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.
Why is “voodoo science” Rajendra K. Pachauri still presiding o’er the IPCC? Better yet, why is there still an IPCC? And again– who needs this grotesque gang of thuggeries jovially referred to as “UN”? By the inexorable Rule of 36, we project that by c. 2018+ this miserable farce will have joined its hangdog predecessor, and good riddance to ’em both.
John West says
Personally, I think the UV variance has a higher likelihood of explaining most of the “global average temperature” variation.
Henry says
You got that right. it follows as a result of seeing the development of the maximum temperatures,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
To explain weather cycles, before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense they did look in the direction of the planets, rightly or wrongly.See here.
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
To quote from the above paper:
A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
(The 1990 turned out to be 1995 when cooling started!)
Please note: indeed one would expect more condensation (bigger flooding) at the end of a cooling period and minimum flooding at the end of a warm period. This is because when water vapor cools (more) it condensates (more) to water (i.e. more rain).
Now put my sine wave next to those dates?
1900- minimum flooding : end of warming
1950 – maximum flooding: end of cooling
1995 – minimum flooding: end of warming
So far, I do not exclude a gravitational or electromagnetic swing/switch that changes the UV coming into earth. In turn this seems to change the chemical reactions of certain chemicals reacting to the UV lying on top of the atmosphere. This change in concentration of chemicals lying on top of us, i.e. O3, HxOx and NxOx, in turn causes more back radiation (when there is more), hence we are now cooling whilst ozone & others are increasing.
Hope this helps a few people.
[Wait] until The Team “adjusts” the data and rewrites the draft. I bet will this all disappear.
its all within the boundaries of expectation;
please refer to the nature and science publications on the BBC climateprediction.net project;
see this link to my webpage (in english):
http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/kv_media_buitenland.html#climateprediction
regards
martin van etten http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl
MattS says:
December 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
I think he’s referring to the 2nd sentence of the post, The gray bars in Fig 1.4 are irrelevant (because they flubbed the definition of them)….
He doesn’t have to show his work – it’s a drive-by comment with snark.
Attention!
The Elvis Observations have left the Projections Building.
Elvis warming has deceased.
Yet for years alarmists will continue claiming they have seen the Elvis warming reappear in various locations.
The preserved collection of alarmist claims will go down in history has the largest misrepresentation in human history.
It’s been so wide, so deep, so delusional, so deliberate and so dishonest that nothing can or will ever excuse or forgive the offenders.
When I think about the accompanying attitude displayed at RealClimate and ClimateProgress by their principal persuaders, punishment can be the only response.
Every model shows a consistent increase in temperature except the latest, AR4, which seems to have been rigged to match the temperature declines from 1990 to 1992. Is this what the model really predicted? If so, they must have done some strange twisting of the model parameters to get that unlikely output.
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.”
Well, now, do these would-be scientists really believe that “facts matter”? I disagree. I believe that they are trying hard to ignore the “fact” that their global-warming models have been falsified by the temperature record of the previous fifteen years.
paulbaer, many who visit and comment here are better scientists than what the IPCC can offer, and better informed about climate matters, as well. Most of the IPCC scientists have the handicap of trying to make faith substitute for science, and their work reflects that.
During the last 5 centuries there have been at least 4 major past climate periods where reduced global air temperatures , reduced ocean SST and reduced solar activity[ three or more consecutive low solar cycles in a row] have happened concurrently, namely 1650-1710, 1790-1830, 1880-1910 and our current period 2000-2012. There were other periods even earlier, but the records become poorer the further back one goes.
The first three periods were well before the industrial era so CO2 was not a factor. Only during the 2000-2012 period was there increased man made greenhouse gases. Yet even here the global temperatures are dropping while greenhouse gas levels are rising. So co2 levels cannot account for the temperature changes. The common element with all four cases is the interaction between reduced solar cycle, the ocean cycles and the atmosphere. Any new IPCC report that does not acknowledge that there is an obvious correlation between the sun, the oceans and atmosphere, the mechanism of which is not fully yet understood is out of date and does not even begin to properly address the issue of climate change. It has also become clear that the Enso cycle plays a significant role in the climate cycles of our planet. During the cooler periods there is only one strong or global climate altering El Nino per decade. During the warmer period like 1970-2000’s there were two. To say that the sun plays a minor climate forcing role is like saying; the brain plays a minor role in controlling the body. How the climate scientists of IPCC allow this scientific nonsense to go on during their watch should be the subject of a public enquiry.
1.
Martin van Etten says
http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/
henry says
volgens my begryp(en) jy (jullie) er nog helemaal niks van:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/#comment-1173832
Re: James says:
December 14, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Applause
Beth Cooper says:
December 15, 2012 at 3:50 am
Henry@Beth
loved the song. very funny
If you look at the model ensemble for SRES A1B used in AR4, you will find that the observations lie within the 95% credible region of the ensemble, and hence there is no model-data inconsistency. There is a plot of this ar realclimate here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
If there is any doubt that this is correct, you can do what I did, which was to download the model runs and the observations (the links are given in the RealCLimate article), and you should be able to reproduce the plot, as I did, without any difficulty.
It is therefore rather a surprise that the draft AR5 report should contain a graph that implies that the observations are inconsistent with the AR4 model projections when that clearly isn’t the case.
It seems to me there are two possibilities:
(i) The IPCC don’t understand their own AR4 projections
(ii) The interpretation of the graph given in this blog post is incorrect.
