Guest post by David M. Hoffer
In my first two articles on the leaked AR5 Chapter 11 (near-term projections) I looked at the caveats with which the IPCC is now surrounding their projections, and the lengths to which they are going to preserve the alarmist narrative. The caveats go to such ridiculous lengths that there is actually a quote suggesting that reality may well be within, above, or below the range projected by the models. Falsify that! To maintain the alarmist narrative , they characterize record ice extent in the Antarctic as a “slight increase” and make no mention in the executive summary of the projection buried deep in the report that tropical cyclones may decrease in frequency by as much as one third by 2100.
But what of their temperature projections? Do they say how much they expect it to warm up in the next few decades? They do. But these are the high stakes projections for the IPCC because, unlike most of their projections, these ones will be falsified (or not) within the life times of most of this readership. True to form, they’ve surrounded their temperature projections with caveats while taking an interesting approach to maintaining the alarmist narrative.
The projection is for between 0.4 and 1.0 degrees of warming for the period 2016-2035 compared to the period 1986-2005. Now normally when the IPCC gives a range, we expect that their “best guess” is in the centre of the range. But oddly we find this phrase in Chapter 11:
[…] it is more likely than not that actual warming will be closer to the lower bound of 0.4°C than the upper bound of 1.0°C
In fact, they go out of their way elsewhere to suggest that the most likely outcome will be about 0.2 degrees per decade. With 2035 only a smidge over two decades away, how do they justify an upper bound 2.5 times their most likely scenario? While delving into this, I came across some rather interesting information. Here’s the graphs they provide with their projections for the beginning of the reference period (1986-2005) through to the year 2050:
Figure 11.33: Synthesis of near-term projections of global mean surface air temperature. a) 4 Projections of global mean, annual mean surface air temperature (SAT) 1986–2050 (anomalies relative to 1986–2005) under all RCPs from CMIP5 models (grey and coloured lines, one ensemble member per model), with four observational estimates (HadCRUT3: Brohan et al., 2006; ERA-Interim: Simmons et al., 2010; GISTEMP: Hansen et al., 2010; NOAA: Smith et al., 2008) for the period 1986–2011 (black lines); b) as a) but showing the 5–95% range for RCP4.5 (light grey shades, with the multi-model median in white) and all RCPs (dark grey shades) of decadal mean CMIP5 projections using one ensemble member per model, and decadal mean observational estimates (black lines). The maximum and minimum values from CMIP5 are shown by the grey lines. An assessed likely range for the mean of the period 2016–2035 is indicated by the black solid bar. The ‘2°C above pre-industrial’ level is indicated with a thin black line, assuming a warming of global mean SAT prior to 1986–2005 of 0.6°C. c) A synthesis of ranges for the mean SAT for 2016–2035 using SRES CMIP3, RCPs CMIP5, observationally constrained projections (Stott et al., 2012; Rowlands et al., 2012; updated to remove simulations with large future volcanic eruptions), and an overall assessment. The box 1 and whiskers represent the likely (66%) and very likely (90%) ranges. The dots for the CMIP3 and CMIP5 estimates show the maximum and minimum values in the ensemble. The median (or maximum likelihood estimate for Rowlands et al., 2012) are indicated by a greyband.
Is the first graph serious? 154 data plots all scrambled together are supposed to have some meaning? So I started to focus on the second graph which is presented in a fashion that makes it useful. But in examining it, I noticed that something is missing. I’ll give everyone 5 minutes to go back and see if they can spot it for themselves.
Tick
Tick
Tick
Did you spot it?
They hid the decline! In the first graph, observational data ends about 2011 or 12. In the second graph though, it ends about 2007 or 8. There are four or five years of observational data missing from the second graph. Fortunately the two graphs are scaled identically which makes it very easy to use a highly sophisticated tool called “cut and paste” to move the observational data from the first graph to the second graph and see what it should have looked like:
Well oops. Once on brings the observational data up to date, it turns out that we are currently below the entire range of models in the 5% to 95% confidence range across all emission scenarios. The light gray shading is for RCP 4.5, the most likely emission scenario. But we’re also below the dark gray which is all emission scenarios for all models, including the ones where we strangle the global economy.
It gets worse.
I did a little back of the envelope math (OK, OK, a spreadsheet, who has envelopes anymore these days?) and calculated that, assuming a linear warming starting today, we’d need to get to 1.58 degrees above the reference period to get an average of +1.0 over the course of the reference period itself. If my calcs are correct, extrapolating a straight line from end of current observations through 1.6 degrees in 2035 ought to just catch the top of that black bar showing the “Likely Range” in the centre of the graph:
Hah! Nailed it!
But now it is even worse for the IPCC. To meet the upper bound of their estimated range, the IPCC would need warming that (according to their own data) is below projections for all their models in all emission scenarios to suddenly increase to a rate higher than all their projections from all their models across all emission scenarios. In brief, the upper range of their estimate cannot be supported by their own data from their own models.
