Dr. David Whitehouse of the GWPF expounds on the “prime statistic of global warming” graph and its failure, as first reported here.
The Leaked AR5 Report And Global Temperature
Whatever one’s view about the leaking of the draft IPCC AR5 report it does make fascinating reading, and given the public scrutiny it is now receiving it will be interesting to see what parts of it are changed when the final report is released in a year or so.
One part of it that should be changed is the section on global surface temperature data and its interpretation.
The analysis of global combined land and ocean surface temperature in AR5 is inadequate for what it admits is seen as the prime statistic of global warming. It is highly selective in the references it quotes and in the use of time periods which obscures important, albeit inconvenient, aspects of the temperature data. It is poorly drafted often making a strong assertion, and then somewhat later qualifying if not contradicting it by admitting its statistical insignificance. This leaves the door open for selective and incomplete quoting.
In Chapter 2 the report says that the AR4 report in 2007 said that the rate of change global temperature in the most recent 50 years is double that of the past 100 years. This is not true and is an example of blatant cherry-picking. Why choose the past 100 and the past 50 years? If you go back to the start of the instrumental era of global temperature measurements, about 1880 (the accuracy of the data is not as good as later years but there is no reason to dismiss it as AR5 does) then of the 0.8 – 0.9 deg C warming seen since then 0.5 deg C of it, i.e. most, occurred prior to 1940 when anthropogenic effects were minimal (according to the IPCC AR4).
AR5 admits that of the warmest years on record the “top ten or so years are statistically indistinguishable from one another.” This is sloppy. The “or so” is significant and should be replaced with a more accurate statement. Despite the admitted statistical indistinguishability of the past ten years (at least) AR5 then goes on to say that 2005 and 2010 “effectively” tied for the warmest years! There is no mention of the contribution to global temperature made by the El Nino in those years!
It is in its treatment of the recent global temperature standstill that AR5 is at its most unevenhanded. It says that much attention has been focused on the “apparent flattening in Hadcrut3 trends,” and it says that “similar length phases of no warming exist in all observational records and in climate model simulations.”
No it hasn’t. The IPCC says that the time when anthropogenic influence dominated began between 1960-80. AR5 takes 1979 – 2011 as a period for analysis when temperatures started rising after a 40-year standstill. The fact that is obvious from the data is that the past 16 years of no global temperature increase is unusual and is not an “apparent flattening.” It is a total flattening for 16 years (as AR5 confusingly admits later on), just over half of the duration of the recent warming spell. Flat periods have existed before but they were in the era when mankind’s influence was not significant. The 16-year flatness since mankind has been the prime climatic influence has been the cause of much discussion in the peer-reviewed literature, something that this AR5 does not reflect.
AR5 goes on to say that with the introduction of Hadcrut4 (and its inclusion of high latitude northern hemisphere data) there is now a warming trend. No it isn’t. Look at the Hadcrut4 data and, as the GWPF has demonstrated, it is warmer than Hadcrut3, but it is also flatter for the past 15 years. AR5 also adds that “all products show a warming trend since 1998.” That this is not the case seems to be something that AR5 concedes a little later in the report when it that none of the warming trends they quote are statistically significant!
Referenced And Dismissed
Consider AR5’s summary: “It is virtually certain that global near surface temperatures have increased. Globally averaged near-surface combined land and ocean temperatures, according to several independent analyses, are consistent in exhibiting warming since 1901, much of which has occurred since 1979.”
Nobody doubts that the world has warmed since 1901. But why choose 1901, and what warming is natural and what is anthropogenic? As we have seen the last comment is wrong.
AR5 says: “Super-imposed upon the long-term changes are short-term climatic variations, so warming is not monotonic and trend estimates at decadal or shorter timescales tend to be dominated by short-term variations.”
So since 1979 we have has about 16 years of warming and 16 years of temperature standstill. Which is the short-term natural variation? The warming or the standstill?
AR5 says: “A rise in global average surface temperatures is the best-known indicator of climate change. Although each year and even decade is not always warmer than the last, global surface temperatures have warmed substantially since 1900.” Nobody, of whatever “skeptical” persuasion would disagree with that.