I know which I think is more likely. I’ll wait to see the final document when it becomes available, I rather suspect that the text for the relevant chapter will make it clear (my guess would be that the uncertainty relates to the uncertainty in only the forced climate change, as there have been similar misunderstandings about this sort of thing from figures in the AR4 report).
henry@dikranmarsupial
i think we crossed swords before at the SS site (which is heavily censored.)\
Here you are again on my site…,
Can I just point out to you here and now that all major data sets including my own (from 2000) 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…..
Unofficially decided by a xenophobic and US solar community that no one has ever heard of. The world is larger than the just the USA.
Landscheidt ( a German) predicted the minimum in 1983.
Eddy (an American) concluded the sun is a variable star, he did not predict the forthcoming minimum.
Landscheidt predicted the minimum in the 1980s.
Eddy’s name can be used another day for something else.
The minimum should not be named after random deserving people. The finest scientist the US has ever produced, Richard Feynman, a man who was deservedly respected Worldwide would be a fine candidate to have something named after him. But he didn’t predict this minimum.
Since Landscheidt predicted the minimum and was the only person to do so, it should rightly be named after him.
I shall continue to use the name Landscheidt as I am sure many others will.
REPLY: Jack Eddy, discoverer of the Maunder Minimum is a “random [un]deserving people”? Wow, are you out of the loop. Use it all you want, but you still don’t get to make the call on the name of the next minimum, the professional solar science community does that. I and the mods will continue to correct use of Landscheidt here where appropriate. – Anthony
re: Mpainter says:
“Well, now, do these would-be scientists really believe that “facts matter”? I disagree. I believe that they are trying hard to ignore the “fact” that their global-warming models have been falsified by the temperature record of the previous fifteen years.”
No, actually they’ve been trying quite hard to understand why the system has been behaving as it does. Skeptics seem to want to believe that since the temperature trend has not matched the CO2 trend, that CO2 can’t be responsible for the warming that we have seen. Mainstream climate scientists, whose models include well-documented physical characteristics of CO2 and other GHGs (recall that the existence of the greenhouse effect is not in question here), have to ask the questions, what has been the energy balance during that period, and what should we expect in the future as CO2 continues to rise? Furthermore, the fact that measured temperatures are in general on the low side of what has been predicted does not “falsify” the models, although it does suggest that they are far from perfect. If temperatures were uniformly outside the predicted range, which they are not, that would suggest that they are very wrong. But that’s not even what this graph shows.
“paulbaer, many who visit and comment here are better scientists than what the IPCC can offer, and better informed about climate matters, as well. Most of the IPCC scientists have the handicap of trying to make faith substitute for science, and their work reflects that.”
This, I doubt, at least as far as WGI goes (I agree that there are experts involved in WGs II and III who are not necessarily that knowledegable about the climate system itself). I’d be interested in (1) a count of all practicing scientists who post here (in total and on average), (2) what kind of science they practice, and (3) any evidence that these scientists are “better informed about climate matters).
If there are such scientists posting here, I would be interested in having them join in an effort to point out which of the non-scientist postings about climate science are blatant nonsense, which is many if not most.
–Paul Baer
dikranmarsupial says:
December 15, 2012 at 11:40 am
If you look at the model ensemble for SRES A1B used in AR4, you will find that the observations lie within the 95% credible region of the ensemble
It seems to me there are two possibilities:
(i) The IPCC don’t understand their own AR4 projections
(ii) The interpretation of the graph given in this blog post is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or, there could be a third possibility, which is that you don’t understand what RC published. From the caption above the graph:
“Everything has been baselined to 1980-1999 (as in the 2007 IPCC report) and the envelope in grey encloses 95% of the model runs.”
Enclosing 95% of the model runs and being within the 95% credible region are two rather different things. But I like the RC graph. It implies that the error range of the models is so large that the serve no practical purpose at all. Thanks for pointing that out.
Note that in the corresponding figure from AR4 (Figure TS.26.), several of the observations lie outside the coloured wedges for the FAR, SAR and TAR projections as well.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-26.jpeg
Which further suggests that this blog article has merely misinterpreted the figure from the AR5 figure, and it actually isn’t much a bombshell afterall.
REPLY: Let’s see, we have a poll with thousands of people that seem to agree with the premise of observations being lower, and a handful dissenters like yourself. Just wait till part two, then your anonymous opinion will be worth even less once you read that part. Now run along to the Sekrit SkS clubhouse and tell everyone to watch for the next post. – Anthony
dikranmarsupial:
In your post at December 15, 2012 at 11:40 am you say
Actually, you have omitted the obvious reality; i.e.
you are deluded when you imagine the graph shows anything other than the models exaggerate warming.
It seems likely that your delusion is induced by spending too much time on the climate porn blog which you linked.
Richard
dikranmarsupial:
Tell it to Gerghis et al.
The poll is nonsense, it has to do with an obvious fact. It’s rhetorical. Exactly the type of poll one could expect to find at WUWT.
dikranmarsupial,
Thanks for your post and link to realclimate.
“It seems to me there are two possibilities:
(i) The IPCC don’t understand their own AR4 projections
(ii) The interpretation of the graph given in this blog post is incorrect.”
Could there not be another explanation,
(iii) Real climate graphs are wrong?
Using the 95% range from their graph is a whole lot of wiggle room. You could flat line the temperatures from 1980- 2010, showing zero warming and still fall within that 95% range.
I will agree with this…”The IPCC don’t understand”
If a person treats the colored bands as control limits for a process, and the black squares as observations meant to monitor the process, then the trend we see in the black squares is either unbelievably unlikely or the assumptions underlying the creation of the colored bands (climate modeling) is faulty. Period.
Quick! Somebody tell the Arctic to stop melting!
RustyIron:
Please explain why anybody would want the Arctic to stop melting.
Richard