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.
Figure 1.4 above is not in the Draft. Also note that the draft correctly stated “In summary, the globally-averaged surface temperatures are well within the uncertainty range of all previous IPCC projections, and generally are in the middle of the scenario ranges.” That is what the actual data show— the opposite of what Rev. Watts stated it states.
REPLY: Sorry, you’re dead wrong, either because you can’t research properly, or because you are being purposely mendacious. Given the “Rev.” label you applied, let’s go with mendacity.
It is in fact in chapter 1 on page 39 of 55 pages in the PDF document, which you can see for yourself here.
http://climatefailfiles.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ch1-introduction_wg1ar5_sod_ch01_all_final.pdf
And I made no statement, I gave readers a choice to vote on what they thought about it. Again, your assertions fail, but with no damage to you, since like many, you hide behind the veil of anonymity, too timid to put up your name to your words.
– Anthony
Troll,
Kudos for picking a perfect screen name.
.
Desertphile,
The IPCC says:
Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature…”
See anything wrong with that statement? They speak of the “averaged surface temperature” and observed global temperatures in the same sentence. They are not the same thing. Therefore, the Draft did not “correctly” state anything.
If the IPCC’s models were right, the debate would have been over long ago. It is because the IPCC’s models are wrong that the debate continues. The IPCC/alarmist crowd [same-same] can not accept the fact that the planet is deconstructing their wrong-headed belief system.
Sixteen years and counting…
Er, how at this time are there 71 people who think the temp is ABOVE the predictions. Can we get their names and make sure they never have to make any real decisions? They clearly would have trouble telling night from day.
Desertphile
“Figure 1.4 above is not in the Draft. ”
I see, so you do not want it to be in draft because it is quite devastating to your understanding of global warming. But if it were, you would owe Mr. Watts an apology and you will have to reconcile your AGW views going forward
Well I found it in the introduction which I just downloaded. So I am sure Anthony is awaiting for your apology, or will you just disappear.
Go Home
Is there somewhere a specification for those models? Some data and software that I can download and run on my PC?
Hmmm….
HadCRUT4 in 2011 was 0.40. In 2012, it will be about 0.45. So when the 2012 square is added later, the top square will be touching the lowest colored green line.
Just a few random comments:
– Lucia discussed whether current temperature fell within the CMIP3 models used for AR4 error bounds here when addressing whether temperatures were rising faster than predicted. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/trends-relative-to-models/. Here is the entire CMIP3 spaghetti chart which shows some model runs below current temperatures. http://www.climateviews.com/Climate_Views/Download_Articles_files/poster2.pdf.
– Here is one projection graph from AR4 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-4.html. It has +- 1 standard deviation error bounds that look like they overlap current temperature. This has the individual model runs: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-5.html.
– Lucia also discusses the AR5 data here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/new-projections/. Interestingly, it looks like fewer runs are below current temperature trend than for AR4.
I’ll close by saying that a distressing number of posters are using broad brush terms to challenge the integrity of the many many scientists participating in the IPCC process. This is just wrong. Remember that the politicians have the final say in the contents of the final report.
Rusty Iron says
Quick! Somebody tell the Arctic to stop melting!
Richard says
Please explain why anybody would want the Arctic to stop melting.
Henry Rusty Iron & Richard
After analyzing all results from 47 weather stations (randomly chosen but balanced by latitude and 70/30 @sea and inland) , when I look at the maximum temperatures, I find a beautiful relationship of the speed in warming /annum against time like as if somebody threw me a ball. From those results I was able to compile a best fit (this is not the same as a model!)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
If you can read graphs you will see that within perhaps a number of solar cycles we are also most prominently on a 88 year solar cycle, looking at energy-in, i.e. that what is coming through the top of the atmosphere. In 1995 we started with the cooling part of that cycle.
From that graph it also follows that the end of the previous warming period was around 1900 but it seems that looking at energy out (means) there is a ca. 2 decade delay.
see also my comment here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/#comment-1173871
So basically, to answer your question, the arctic ice is now as it was in 2012-88 = ca. 1924.
Now look at the story making headlines back then?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
read the actual newspaper article from Nov. 1922.. Sounds familiar? We are now almost 17 years from when it started cooling (as evident from energy-in, i.e. maximum temps.)
So I have to tell Richard that the north west passage opening up is not going to happen. From 1922 to 1945 all the ice that was reported melted in 1922 came back again. For me, it is sure that in the next two decades all arctic ice will come back.
I would not invest in oil or gas drilling there now….
He that has ears listens…..