In fact, just based on their own graph, we’ve seen less than 0.4 degrees over the last 26 years or so, less than 2 degrees per century. That brown line I’ve drawn in represents a warming trend beginning right now and continuing through 2035 of 6 degrees per century, triple recent rates. Since the range in their own graph already includes scenarios such as drastic reductions in aerosols as well as major increases in CO2, there simply is no justification in their own data and their own models to justify an upper bound of 1.0 degrees.
That’s not to say it is impossible, I suppose it is possible. It is also possible that I will be struck by lightning twice tomorrow and survive, only to die in airplane crash made all the more unlikely by the fact that I’m not flying anywhere tomorrow, so that plane will have to come and find me. Of course with my luck, the winning Powerball ticket will be found in my wallet just to cap things off.
Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely?
Not according to their own data and their own models. The current version of IPCC AR5 Chapter 11 takes deception (intended or otherwise) to new heights. First, by hiding the fact that observational data lies outside the 95% confidence range of their own models, and second by estimating an upper range of warming that their own models say is next to impossible.
Related articles
- IPCC AR5 Chapter 11 – Maintaining the Spin (wattsupwiththat.com)
- IPCC Chapter 11 – Bankruptcy Protection (wattsupwiththat.com)
- The real IPCC AR5 draft bombshell – plus a poll (wattsupwiththat.com)
- An animated analysis of the IPCC AR5 graph shows ‘IPCC analysis methodology and computer models are seriously flawed’ (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly theGingerZilla
I can’t remember when I’ve been more relieved to see a sarcasm tag.
Follow the Money says:
December 30, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Mr. Hoffer: How about some investigation into whether the partially visible “up” trend in the “observations” is merely an artifact of GISTEMP? Could it be a “ringer” like the Yamal tree? If GISTEMP is removed, how would the line appear?
Wood for Trees letz you do that comparison fairly easily. In this case though they aren’t actually using the data directly. What they are citing is data from four papers that perform an analysis based on hadcrut3, giss, noaa and era. So, to see what they did from that perspective you’d have to read each and every one of those papers to see what each included, excluded, modified in some way for some reason…. more work than I’m prepared to do today.
“Bottom line? The temperature NOW is outside the 95% confidence range for all models and all scenarios.”
—–
That’s only true if you graph the unsmoothed temperature data from graph #1 onto the smoothed data from graph #2. On the first graph you can see that a few model projections (colored lines) lie below the current year temperature, but just barely. You can also see that the data output from those models declines slightly from the year 2000 to 2010 or they would lie above current temperatures. What is their reason for showing a decline? Did they backfit those models to more closely match observed temperature data?
I would like to recommend to IPCC authors the following book. “The visual display of quantitative information” by Edward R. Tufte. Chapter 2 on Graphical Integrity should be essential reading.
You did note, I assume, that for graph a, the observations were “four observational estimates (HadCRUT3: Brohan et al., 2006; ERA-Interim: Simmons et al., 2010; GISTEMP: Hansen et al., 2010; NOAA: Smith et al., 2008) for the period 1986–2011 (black lines);” while for graph b, they were “decadal mean observational estimates”.
That second graph says “assuming no future volcanic eruptions”. Are models run with no volcanic forcing?
ferd berple says:
December 30, 2012 at 10:24 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I agree that the ‘scientists’ will be thrown under the bus, but the public will be baying for the blood of their leaders. The political response to the percieved threat was hopelessly wasteful. This is clear from your own comment.
If you are concerned about global warming caused by global emissions of CO2, how does it help to relocate those emissions from the West to the developing nations? It does not reduce global emissions one iota, and hence it is clearly a stupid policy no matter whether the threat from CO2 was real or unreal. You do not have to be a scientist to see that if there is no net reduction in global emissions, the policy achieves nothing.
The same applies to the so called carbon taxes and permits. It does not achieve the goal, ie., a reduction in global emissions, it merely shifts the place where the emissions eminate from. It is a policy that fails to address the perceived threat from CO2.
Consider the pusuit for solar. Solar cannot possibly be a viable option in Northern Climes. Greatest energy consumption is in winter (when sunlight is weak and daylight hours short), and/or at night (when the sun does not shine). Solar might have a place in equitorial climes but it is hopeless for Northern Climes.
A similar observation applies to wind. It is intermittent and when needs are greatest, it is usually at its least efficient. This was really brought home in the UK a few years ago, and yet despite the obvious short comings, the politicians did not apply the brake but instead continue at full steam with the rush for wind.
You don’t employ an energy system which is at its weakest when peak demand is at it’s highest, and this point alone should obviously have ruled out both winds and solar as potential energy geberating alternatives to coal/gas/nuclear.
