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.
I think that it is interesting that we are expected to believe that “warming is occurring faster than expected” though there has been no “measured” increase in global temperatures for 16 years. It was certainly not predicted/modelled 16 years ago that there would be cooling which is the only way to reconcile these statements. Is there anywhere where the scientists who promote the AGW theory state unequivocally how many years of data collection which does not support the theory will effectively render it disproved by evidence?
Forget the political spin about “dirty weather” etc and every time it is hot/cold/wet/dry we have evidence of CAGW. At what point in the evidence trail would the scientists be prepared to say they are wrong?
@ur momisugly RACookPE1978 December 30, 2012 at 6:21 pm
I brought the Nature and Science article to your attention because I wanted to show you that not all science is “hiding the decline” as Mr Hoffer is suggesting;
by studying the graph I suggested you will see (or could have seen) that both publications show no warming at all in period you mention, and even a little bit of decline, Mr Hoffer Hoffer suggests that has been hidden (see the headline above his article);
so you don’t have to emphasize with strong bold statements that “global average TEMPERATURE is NOT hotter or colder;
again, the only purpose bringing to your attention this graph from Rowlands et al is that science is not hiding this decline;
To the guy exhorting journalists to ‘win a Pulitzer’ over this issue, I’m afraid to say that there is no incentive for any new entrants to the field, as there are a few journalists who already have written sufficient articles saying ‘case not proven (e.g. Chris Booker) or WALOFB (James Delingpole) in the UK alone to mean that the prize, were it ever to be awarded, would go to those already active in the field.
As a result, no prizes for new journos and plenty of grief until the tipping point is reached.
Anyway, journos are paid to write what they write nowadays, so you’d better find a billionaire philanthropist who will fund 5 years of skeptic articles in the advertorials……
The model position is simple; they simply project the assumptions made by the modeller.
One assumption common to all models is that increasing CO2 leads to warming. Hence, whenever there is an annual (or decadal) increase in CO2, the model projects a warming. It has to do so since this is the ‘basic’ physic response which is written into the heart of the model.
The model can never project a period of temperature stasis in the face of rising CO2 levels as this goes against the basic assumption that has been programmed into the model.
The model can only produce a period of stasis if some fudge factor is additionally incorporated such as to programme in a period of say 15 years when natural variation will extinguish the warming that CO2 would otherwise produces, or to programme in a decade of high volcanic activity which is assumed to extinguish the warming that a rise in CO2 concentrations will otherwise produce, or to programme in a decade of ENSO factors which will extinguish the warming which a rise in CO2 concentrations will otherwise produce.
In short, as far as the models are concerned, there can only be stasis when some natural factor (unexplained natural variation, increasing cloudiness, increase in CO2 sinks, solar, volcanoes, ENSO or the like) and/or some anthropogenic factor such as manmade aerosol emissions overcomes the build in warming that CO2 would otherwise produce,
What is clear from the satellite data is that we do not understand enoygh about the climate to write a worthwhile model and their projections are way off target confirming their shortcomings. An objective observer would (at this stage) consign the models to the bin.
I personally do not like the weasel differentiation between projections and predictions. If the projections carry no weight, why are governments acting upon them as if they are scared that the projection will come to pass.
If model projections are no more than meaningless projections, that should clearly be stated in the report, ie., ‘these are no more than projections based upon the assumptions that have been written into the model being correct. Presently there is no evidence to establish that those assumptions are correct, and presently the models are diverging significantly from observational evidence of the past X years [insert number such as 15 or 20 or 30] suggesting that the assumptions programmed in to the model are incorrrect. Accordingly, observational evidence suggests that temperature changes will not in practice occur in the manner projected by the models’ .
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer / December 30, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Dear David,
if we leave out the “day’s end” remark, its getting even more strange when you talk about “hiding the decline”, while the article of Rowlands et al and the graph you are commenting on in my opinion are not showing any hiding of a decline at all, so, I guess, the headline of your article is definitely wrong;
that is why my first remark was (naively) purely informative: “here is another graph”;
some other remarks:
further on you write: “Is the first graph serious? 154 data plots all scrambled together are supposed to have some meaning?”
