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.
@davidmhoffer
> 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,
As local anomalies are calculated from local temperatures and transforming temperatures to anomalies is a way of making such a cancellation davimhoffer “reveals a complete lack of familiarity with the subject matter”
>first four AR4 reports may have discussed solar effects, but they dismissed them as zero
davidmhoffer continues to demonstrate his lack of familiarity with the subject matter. Zero over the full solar cycle, identically as summer-winter effects could be assumed zero over full year cycle.
@richard Verney: You wrote something interesting.
” is that my electricty bill is just under 52% tax and a little over 48% cost of supply!”
Could you provide us with evidence of that? I would love to throw this into the face of a liberal engineer I know. Even more so, I would like to know what the taxes are as a result of the green initiatives.
davidmhoffer says:
December 30, 2012 at 2:19 pm
“the data shows no correlation”
Your post was doing well, in regard to not naively auto-trusting (suggesting you could go far as a skeptic), until that point. Use your own eyes, and you can see correlation for yourself in http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg (click to enlarge), which includes its references. That is within the big picture of the average solar cycle length over 1901 to 1996 being 10.5 years (shorter cycles being more intense solar activity), compared to the slower weaker cycles averaging 11.5 years each over the prior century from 1798 to 1901 ( ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/docs/maxmin.new ). Also illustrative is http://s13.postimage.org/ka0rmuwgn/gcrclouds.gif
After major rise in solar activity and temperatures during the first half of the 20th century, there was a downturn with weak solar cycle 20 (1964-1976) which overlapped with the global cooling scare. The cooling was quite substantial when seen in the data and articles of the time, such as http://tinyurl.com/cxo4d3l , before history was rewritten much later to make next to nil temperature downturn in typical CAGW-convenient recent revisionism, as if the global cooling scare occurred for no reason without a cause. Then came high-activity solar cycles 21 and 22, which were from 1976 to 1996 and coincided with the global warming scare developing.
Those two cycles (21 and 22) each had a substantially stronger solar-driven interplanetary magnetic field deflecting more galactic cosmic rays, as illustrated by an average neutron count being 3% less during each of them than during cycle 20. (Reference links are below*). There was extra warming of the atmosphere shortly afterwards by the 1998 El Nino, as in an echo effect releasing into the atmosphere some of the heat previously absorbed by the oceans. Relative to and since the 1998 El Nino, average global temperatures through now have been decreasing in RSS satellite data ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend ). Meanwhile, solar cycle 23 of 1996-2008 started to drop down in intensity, with more substantial decline starting to occur now with the weak current cycle 24 (which will end its peak soon and then presumably very severely decline, which will make temperatures of several years from now and beyond quite interesting to watch).
*
Solar cycle 20: average count rate about 6180 as seen at
cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=1&startmonth=10&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=1&endmonth=6&endyear=1976&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Solar cycle 21: average count rate about 5991 (relatively low number of undeflected GCRs, high solar magnetic activity) as seen at
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=1&startmonth=06&startyear=1976&starttime=00%3A00&endday=1&endmonth=9&endyear=1986&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Solar cycle 21: average count rate about 5992 as seen at
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=1&startmonth=09&startyear=1986&starttime=00%3A00&endday=1&endmonth=5&endyear=1996&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
“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.
Thank you, and for your site, Mr. Hoffer. I took a look at several via your site, and have an aesthetic, i.e., visual propaganda, er, observation. Above, the smoothed line in #2, looks, well, linear. The “observations” at #1 shows, to appearances, a steady trend. However, almost all the means of the data sets available at your site exhibit mean lines that rise to about 2002, then flat line.
Visually, and that’s what these graph games are really about, the “curve” would disempower the narrative of climate “change” being driven solely or mostly by AGs.
If anyone could remind me of the name of that British television show which had a flatbed truck/lorry or such cart around London a large picture of HS graph, I would be glad.
@DirkH
> Yes, they maintain that the effect is negligible.
… over full solar cycle identically as existence of winter-sumer cycle is negligible over the full year.
>You said a decadal mean is necessary to erase solar effects from the record.
I didn’t say nothing like that (there are no “necessary” or any similar word in my post).
There are of course other methods to remove solar effects. I said it’s one of scientific advantages of using 10-year running mean.
> That’s exactly what you want. You want your IPCC report to end with the big El Nino warming in
> 1998.
Another nonsense. When 20-year running mean used big 1998 El Nino effect will by canceled by big La Ninas which happened over 1988-2008 period.
xeen @ur momisugly xxx.de says:
December 30, 2012 at 3:06 pm
[trimmed]
LOL. You really have no idea what either an anomaly or a solar cycle actually are.
Anthony, if we all chip in, perhaps you could hire a professional troll that at least understands the basics.
[(Potentially) fake email address trimmed, Mod]
LazyTeenager says:
December 30, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Any one notice that amoungst all those model runs that there appear to be a number that have stretches of 15years of no warming.
