not before bedtime….
BTW, A belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you HenryP.
@ur momisugly HenryP and Gail Combs:
Yes – I’ve heard and assumed it was true that we are “greening” and that CO2 is required for this to occur – Greenies seem to be in denial of these truths. The Greenies have again tried to change the meaning of words… suggesting that they are for green, which actually means less real green.
Other words and terms which they have screwed up and have gotten wrong based on real science and real life:
Greenies say:
“Subsidy” – when used to describe tax breaks for oil, (but it really means they pay less of their own money with some tax write offs).
“Subsidy for Green means the same thing as subsidy for oil” – (when actually for Green energy it means to be given money that was not theirs to begin with).
“CO2 – is a pollutant” – (even though it is vital for real greening, which provides us with food and energy)
“Colder is better” – (actually maybe it’s better if you want less life which is part of their agenda).
Henry@Gail
thanks! Wishing you the same and a prosperous 2013!
btw, I suspect you are also from the SH, but I am not sure which country you live in?
HenryP says:
December 27, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Henry@Gail
thanks! Wishing you the same and a prosperous 2013!
btw, I suspect you are also from the SH, but I am not sure which country you live in?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
North Carolina USA. I am also a Chemist – retired and now have a farm.
The wonderful thing about WUWT is you get to ‘meet’ people from all over the world.