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.
As Urederra says “when you see experimental data error bars larger than the error bars in the models” you know you’re in trouble.
If the error bars are 0.2 C per year, then how in the hell can they make these “high confidence” statements? It seems the only time they use large error bars on the data is when they want to show that they “really do fall in the 67% C.I.” or some such nonsense. The rest of the time the average temp./anomaly of the entire planet is quite accurate I’m sure.
There’s one other thing that I see. No warming since around 1997.
Peter Miller says:
December 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm
—
Are you saying that what we have here is … An inconvenient Truth?
I hope the next version of the chart includes the dots for 2012. They should be available in a couple of months.
I assume 2013 will be (thanks to ENSO) a cool year, relative to the 21st century average. At that point, a few months after the release of AR5, the chart will start looking REALLY embarrassing.
I doubt that this chart will be allowed to go through as is. especially as it’s now been highlighted here. The presentation will change so as to be on message.
Regardless of how futile a gesture Mosher believes it to be the AR5 needs to be scrutinised so as to make sure the information within is getting to as wide an audience as possible but also explained in a manner that people may understand.
No doubt this could be spun in a way that the IPCC are happy with. they will no doubt say “look, the observations all fall within the area of one of the models therefore all our models are performing as expected”.
These things need to be explained in simple terms for the simple man and got out in media that the simple man reads. The fact that error margins so wide as to outdo the tales of old fishermen (it was THIS big, honest ) are introduced so that the displays are more convenient to the message needs to be explained.
I was having a conversation with my friend and oft business partner about the anthropogenic issue as I drove back from racing at the weekend. It’s never come up before but he looked at me as though I was mental as I tried with difficulty to explain that what he believes is not what is happening. All he could keep saying was “why would they do this” and “but everyone agrees, I read it all the time”
These are the people that need to have the facts explained to them but it needs to be done in in a manner that they can comprehend.
Having this AR5 draft on from WG1 where all the science that will be relied on is laid out is a good thing because now people with the skill set can plan ahead how they will counter the summary for policy makers when it arrives and falls down on the science it will claim supports it.
Urederra says:
December 14, 2012 at 12:22 pm
I disagree. This is the result that is to be expected when somebody tries to predict the behaviour of a chaotic system over long timescales using a wrongly initialized, limited precision simulation (that is not even capable of simulating the relevant processes correctly, but that’s not a necessary condition).
The mathematical definition of chaos tells us that such an endeavour MUST fail. I am satisfied to see the expected failure. The math is right.
Considering the graph of AR4 predictions and the observed temperature wiskers post AR4:
http://www.despair.com/consistency.html
“Consistency: Its only a Virture, If….. ”
Click the link to see the punchline and visual.
Steven Mosher says:
December 14, 2012 at 1:59 pm
let me get this straight. somebody wants me to look at draft chart that has an error in it
ignore the error and focus on a different part of the chart that may or may not be accurate.
================
Nicely sums up the “warmist” methodology 🙂
the poll, I had a brain explosion and voted for above model we all know the right answer its below. I hang my head in shame i should enter politics
I bet the IPCC won’t put THIS chart on the cover of its AR5 report!
(As it did for the hockey stick in its TAR).
It’ll be fun to see the final-draft version, which presumably will have the AR5-scenario included.
Are we sure the graph isn’t Mannian (ie: upside down)?
I have my own version of this chart which I keep up-to-date and post up every now and again (monthly numbers rather than obscure dots and bulloney ranges).
Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3 to October 2012, the average of RSS/UAH to November 2012 versus all these IPCC/Hansen forecasts.
Its not that the forecasts are wrong, the theory must be instead.
http://s12.postimage.org/kbtrs0oul/IPPC_vs_Obs_Nov_12.png
Mosher will have to wait for the final “sanitized” report, since he’s now gone from lukewarmer to warmer positions on many things.
It behooves one to check axes. This was normalized to 1990. But the reported anomaly in 1990 was greater than 0.3C shown here, in all IPCC reports. Read the climate change chapter in The Arts of Truth. Even though this chart ‘admits’ less warming than model predictions, it is still lipstick on a pig. The true divergence from past IPCC statements is substantially greater.
Not that points like experimental error bars are greater than model error (illogical unless only models reflect ‘reality’) and the estimated experimental temps are biased high by homogenization and UHI from station siting problems, are not also zingers. Put it all together correctly and one has a rather resounding refutation of the IPCC. Good that this got out in the leaked draft, because IMO would not have made final cut otherwise. Still might not.
From the abstract of Frame and Stone 2012:
The FAR prediction is the pale orange region on the graph.
@Steven Mosher,
What error? Be specific. Show your work.
Like page 1 of the Daily Mail!
@Bill Illis,
You should put Hanson’s best case scenario (I forget if that would be A or C) on the chart. I believe that the current observations would be below even that.
@Steven Mosher:
I have not read much from you lately. Could you provide some balance here? I would like to have your take on what’s happening. Could you give us a summary? As I say, I learn more from being wrong than being right. Please please give us some insight!
PS: I meant by the Daily Mail reprinting the chart above the fold on page 1 tomorrow–and periodically thereafter. (It should insert “estimated” dots for 2012.)
Here’s the caption: “Worth a million of the IPCC’s words”
The “actual” figures are provided by Hansen’s NASA GISS, where reality is adjusted constantly. It probably more than coincidence that the adjustments bring the reality into line with for forecasts. In what other area would somebody be allowed, unchallenged, to provide the analysis that verifies their own theory?
Businesses auditing (and deciding the accounting standards for) their own accounts perhaps? Pharmaceutical companies evaluating the efficacy of their own products, with test standards they themselves determine? Within business, people deciding the criteria for expense claims, and signing off (unchecked) their expense claims? In every case there are strong conflicts of interest. We should recognize this in climatology as well.
HADCRUT will probably come in at about 0.45 for 2012. (Last year was 0.40C).
beng says:
December 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm
IPCC model forecasts, FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4
And the upcoming forecast, FUBAR.
==============================================================================
Or, regarding what the models predicted and what was actually observed: SNAFU.
(Or maybe it should be: SNMAFU?)
(“M” for Models.)
I have an evolving sense that some of the major non western UN nations have let it be known that they think this AGW alarmism is utter crap and that the IPCC had better get itself back to reality with AR5. Hence the figure on global tempetrature, the recognition of solar influences via incoming ionizing radiation etc and the virtual dismissal of the link to extreme climate events.
It will be interesting to see a list of the contributors to AR5 and see whether there are as many eco rent seekers involved as distinct from actual scientists as has been the case in the past.
I hope that in five years the chart might deserve the sarcastic caption, “Hockeystick!”–with the blade pointing downwards.