In fact, if you were concerned about emissions of CO2, nuclear would have to be on the table as it was (and still is) the only viable alternative to coal and gas.
The result of this stupid energy policy is that my electricty bill is just under 52% tax and a little over 48% cost of supply!! This is the result not of the scientists, but rather the stupid policies adopted by the politicians.
You do not have to be a scientist to immediately appreciate the shortcomings in the graphing that has underpined the whole of this scare. When I studied maths, I do not consider that anyone in the year 14 class would have put a straight line through the 20th century temperature record. A cursory glimpse of that data suggests that a straight line is not approriate. I consider the straight line linear approach adopted by so called ‘scientists’ to be the biggest single failure in this entire discipline of Earth sciences. It is a crass error that has obscured natural cycles which are apparent in the data set.
The politicians will not be able evade responsibility because they have been either complicit or wilfully negligent. In the UK when the Climate Change Act was passed, only a handful of MPs turned up to debate and vote. This is the most expensive piece of UK legislature with an annual bill exceeding 10billion pounds and yet MPs could not even be bothered to give it even a cursory scrutiny. If you are responsible for the management of a country and you cannot be bothered to scrutinise the most expensive piece of legislation in the country’s history, you will find it difficult to convince the general population that it is all the fault of the scientists, we were doing our job properly. The position is rendered even more difficult for the politicians since many of them have benefitted directly or indirectly from the implementation of green policies.
Louis;
That’s only true if you graph the unsmoothed temperature data from graph #1 onto the smoothed data from graph #2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you look at the monthly data up to now, the current temps are below the model range:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1986/to:2012/mean:120/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1986/to:2012
If I could figure out how to make the wft background clear, I could paste it onto the ipcc graph to illustrate.
Louis;
On the first graph you can see that a few model projections (colored lines) lie below the current year temperature, but just barely. You can also see that the data output from those models declines slightly from the year 2000 to 2010 or they would lie above current temperatures. What is their reason for showing a decline? Did they backfit those models to more closely match observed temperature data?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Each of the models is run multiple times for each scenario. Since each model attempts to capture natural variability, it is no surprise that of 116 model runs across 4 different emission scenarios, one or two temporarily fell below current observations. Of course, if they were to have used satellite observations instead,, I’m not sure if that would still be true. Even if it was, two model runs out of 116 doesn’t fall within the 95% confidence range.
normalnew says:
December 30, 2012 at 10:10 am
It probably is rising slightly using a 10 year mean?
> 20 years are even better. Wait for it.
Of course 20 years are even better, the side effect is you get no info about period after year 2002.
>BTW, why do you want to remove “ENSO effects”?
I don’t want to remove them, I want to make them to cancel. Reason is the same from which using year-period running mean makes sense and using 1.5-year running mean doesn’t, the latter won’t cancel summer-winter effects. It doesn’t mean that someone who is using one year periods “wants to remove” summers and winters.
>Do you also remove Europe when it doesn’t fit your theory? Russia? Mr. X?
Cancelation of Europe and Russia temperature data actually has been already done: by including temperature data from other places (where for example season of the year is always opposite to Europe’s and Russia’s one). And ENSO, Russia and Europe too actually fit the theory.
sue says:
December 30, 2012 at 12:44 pm
That second graph says “assuming no future volcanic eruptions”. Are models run with no volcanic forcing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Correct. Since we don’t know when, where, how big, or even if, future volcanic eruptions will be, that caveat is fair in my mind.
Here’s a stab at that re-drawing correction but keeping all the decadal junk.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2vmit1c.png
@DirkH
> SOLAR EFFECTS! Hey! A warmist called Mr. X admits that there are solar effects! (…)
Each of the IPCC reports had at least one chapter about solar effects. So as I understand you claim the IPCC members are anti-warmists.
> Now, Mr. X – here’s your reason why you will use 20 year averages in the 6th IPCC report. I’ll
> give it to you for free…
But as you claim I’m warmist and IPCC members are anti-warmists. So you should give this advice to someone else.
xeen@xxx.de
Cancelation of Europe and Russia temperature data actually has been already done: by including temperature data from other places (where for example season of the year is always opposite to Europe’s and Russia’s one).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since the global anomaly is calculated from local anomalies which can be both positive and negative in both winter and summer, this statement is not only patently false, it reveals a complete lack of familiarity with the subject matter.
It is worth remembering too that the line marked “observations” on the charts, is not the raw data but data which has been adjusted, homogenized and normalized and as Steve Goddard has repeatedly shown, manipulated in an ever increasing upward direction. If the real data was used in the IPCC graphs the result would be even more painful for them to explain to the Public and Press.
Steve from Rockwood says:
December 30, 2012 at 6:27 am
It would be interesting to know why the IPCC thinks the temperature increases will be on the low side of their projections. What is happening in their minds to lead to such a statement?