I can’t help but conclude that the pages of the GWPF contain a better analysis than is present in AR5, which is a mess written from a point of view that wants to reference the recent standstill in global temperatures but not impartially consider its implications.
The unacknowledged (in AR5) problem of the global temperature standstill of the past 16 years is well shown in its fig 1.4, which is seen at the head of this article. Click on the image to enlarge. It shows the actual global temperature vs projections made by previous IPCC reports. It is obvious that none of the IPCC projections were any good. The inclusion of the 2012 data, which I hope will be in the 2013 report, will make the comparison between real and predicted effects appear ever starker.
In summary, the global temperature of the past 16 years is a real effect that in any realistic and thorough analysis of the scientific literature is seen to be a significant problem for climate science, indeed it may currently be the biggest problem in climate science. To have it swept under the carpet with a selective use of data and reference material supported by cherry-picked data and timescales is not going to advance its understanding, and is also a disservice to science.
Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They are trying to build a platform whereby they can climb down from the outlandish claims made previously as the evidence is no longer supporting the mantra.
What to do if people like Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov are right ??
It is what Asians call saving face – try to salvage a dignified exit from a strategy which is being exposed as flawed before it collapses totally.
Obviously you cannot simply say we were wrong so you attempt to spin your way out of the “mess” you created.
There is nothing so convoluted as political spin !
“manicbeancounter says:
This excellent analysis shows that the draft report fudges the lack of air temperature warming”
Or, you know, we could go with facts and reality instead…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html
But don’t let me affect your confirmation bias.
It is not what is written in the draft report that is the game changer, but the leaking. By leaking the report the IPCC have been put on the spot; do they ignore the flaws found by the community that are not included in their inner circle of advocates? If they do they end up looking biased and haughty, so do they acknowledge them by reacting to their thoughtful and well documented criticisms? In which case the AGW simply begins to look like a fantasy.
This leaking is a master stroke, maybe more significant that Climategate 1 and 2.
For once the sceptics have been a jump ahead of the media savvy warmist lobby, it is going to be very interesting to see how they play this.
In reply to Tzo December 18, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Maybe I have a confirmation bias. But derived from my education, I take steps to eliminate that bias by reading the originals and then compare and contrast the opinions. New Scientist just parrots the same response as Nuccitelli and Sherwood. Rawls’ response is valid for all.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/a-rebuttal-to-steven-sherwood-and-the-solar-forcing-pundits-of-the-ipcc-ar5-draft-leak/
New Scientist does not mention the surface temperature data. Neither does it mention the warming oceans, nor the admission that hurricanes are nor getting worse, nor the admission that there is no strong evidence to support the hypothesis that weather is getting more extreme.
Of course I might be wrong.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/12/14/ar5-first-order-draft-summary-for-policymakers-a-few-notes-on-pages-1-to-8/
Tzo:
Thankyou for the laugh you gave me with your post at December 18, 2012 at 2:56 pm.
Unfortunately, I now have to get my keyboard cleaned of the coffee.
However, it would have been good if you had remembered to add the [sarc] because some people may have thought the NS link was to a scientific – and not a comedic – source.
Richard
Close enough for government work.
“global surface temperatures have warmed substantially since 1900.” Nobody, of whatever “skeptical” persuasion would disagree with that.”
Is it accurate to call a 0.7C increase, or a roughly 0.25% increase in thermal energy, substantial? Because climate scientists always seem to describe the TSI variation as “small”, and it is of a similar magnitude (and the UV component varies much more).
The confused muddle of this draft is exactly the sort of nonsense one would expect when the starting point is a vague and ambiguous hypothesis. Post-modern science at its best (unfortunately). The academy became post–modern, then post-numerate. It is now rapidly becoming post-literate, to be followed by post-sentient.
I agree 100%.
@ur momisugly Julian in Wales.
“By leaking the report, the IPCC has been put on the spot; do they ignore the twisted “facts” and misinformation created by the propaganda community?”
Fixed.
By the way, the answer is most definitely “YES!”.
“magicbeancounter Says:
Maybe I have a confirmation bias. But derived from my education, I take steps to eliminate that bias by reading the originals ”
Your own blog and a heartland institute propaganda website do not count as “originals”.
richardscourtney says:
December 18, 2012 at 2:29 pm
This adjustment to agree with the MSU data may contribute to the fact that the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets each show no statistically significant rise in MGT since 1995 (i.e. for the last 15 years).