—————-
Yes, it would be good to see them against human CO2 emission levels for the same period, it may be meaningful?
The IPCC is the problem.
It does not matter what they say. It does not matter what they do. It does not matter what they predict. Nothing they claim, proclaim or imply is worthy of response or analysis. It’s all garbage all the time. The IPCC is part of the United Nations, all politics, all the time. Just pull the plug on all of it. Let the politicians get into some other mischief somewhere else.
The real tragedy has been mentioned by other posters. The surface temperature data has been manipulated to show a pre-ordained result. Most of it was never scientifically acquired in the first place. Eg. The historical NWS stations had rules for station quality and placement, but those rules were mostly ignored. Why did NOAA start an entirely new Climate Reference Network???
The answer is because the surface temp data are mostly garbage. You can’t recover good data from bad data, it’s just gone.
A few rural stations seem to show good data. Not surprisingly the good data shows zero warming.
Same with the Antarctic science stations, Amundsen-Scott, Vostok, Halley and Davis. All well maintained by different countries since the 1950s. All show zero warming. There is no reason for Antarctica to be immune from the “Global Warming by CO2” conjecture. Those five full decades of data (1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s) conclusively prove that the globe is NOT warming.
Yeah! Took me ten seconds. I am normally much more stupid that that.
Seems the IPCC have been making profitable mistakes again.
Couple of thoughts..
When the December temperatures come in will the thick squiggly worm dip lower? I guess with all that pre1990s warming at Byrd Station (which is doubtless the proxy(?) for the Southern Hemisphere Grid) it will get much warmer globally speaking.
How about a WUWT bet? In which month will the squiggly worm dip down to the 1990s level during the coming cooling phase? OK we have to decide upon which data set.
I am prepared to offer a prize of a bottle of London Porter for the first correct answer – if anybody actually reads this…
To set the worm squirming I shall come in at October 2015.
If it is possible to interpolate to a specific day or hour that could make it fun.
Stay Cool!
LazyTeenager says:
December 30, 2012 at 2:52 pm
True, true.
And that number of model runs showing no change the world’s realty of no change in temperature over any given 16 year period appears to be … Zero.
What’s the problem? They write ” 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” which basically means “it is more likely than not that models are overestimating the warming” and those graphs support that conclusion.
I don’t see any problem with those graphs.
also notice that they use 1986-2005 (20 years) as their base period. why not use 1981-2010 and get a full 30 period?
xeen@xxx.de says:
December 30, 2012 at 3:27 pm
“@DirkH
> Yes, they maintain that the effect is negligible.
… over full solar cycle identically as existence of winter-sumer cycle is negligible over the full year.
>You said a decadal mean is necessary to erase solar effects from the record.
I didn’t say nothing like that (there are no “necessary” or any similar word in my post).
There are of course other methods to remove solar effects. I said it’s one of scientific advantages of using 10-year running mean.”
Good, complain, complain, what did you say:
“Of course there are scientific advantages: 10 year period cancels most of solar cycle effects”
So you didn’t say necessary, can we settle for sufficient, if we’re into picking nits.
So now please explain the correlation of the solar cycle with temperature as the IPCC sees it. I know what you’ll come up with, with some next to unmeasurably small variation in TSI that can’t possibly detected in the inaccurate surface temperature measurements the IPCC uses after much extrapolation and homogenization, and for which surely no decadal average would be necessary to blur them out.
Well, but it’s a nice scientific-sounding excuse for using the decadal average. Some points for propaganda. Every little bit helps.
LazyTeenager says:
December 30, 2012 at 2:52 pm
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.
>>>>>>>
That would be nice, wouldn’t it? And if there was even one, they’d be putting out bulletins about how their models predicted periods like that and weren’t dead wrong on the topic after all. Instead, nothing but spaghetti, and I challenge you to isolate even a single piece of spaghetti on that graph which “appears” to support your assertion. Speaking of challenges, you still haven’t responded to my challenge from the other thread. Don’t worry, I didn’t forget, and to save you having to find it, I reproduce if for you here now:
davidmhoffer says:
December 24, 2012 at 6:12 pm
LazyTeenager;
More evidence might contradict naive expectations based on the physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I hereby CHALLENGE you to explain the physics and why expectations based on the physics should be considered naive.
David M. Hoffer, “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.”
The projections are each and all missing physically valid error bars. That’s StOP for the field. The “5- 95% range” is merely the statistical bounds of inter-model variability. Numerical precision, in other words. An illustration of the physical uncertainty in GCM air temperature projections here (third figure), will tell you why physical uncertainty is never propagated in climate crisis studies. Interferes with the narrative, that does.
DirkH;
You’re arguing with someone who doesn’t understand the difference between earth’s annual orbit and solar cycles, and doesn’t see to know what an anomaly actually is. I’ve been trying to teach a pig to sing, would you like to lend a hand?