=======================================================================
Perhaps they are beginning to realize that “Mother Nature” is hardly a model?
davidmhoffer says:
Correct. Since we don’t know when, where, how big, or even if, future volcanic eruptions will be, that caveat is fair in my mind.
No. Not at all. If we are going to project temperatures in any useful way, we need to do so assuming the real world, not some fantasy where there are no volcanoes.
What’s the probability of no major eruptions in the next twenty years? I’d put money on at least one in the Pinatubo range.
They need to factor in the normal range of volcanic eruptions. That would reduce all the estimates, of course, which is why they don’t do it. No other reason.
They’re happy to make all sorts of leaps of faith about aerosols dropping in the future – because in their models that will increase warming.
Actually I think the volcano statement has to do with the likely estimate of 2016-2035. But it should have said no LARGE volcanic eruptions?
b) … “An assessed likely range for the mean of the period 2016–2035 is indicated by the black solid bar.”
And then they say
c) A synthesis of ranges for the mean SAT for 2016–2035 using SRES CMIP3, RCPs CMIP5, observationally constrained projections (Stott et al., 2012; Rowlands et al., 2012; updated to remove simulations with large future volcanic eruptions)”
It’s a confusing graph…
xeen@xxx.de says:
December 30, 2012 at 1:40 pm
@DirkH
> SOLAR EFFECTS! Hey! A warmist called Mr. X admits that there are solar effects! (…)
Each of the IPCC reports had at least one chapter about solar effects. So as I understand you claim the IPCC members are anti-warmists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MrX continues to demonstrate his lack of familiarity with the subject matter. The first four AR4 reports may have discussed solar effects, but they dismissed them as zero and ignored them in models. In the draft of AR5 they admit that they were wrong about ignoring them, then advise that their models result in a value opposite that of observations, suggesting that they got the physics completely backwards. Then they say it probably doesn’t matter since the amount is small. After getting it wrong by their own admission on existence and sign, I’m certain that we can trust them on the order of magnitude. That, and I have some swamp land for sale.
To pre-empt Leif, yes I know the data shows no correlation, but that isn’t my point. My point is that the IPCC keeps changing their mind about it and presents little or no evidence to show they have it anymore right now than they did before.
ferd berple says:
December 30, 2012 at 10:24 am
…..Science will be thrown under the bus by the politicians of the day to cover up their own role…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes and the Universities and professional societies will also get a well deserved black eye.
As I said in another comment government grants need to be gotten rid of. We can no longer afford them and I think public outrage at the amount of money “wasted” on grants will be part of throwing ‘Science’ under the bus. For politicians it will be a win-win, place blame and make a visible cut in spending.
xeen@xxx.de says:
December 30, 2012 at 1:40 pm
“@DirkH
> SOLAR EFFECTS! Hey! A warmist called Mr. X admits that there are solar effects! (…)
Each of the IPCC reports had at least one chapter about solar effects. So as I understand you claim the IPCC members are anti-warmists.”
Yes, they maintain that the effect is negligible. You said a decadal mean is necessary to erase solar effects from the record. You shouldn’t admit it; it’s politically inkorrekt. Don’t panic, I won’t tell them.
Mr. X again:
“Of course 20 years are even better, the side effect is you get no info about period after year 2002.”
That’s exactly what you want. You want your IPCC report to end with the big El Nino warming in 1998. Makes for the best headlines. Think for a moment, Mr. X. The choice between being efficient and being honest. Already forgotten? THINK! Try to remember!
davidmhoffer says:
December 30, 2012 at 2:19 pm
“To pre-empt Leif, yes I know the data shows no correlation, but that isn’t my point. ”
There was the German study about an 11 year rhythm in freezings of the Rhine. I’d call that and the Nile gauge records evidence enough of a correlation. Whatever the mechanism.
They hid the decline!
True, but perhaps not in the way you originally meant. See the graphs below along with the slopes. The decadal trend line from 1986 has a slope of 0.0189858 per year. But the yearly line from 1986 has a slope of 0.0148151 per year. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1986/plot/wti/from:1986/mean:120/plot/wti/from:1986/trend/plot/wti/from:1986/mean:120/trend
Follow the Money says:
December 30, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Mr. Hoffer: How about some investigation into whether the partially visible “up” trend in the “observations” is merely an artifact of GISTEMP?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For what it is worth here is another method of looking at climate trends (zoom in on bottom graph)
graph 1 the explanation
Or this graph 2 and graph 3 both indicative of the length of the summer season.
Sooner rather than later they are not going to be able to cover-up up the fact Mama GAIA is making a fool of them.
Any one notice that amoungst all those model runs that there appear to be a number that have stretches of 15years of no warming.
Be nice if the curves were not all overplayed so I could figure out just how frequent stretches of 15years of no warming actually are.