Things are getting worse all the time for certain people. RSS has a negative slope for the last 15 years and 16 years. And while the slope from the last 17 years to the last 23 years is positive, it is NOT significant at the two sigma level. Here are the numbers.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For RSS: +0.135 +/-0.147 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1991
For RSS: +0.142 +/-0.159 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1992
For RSS: +0.107 +/-0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1993
For RSS: +0.069 +/-0.174 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For RSS: +0.043 +/-0.190 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For RSS: +0.036 +/-0.210 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
For RSS: -0.003 +/-0.229 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997
For RSS: -0.045 +/-0.250 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1998
@Werner Brozek,
It’s amazing how often this graph can be used
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_10-12_med.gif
If you worked in any private industrial firm and you submitted a report to your board where the key argument of your proposal was shown to be completely false [ie global temperatures have not gone up as the co2 levels rose which is completely opposite of what you had previously claimed to be an indisputable fact of science] and your own revised report shows this and you now submitted the same argument again without an adequate explanation nor a new drastically corrected scientific proposal , your walking papers would follow you out the door .It is scientifically criminal to submit a new report and not make solar forcing as the main driver of global climate . We have now a situation where solar activity , global air temperatures and global SST have been all declining for a decade now and the decadal average sunspot # for the last 10 years is at level of [29.3 l which is now below those experienced during the three decades of the last cooling period of 1880-1910.. There is every indication that if the next 2 solar cycles are similarly low as #24, that there is only cooling ahead. and it has nothing to do with co2 levels and every thing to do with solar decline during the last 10 years and the next 20 years . We may not have the mechanism straight yet but the historical relationship is clearly there. One can look at decadal solar trends not monthly or yearly figures but decadal average figures.to see how the global temperatures drop as the average decadal sunspot number drops below say 30-50 level range and temperatures warms when it goes over those levels . Ocean cycles can work against this trend if they are out of sync like during the 1950–1970’s when solar cycle was going up but the temperatures went down because the oceans were in the cool mode and overrode solar warming.
For anyone interested in the non-distorted graph, and non-cherry picked information:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCC_FAR_Since_1880.png
https://skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-far.html
Side Note: Interesting how skepticalscience never censors those who use the word ‘warmist’ in the comments section, or censors links to valid scientific studies with the moderator’s reasoning of “That authors shenanigans are not welcome here”.
Yet here, completely different story… Makes you think…
Apparently the NASA-employed authors of this piece have not seen the leaked AR5 Draft:
Climate Likely to Be on Hotter Side of Projections
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-352
It also appears that their conclusions are based on erroneous assumptions about cloud forcing.
This discussion of recent global temperature in AR5 points out that we are not given correct information about temperature history since 1979 when satellite measurements began. They are the most accurate source of temperature measurements we have and they tell us the following facts about the last 33 years. First, from 1979 to 1997, there was no warming. There were El Nino peaks and La Nina valleys there but they canceled each other out and global mean temperature did not change. The only warming during the satellite era came when the giant 1998 super El Nino arrived. It carried a huge amount of warm water across the ocean and thereby caused a brief step warming. In four years, global temperature rose by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. There has not been any warming since then. But we are not even told of the existence of this step warming. Until recently, the eighties and nineties were shown as a steady temperature rise that wiped out the fact that global mean temperature did not change for eighteen years. It also filled in behind the super El Nino so that the step warming could not be seen. It was called the “late twentieth century warming” and was completely phony. But GISTEMP, NCDC, NOAA, HadCRUT3, and also BEST temperature curves all showed it. It is this warming that is the prime exhibit that proves the existence of anthropogenic warming. But if you now disqualify this warming as phony you are left with no anthropogenic warming at all for the last 33 years. And no support for the fiction that in 1988 Hansen was right to proclaim global warming. I checked the temperature for the eighties and found that what he thought was global warming was in fact just the warm peak of the 1988 El Nino. This El Nino is the middle one of five that satellites see between 1979 and 1997. I have pointed out the phony warming before but surprise, surprise – in August this year both GISTEMP and NCDC started to show the temperature of the eighties and nineties correctly while the others are still staying with the phony upslope of late twentieth century warming. In this latter group is HadCRUT3. But when I looked at its twenty first century data I was in for a totally unexpected surprise: they report not just a lack of warming but an actual cooling since 2001! I measured its rate and found it to be 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade. I have no idea where this comes from because satellites do not show it – their twenty first century curve is flat for the last 12 years, and so are GISTEMP and NCDC. Met Office told us that there was lack of warming for 16 years but I can understand where that comes from: their temperature curve has such poor resolution that the super El Nino peak is smeared out and fills the two La Nina valleys on both sides of it. That is why I now start counting from 2001. In view of this the AR5 fudging of twenty first century data seems like a last-ditch effort that is doomed to failure from conflict with reality. They desperately want to believe that warming exists when it does not. To eliminate future disputes about warming I suggest that the satellite temperature curve should be adopted as the correct global temperature curve.
