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.
@daybyday
Perhaps:
Far, a hockey stick is born
Tar, the sands are full of dread
Sar, a model that is dead.
And that brings us back to Doh! Doh! Doh! Doh!
I find it depressing but not surprising that a significant part of the audience here believes that since this chart shows that (not a polling option) most of the recent data lies in the lower part of the predicted envelope (and most of the early data lies below the envelope primarily due to Mt. Pinatubo), this information shows that the IPCC has been wrong, and they further believe that the IPCC will delete (or would have deleted if not leaked) this data from the final report.
Unlike the vast majority of the posters here, the IPCC WGI authors are scientists, and do in fact think that facts matter. The projections are a matter of record, and the observed temperatures are also published. Putting them together is the obvious thing to do and – OMG – that’s what they ACTUALLY DID. In a draft that was published for review by anyone able to type a URL and download a PDF (and sign a non-disclosure agreement, whether or not they intended to abide by it).
One might also be worried that, even though the temperature has risen less than projected, impacts, like melting artic ice, have arrived faster.
And yet the warmists still maintain that the models correctly predicted the climate! A rather difficult position to maintain now, but they’ll continue trying with all the same lame excuses. Just watch.
All major data sets including my own see the negative trend now, i.e cooling from 2002
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2012/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
For the next 8 years we will be cooling at the maximum rate:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
We will continue cooling until ca. 2038/
Amazing. I wonder how long you all and the ipcc will finally pick up on the fact that they have always been looking at the wrong parameter…..
HenryP says:
December 14, 2012 at 12:32 pm
If you look carefully you will find the curve from 1990 first going up an then down. We will continue to fall. Global cooling is here7
It’s looking good for your theory!
Well, we’ll, well.
Me wonders what science EPAwill cite now?
Please look this eye opening graph:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/down3.gif
Since CO2 has increased from ~370 ppm to ~395 ppm the average global temperature has decreased ~0.05 centigrade.
V.
Anthony,
You say ignore the grey bands, yet the lower grey band shows the best predicitive outcome of all the data on the graph.
Jimbo says Dec 14 “Will this graph be in the Summary for Policy Makers?”
Not quite clear. the SPM is at http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/SummaryForPolicymakers_WG1AR5-SPM_FOD_Final.pdf,
but with placeholders for figures. Apologies if you’ve already found this. Time differences a half a world away.
paulbaer:
Your post at December 14, 2012 at 11:20 pm indicates that you ‘Need to go to Specsavers’ (i.e. your eyesight is faulty).
It says in total
The graph shows that all (yes, ALL) previous ‘projections’ of global warming were exaggerated.
If you can’t see that then you really do need new spectacles.
Those of us who have been involved in the production of previous IPCC reports know it is likely that the IPCC would delete the graph from the final report. If you don’t know that then – for example – I suggest you look-up the infamous ‘Chapter 8’ scandal.
Many who frequent WUWT are scientists. But it does not require a “scientist” to understand the graph.
The IPCC is a political and NOT a scientific organisation. To give you a clue about this, read its title: it is the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate change. Each statement in each IPCC Report is approved by representatives of governments. The IPCC Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) are approved and published first and the IPCC so-called scientific reports are then amended to not-refute the SPMs prior to their publication.
Personally, I would not have leaked the AR5 after peer review but before political amendment. However. on the basis of previous behaviour of the IPCC, I can and do understand how others could think the leak was a moral imperative. Sometimes science is more important than politics.
And there is no reason to worry about “melting arctic ice”. Arctic ice is reducing but Antarctic ice is increasing. There is no reason of any kind to think AGW has anything to do with either of these phenomena.
Richard
Henry@Kelvin Potter & Volker
thanks. It is good that we measure temps. in Kelvin….
I note from Volker’s graph that even though, according to my (own) measurements of maxima (energy-in), global warming started around 1950 (as seen from the top of the atmosphere), the cooling from the 1900-1950 period carried on until into the early seventies. Generally speaking, it seems there is a 2 decade lag on the difference in what is happening/changing on top of the atmosphere compared to what is happening/changing at our front door (energy-out).
paulbaer says
Unlike the vast majority of the posters here, the IPCC WGI authors are scientists, and do in fact think that facts matter.
henry says
you are insinuating here that we are not scientists and that we are misrepresenting the facts. please do elaborate? which ones?
What is undeniably true is that the “green” industry has become one of the biggest in the world. Even my pension money is in it. And it is all a waste. There is no global warming. We are cooling. and we will continue to cool for a long time to come.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
The scientists involved with the GH scare have for years enjoyed the privileges of flying around the whole world and seeing exotic places for their conferences and write rubbish scare reports on melting ice and endangered species due to “global warming” when in fact the world follows natural warming and cooling cycles.
they will not give up those privileges for as long as they can.
But I think that the truth will overtake them soon. Global cooling is happening now and as time goes on, it will accelerate, as means will catch up with maxima that have been falling since 1995
So does the leak mean the IPCC won’t be able ter hide the decline?