RobertInAz;
I’ll close by saying that a distressing number of posters are using broad brush terms to challenge the integrity of the many many scientists participating in the IPCC process. This is just wrong. Remember that the politicians have the final say in the contents of the final report.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If science is being over ruled by politics, it is the duty of the scientist to resign and publicly state their reasons for doing so, as many scientists have already done. Failure to do so is to be complicit in a crime. If your conjecture is correct, then the brush should paint them twice, heavily, with tar.
It looks like a new consensus is being formed. 95% of people looking at the models versus reality graph agree that models exaggerate the trend…
Let me paraphrase Neil Armstrong from the alleged faked moon landing:
A small poll for a blog, a giant leap for mankind in understanding current climate change models and the faulty predictions derived.
Regardless of the absolute temperatures measured since they can be off for numerous reasons, the slope of the actual temperatures is not significantly different than zero (assume any errors in measurements are random). Ignore the magnitude of the actual data and where it falls in the figure in comparison to the models at any particular point. Ever climate model predicts a slope greater than zero over the same period even for their “minimum predicted slope.”
All the models fail because they do not predict a range of slopes with a slope of zero. This does not mean that there is no AGW since there could be a confounding variable either not considered in the models or not given enough strength in the models. We can assume that an AGW influence exists, but its influence can be negated by other factors. Regardless of the reason for not predicting a slope of zero in any of the models, the models fail and need revisions to uncover the missing variable(s).
Paulbauer: December 15, 2012 at 1:02 pm
====================================
Your comment well reflects the basic problem. The faithful try every way to make CO2 the evil villain of climate change and are utterly incapable of considering the possibility that their cherished AGW theory is fundamentally wrong.
“they’ve been trying quite hard to understand why the system has been behaving as it does.”
And they have had no success in this effort. They are trying to patch up a fundamental failure. I say “would-be scientists” because they fail the first test of science: the ability to adjust theory to accommodate observations.
This is the problem of science by faith, when science is made to serve ideology.
RobertInAz says:
December 15, 2012 at 9:36 pm
I’ll close by saying that a distressing number of posters are using broad brush terms to challenge the integrity of the many many scientists participating in the IPCC process. This is just wrong. Remember that the politicians have the final say in the contents of the final report.
================================================================
There can be no question that the IPCC is under the control of those whose motivations are none too nice. To be a part of this reflects on the individual scientist, whose participation imparts a legitimacy to a corrupt purpose. And don’t forget that many, many IPCC scientists are in league with those of corrupt purpose as a matter of ideological expedience.
mpainter says:
December 16, 2012 at 8:25 am
IMHO, the reality behind the process is more complex. (1) Non-skeptic scientists may not be aware of the many problems with the IPCC process. If you read some of their CVs, many certainly don’t appear to have the time to hang out here at WUWT. (2) Even if they have concerns about the IPCC process, their particular specialty may be uncontroversial. (3) And even if they disagree with the final result, their review comments will be published by the IPCC and they may feel an intellectual obligation to participate in the process to the bitter end rather than bail. I read about a study long ago examining how people who resigned were perceived compared to those who soldiered on working for change within. Both our legitimate approaches. It would be arrogant for any of us to presume our choice is appropriate for all.
mpainter says:
December 16, 2012 at 8:25 am
I strenuously disagree with the characterization of “…many, many IPCC scientists are in league with those of corrupt purpose as a matter of ideological expedience.” Even the worst possible characterization of the climategate emails limits the bad actors to a small number. There is simply no evidence that many, many scientists are in league with the corrupt IPCC. There may still be policy advocates as IPCC authors, but I would not characterize them as scientists. Finally the term “IPCC scientists” is a little misleading. There are a large number of AR5 authors, most of whom are scientists – the authors are not paid by the IPCC to include their travel expenses to attend the review sessions.
Ooops – the first
mpainter says:
December 16, 2012 at 8:25 am should be
davidmhoffer says:
December 16, 2012 at 3:32 am
”
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.”
The point is rather simple. This post is a disaster. It’s titled the real bombshell. Then the author tells us to ignore part of the chart because it is “flubbed” But directs us to pay attention to another part of the chart. Seriously. Use your heads people. If I told you that I had a chart from a draft of anthony’s next paper and I show you that chart and ask you to ignore a part of that chart because its been flubbed, but to pay attention to another part of that chart what would you say?
Im betting you’d say it was only a draft and wasnt important
Beth Cooper says:
December 15, 2012 at 3:50 am
Thanks for that. This is, indeed, cheering news. There’s no hiding it this time, tree ringers.