Tzo says:
“For anyone interested in the non-distorted graph…”
And then Tzo posts this totally distorted nonsense, fabricated by a mendacious cartoonist.
Here is an honest data-based graph showing the long term rising global warming trend. Note that the trend is not accelerating. In fact, global warming stopped a decade and a half ago.
Note that Tzo’s Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science graph shows [non-existent] acceleration in global warming. That is, of course, an outright lie. The long term [natural] global warming trend has remained within clear parameters, whether CO2 was low, or high. Therefore, the rise in CO2 has had no measurable effect on global temperatures. None. The rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 has caused no acceleration in warming.
Conclusion: the CO2=AGW conjecture is deconstructed. If AGW exists at all, it is far too minor to worry about.
Credibility = 1/number of exclamation points.
David Whitehouse, thank you for your thoughtful review.
Anthony, I was going to compliment David for also apparently putting our itinerant trolls to sleep. However, something seemed to have awakened a couple of them this PM.
So…Let me see if I have this straight. In the past, when this stuff first came to our attention, the model run parts that were reared on mother’s milk show great, nay, perfect correlation. The scenario run ahead not so much, but hope floats amongst the AGWing crowd. But we skeptics protested loudly because model error bars, along with observation error bars, were on some other planet, or the dog ate them, can’t remember which. Time passed.
And this is now. The correlation between models and observations have been completely destroyed. So they finally include the error bars. How timely. Who would have guessed they were SOOOOOOO large from the outset? Certainly not us skeptics.
Reminds me of something else that floats too.
Tzo
you may know this already, but we of WUWT have our own views of sks. It is the only site that is classified here as “unreliable”. And that is a very nice way of putting it. We frequently get visitors from that place. They arrive with a load of spitballs, spit them on the threads, and then leave. Drive-by spitballers can be ignored. The ones who linger become eyesores. If you have any worthwhile contribution to make to the discussion, it is time that you do so.
Policy Guy, feed the trolls, they are an endangered species.
The drop off in their numbers is unprecedented, hunting season will have to be banned, no export of pelts or guided hunts allowed.
Save the arctic trolls.
“Not to say that they do have thumbs on the scales, but IMO a simple scatterplot analysis of the year versus the correction relative to the raw data is already enough to very, very strongly suggest that there is one, advertent or inadvertent.”
I agree rgb, and they are probably leaning on their thumbs with out even realizing it. Anthony’s paper will show the majority of the error in the adjustments. But I even hate to call them “errors” in the adjustments each could be technically correct but still hiding the real trend error. That is the “artificial” rise in the trends that was strictly from the locations of the sensors and most importantly, over a long period of time.
My question is, do you think they will ever be able to properly remove that? I mean each move is assumed correct but the trends are still too high from reality, cities account for such a small portion of the earth’s area. That’s a rarity in science, to have an error that is really “there” but you can’t remove perfectly correct single adjustments. Hmm.
I see a conundrum here… a form of a paradox in the trend.
Here is the odd thing about IPCC predictions. They are in almost perfect lock step with temperature from 1980 to circa beginning of the 21st century or slightly underestimate actual warming. (When they were hindcasting). But immediately diverge when they forecast.
For example:
http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-spm-4.html
The historical trends are presented with such perfect fit it almost seems as if there was tuning involved (if I didn’t know better).