As pointed out earlier about the observed temperatures being adjusted or not, if they are adjusted (incorrectly, and upwards), then it’s worse than we thought. Divergence from the model projections invalidates the models even more.
paulbaer says:
December 14, 2012 at 11:20 pm
“Unlike the vast majority of the posters here, the IPCC WGI authors are scientists, and do in fact think that facts matter. ”
But they surely don’t think the rules of statistics matter to what they call their science. Otherwise they wouldn’t ignore them all of the time.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/do-temperatures-have-a-mean/
Galvanize says:
December 15, 2012 at 2:24 am
“Anthony,
You say ignore the grey bands, yet the lower grey band shows the best predicitive outcome of all the data on the graph.”
Okay, Galvanize, what’s the definition of the grey band?
TomRude says:
December 14, 2012 at 9:16 pm
““Thomas Coffey, 77, of Houston, said you can’t help but notice it.
“We use to have mild temperatures in the fall going into winter months. Now, we have summer temperatures going into winter,” Coffey said. “The whole Earth is getting warmer and when it gets warmer, the ice cap is going to melt and the ocean is going to rise.””
Ok, Coffey is 77 and argues with his own anecdotal evidence, so I will counter that with my own anecdotal evidence: Here in Germany we used to have freaking cold winters with a lot of snow in the 70ies, and balmy snowless winters in the 80ies and 90ies. Now we’re back to the freaking cold ones. (for four winters in a row now; seemingly worsening (earlier starts)).
Coffey is thereby refuted; having erroneously assumed that “the whole Earth” is doing what he observes in his neighbourhood.
Skeptic says:
December 14, 2012 at 4:16 pm
“Further to my last comment about the solar forcing question, this is from New Scientist:”
“Skeptic”, even the New Scientist can’t make it warm. Climate scientists meet reality; reality does what it always does with a bunch of superstitious believers.
It occurs to me that here we have a graph stating Oficially what the longest “decline” or “pause” in temps. needs to be before falsifying the AGW speculation. Since from individuals this has consistently changed to suit the agenda thus creating needed confusion, this might be useful. The above is apparently a synthesis of all learned positions so presumably incorporates the position of even those whose visionary insights might be considered extreme by most within the priestly class.
With no actual numbers it is not possible to be exact but it looks, for example, that taking 1990 as Observed Reality, that it cannot be the case that the temperature will decline by about 0.15 degrees over 5 years to 1995 since the Models Will Not Allow It. Similarly, it cannot decline by more than about .05 over 10 years. This somewhat awkward since 1998 to 2008 shows that amount of decline, so the Collective Knowledge teeters on the edge of Oblivion.
Since these parameters incorporate “internal variability” there is no way out from this: this reflects the full comprehension of climate possessed by the Initiates.
This cannot be right, surely. The 97% of all scientists agreeing with the cAGW position, and that the science is settled, cannot possibly be wrong. I think the doom-monger species of climate scientist is going to start dying out very rapidly. Those that switch position will become the true deniers as they desperately try to rewrite their past.
paulbaer says:
“Unlike the vast majority of the posters here, the IPCC WGI authors are scientists, and do in fact think that facts matter.”
You don’t have to be a “scientist” to recognize BS. I am an accountant, a practicing CPA at one time, now semi-retired. When performing audits on nationwide government programs, I had to be very knowledgeable of statistics – especially how they could be manipulated and how they could be based on erroneous data (States receiving Federal grants and aid did their best to ensure their error rates stayed below the thresholds for sanctions). Anyway, I learned a thing or two about reading graphs and their underlying data. You can believe what you want about the integrity of the so-called scientists who advocate AGW, but I’ve seen enough examples of their work here at Watts Up With That and elsewhere to conclude they have no integrity, wouldn’t know a “fact” if it bit them on their a$$, and for the most part are not scientists.
Galvanize says:
December 15, 2012 at 2:24 am
..You say ignore the grey bands, yet the lower grey band shows the best predicitive outcome of all the data on the graph….
what a load of tosh – the grey band is the 90% uncertainty and internal variabilty error range based on Hadcrut4 dataset (which itself is different to Hadcrut3!)
It is quite clear to anyone with half a brain, that the observed temps are mostly been in the lower end of any predicted ranges, and currently well, well below reasonable predicted ranges!
Werner Brozek: thanks for posting your chosen 6 datasets, as it allows us to compare HadCRUT4 with 3.
All: please note that HadCRUT4 is 0.03K higher than HadCRUT3 in 2012 so far. The CRU have managed to adjust things upwards a bit with the recent introduction of ‘4’, supposedly by including the polar regions. Personally I don’t believe they can measure those well enough to be worth the paper printed on, and in any case if I am given a global anomaly for the latitudes in which people actually live, then I am happy.
So personally, I intend never to use HadCRUT4, as it is just playing in to the warmists’ increasingly desperate hands.
Rich.
@ur momisugly Skeptic
It’s typical misdirection from the alarmists. The point is they don’t admit the various ways the energy from the Sun varies and minimize any solar effect usually by pointing at TSI. Just the admission that solar activity isn’t just TSI is a victory for us, albeit a small one. Personally, I think the UV variance has a higher likelihood of explaining most of the “global average temperature” variation.
OT @ur momisugly John West
Hey John West, this is John West. How many of us could there be? I may start adding “in NC” if you’re not in NC.
currently – 96% have voted that the graph shows below prediction. with over 2700 votes.
Now, If we could just get that to 97%, and a few more votes, we’d be on a par with the oft quoted 97% figure quoted by alarmists!