Follow the Money
Thank you, and for your site, Mr. Hoffer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
For the record, Wood for Trees is not my site. I’m nowhere near talented enough to build something like that.
Correct. Fixing typos in a head post should be viewed as constructive criticism, or positive peer review. It’s completely different from sneering at another commenter for his flubs.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer / December 30, 2012 at 8:56 am
dear Mr. Hoffer,
I understand now that it was late when you discovered that they ‘did hide the decline’ (again) and that you wanted to finish your article before completely understanding the meaning of the graphs you are commenting on;
Am I correct?
I didnt notice wether you did or did not read Daniel Rowlands article I provided you the Nature link for on December 30, 2012 at 6:15 am;
there is also an article in Science were you can find more about the source and meaning of the upper graph in your story, and some of the questions and remarks you (and others) made:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/earth-warming-faster-than-expected.html
(click on enlarge to see the graph)
I hope it is a helpfull comment;
regards and best wishes;
@Camburn
syndrome, dunno, but it’s something 🙂
Kev-in-Uk says:
December 30, 2012 at 1:20 pm
normalnew says:
December 30, 2012 at 10:10 am
It probably is rising slightly using a 10 year mean?
Could be. I’m not a statistician. I just found it strange, and deceptive when I think about it.
Martin van Etten says:
December 30, 2012 at 5:29 pm
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer / December 30, 2012 at 8:56 am
dear Mr. Hoffer,
I understand now that it was late when you discovered that they ‘did hide the decline’ (again) and that you wanted to finish your article before completely understanding the meaning of the graphs you are commenting on;
Am I correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, you are wrong.
As for articles in Nature and Science, I ceased reading those mags a long time ago as their content has become highly politicized and increasingly unrelated to science. In this case I made an exception and briefly looked at the article and graph you linked to. In typical fashion, it distracts from the issue rather than addressing it. The plain facts are, that as published, AR5 Ch11 SOD:
1. Shows conclusively that the models over estimate warming.
2. That the upper bound of their estimated range cannot possibly be supported by the evidence that they themselves provide (if such exists, then they should provide it)
3. Observational data in fact is outside the 95% confidence range of the model projections. Simply referring to the current temperature indices as published by HadCrut, GISS, UAH and RSS confirms this to be the case. Presenting the data as a decadal mean does not change this fact.
As for the science article you link to claiming warming faster than expected, not only is this in direct opposition to the science presented in AR5 without even bothering to compare to the most current data (which serves to emphasize that point) but I refer you also to the AR5 analysis of model accuracy via the ASK methodology, which they document in detail, and which yields the following observation:
Table 11.2 shows likelihoods of crossing specific temperature levels by 2050, based on the raw CMIP5 results and also moderated assessments that take into account the evidence discussed in 11.3.2.1.1 and 11.3.6.3 that those CMIP5 models that warm most rapidly may be inconsistent with observations.
So, you can link to all the “worse than we thought” articles you wish, the fact is that the current state of the science, as articulated by the IPCC, says that the warming is LESS than the spectrum of model results project, and at most at the very bottom end of that spectrum (but still not within the 95% confidence range)
Thanks for playing though. I’d been saving that quote for one accusation or another to my article, appreciate the excuse to slide it in.
Martin van Etten says:
December 30, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Your statement, their conclusion in the article, is dead wrong. Dead lies. Deliberate lies, I should add.
The average world temperature for the past 16 years has NOT increased. This is not a “opinion” nor a “conclusion” …. It is a very simple “fact” from the satellite data and the surface temperature records.
Global average temperatures “today” in the real world are the same as they were in the late 1990’s. ….
Now, ANY so-called “weather” happening today MUST be reconciled against that fact.
Any “temperature-related” evidence for (or against!!!) “global warming” such as ice melt, glacier length, drought, draught, food, floods, feast or famine MUST be reconciled against the simple fact that today’s temperature is the same as it was in 1996-1997 time frame.
Just because you “want” to associate “future” weather – whether hotter, colder, warmer, drier, wetter, or icier with more (or less) “global warming” is irrelevant! Today’s global average TEMPERATURE is NOT hotter or colder than it was 16 years ago, so today’s “weather” CANNOT be associated with hotter (or colder) FUTURE temperatures!
Jeff Alberts: “I guess the issue is whether you want the post you’re presenting to the world to appear professional or not.”
If he would’ve wanted to appear to be a professional climate scientist, he would’ve left the decline hidden. Good thing us dumb amateurs are here to point that garbage out.
Mr. Hoffer errs when he states that ” …unlike most of their projections, these ones will be falsified (or not) within the life times of most of this readership Predictions are susceptible to being falsified. Projections are not.
In my previous post, please place an ending quotation mark after “readership.”