Mosh: It seems to this less-than-fully-informed observer, that the point of the post is to show that the projections of the climate models used by the IPCC largely over-estimated the actual warming that occurred and that they are outside the error bounds. Do you disagree with that?
It also suggest that much policy and its implementation was based on the projections and that it may have wasted a lot of money as a result.
I’m sure you will correct me if I’m wrong. hehehehe
Steven Mosher says
Im betting you’d say it was only a draft and wasnt important
Henry says
the point that is being made (by the skeptics) here is similar to that of David’s:
“it is the duty of the scientist to resign and publicly state their reasons for doing so, as many scientists have already done. Failure to do so is to be complicit in a crime.”
How can this be a crime, you ask?
we have the example of the farmers in Anchorage who all had crop failures this year because of the increasing cold. According to my records of two weather stations there temps. dropped by more than 1K since 2000. However, as far as I know, nobody has told those poor farmers it will not get any better. So, they are planting again for next year, wasting their money…They really should be told (by now) to head south.
You can see from the graph at the beginning of this post that we are on a parabolic curve that went up from 1992 to 1998 and that we are now curving down.
There is no disaster in this post. Watts makes a valid point. Although I haven’t looked at reasons for the gray (90%) uncertainty bounds being “flubbed” as Watts says, I am going to assume the IPCC contributors knew what they were doing when they set those limits. That being so, we can look at the gray regions as being control limits on a Statistical Process Control (SPC) chart. The colored regions are also control limits, but they are more difficult to decipher as such, and we could view them as a target region that the climate process is supposed to achieve assuming that the models are worth their salt.
A limit of 90% means that observations should by chance land outside these bounds one time in every ten. However, a consistent pattern of change within control limits is also very unlikely on such a chart and here we see a consistent drift of observation across the control region toward the lower 90% limit. In industry we’d stop the process to investigate at this point, because the process as modeled is what sets the control limits. In science the analogous decision is to perhaps scrutinize the modeling process at this point because it appears to be wrong.
I think the point made by Watts is perfectly reasonable and clear.
@ur momisugly Mosher: The gray bars show with 90% certainty that the temperature will NOT be in that zone. You understand that this information from the IPCC is being put together for policy makers (dumb ass politicians) to run our lives with. Basically, using those bars to show that the IPCC is right is intellectually dishonest. You know this, right?
When your kid comes home from school and argues that he got 90% of the answers wrong on the test, does that prove he/she was somewhat aware of the subject matter? Are you suggesting that the 10% has a significant positive value that should be considered?
Thanks Mr. Kilty,
It might interest Mr. Mosher to know that part of the post was written by an expert IPCC reviewer with a PhD in a relevant discipline with many published climate papers, a person that he knows, and one that wanted to draw attention to the issue without compromising his ability to continue to work as a reviewer since there would be blowback. The “flubbed” sentence is actually his, not mine, but I agree with it and thus elevated the email comment sent to me to a full post with his blessings (he reviewed it).
The bottom line is that the models are running too hot, and in another portion of the AR5 draft, this is actually admitted, which will be the topic of the follow up post.
I have a post in moderation, posed as a question to Mosh, which basically covers the same ground as the post by Kevin Kilty, although without the obvious expertise he possesses. Perhaps the mod is protecting me from embarrassing myself. LOL. If so, he can delete the post. Regardless, I’m interested in my old comrade Mosh’s (starting at ClimateAudit in 07) response to Kevin.
RobertInAz says: December 16, 2012 at 8:54 am
You have mistakenly attributed to me the first quote, which is another’s comment.
Concerning your response to my own quote:
mpainter: “ many, many IPCC scientists are in league with those of corrupt purpose as a matter of ideological expedience.”
And others besides those IPCC authors. In general, there are many scientists whose first interest is to feed a propaganda mill for the purpose of generating a general world-wide panic. Their motivation is primarily ideological and political. Your comment seems to limit such motivation to the notorious circle of the Climategate episode. I do not, but rather I include all who are in sympathy with the aims of those discredited by Climategate, as I feel they share the same purpose. They are many, and they have joined with the corrupt IPCC controllers in generating a dubious science for propaganda purposes.
For those who wish to disassociate themselves from such tar, it is easily accomplished. Simply form an association of themselves and publicly repudiate the more discreditable aspects of IPCC. They have not done so. I wonder why.
michael hart says:
December 14, 2012 at 4:51 pm
I think it’s worth asking the question:
“What sort of Journal would publish a paper parading such predictions with these kind of confidence-limits, based on this data?”
Simple, Mike. Nature and Science would compete for the honour!
Cathy