Yes this is serious and it has a meaning, and again, it sometimes pays off to read an article to understand the meaning of the graph you are commenting on;
later in your article you conclude “It gets worse”, than you draw a red line in the graph, shouting “Hah! Nailed it!”
this has no use: here you show that you don’t understand at all what the issue and the article are about; in this case it really is a pity that you stopped reading articles from Science and Nature, because, you say, they are “highly politicized and increasingly unrelated to science”;
however, you still you comment on them and you don’t correct your readers when they also comment without reading the articles on which these graphs are based, for instance when they talk about “spaghetti” and other non-relevant matters;
the ‘spaghetti’ you are laughing about is made of individual climate model runs that came out from the so called climateprediction.net project run by climate scientists from the UK in coöperation with the BBC and tens of thousands private persons how provided their local computers for the modelling;
if you do some googling you will find out that this has been the biggest and most democratic science project ever, and that it is in a way an insult to put the results without studying in the garbagebin by saying this investigation as “highly politicized”;
in fact it was the only scientific project that I am aware of, in which layman participated and could have some control over, at least by knowing what is going on; I know, because I was one of the people participating;
the whole project has indeed some other purpose than “hiding the decline”;
to give some hint: it was designed to give upper and lower boundaries of the outcome of model runs that predict future climate AND that were able to calculate the actual climate (now) from an initial state with parameter set to the beginning of the 20 th century, lets say 1910;
I am glad that ‘our’ investigation materialised in an article in Nature by Rowlands et al and that it is now discussed in the coming AR5;
I’am looking forward to read the final report and, although I am blaming you for writing in a disinformed and insulting way about the work that has be done by thousands of enthousiast people, I am thankfull that you brought the project to a wider audience;
in fact we do not stand so far away from each other: my purpose to participate was to look inside the climate modelling world and to see and to see what is happening there;
I hope I clarified some of my objections to your article ;
I wish you a nice New Years Eve and all the best for the coming year;
(Excuse for any language mistakes, English is not my native language)
Mario Lento says:
December 30, 2012 at 3:20 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mario
The precise breakdown varies from bill to bill and sometimes I get one bill a month, sometimes two.
The electricity supplier is Iberdrola a large Spanish electricity supplier (I seem to recall that they are not simply a large national supplier but they also have a stake in one of the large UK energy suppliers and are players on the international market in Europe).
Their bills are quite good since they show a pie chart giving you an insight into how the bill is made up. They also include a statement explaining matters. I have selected a bill at random, it states in column 2 (which is headed invoicing) “Description of electricity supply costs. Of the Euro 45.12 you pay, Euro 25.04 goes to paying taxes and other charges established by law which are not related to the supply. The remaining Euro 20.08 goes to paying for energy production and supply and payments made to the national grid.”
This particular bill was no doubt one of two that I received that month so it is unusually low, However, it will be noted that the costs of supply Euro 20.08 is only 45% of the total bill (Euro 45.12) and that taxes and other charges established by law (Euro 25.04) represents 55% of the total bill (Euro 4512). These latter are taxes and green levies for subsidies paid for green energy supply.
Spain is of course infamous for the green subsidies given to producers of solar energy. It has been found that many such producers supply electricity to the grid 24 hours a day. One might consider that to be surprising given that the sun does not shine at night! Investigations have revealed that many such suppliers use diesel generators to supply energy at night since the costs of running a diesel generator are less than the subsidy they get on their feed in tariff!! An example of a green policy gone mad since small diesel generators are no doubt heavy polluters.
The Spanish economy is broken. There are numerous people who are lucky to have some employment but are struggling to survive on an annual income of Euro 10,000 fretting how they will manage to get by on a day to day basis. Their lives are filled with financial worries. Probably the typical consumer is paying about Euro 1,000 annually in taxes/green subsidies. Just imagine how their plight would be ameliorated if they only had to incur say Euro 100 annually on their energy bills. In Spain, petrol is typically about Euro 1.45 per litre. It is taxes and green levies that are driving this price. There is no good reason why petrol should not be 80 cents (or even less) per litre. Again the annual saving to the typical citizen would be significant especially bearing in mind the average wage.
It is easy to see the extent of misery that has been piled upon the typical individual because of the green zealots and the mad policies that governments have employed to deal with a perceived threat which has no quality data to back it up. In Greece there have been a number of suicides because of financial concerns. The government may not be able to fix the fiscal debt caused by the banking/financial market fiascos, but could overnight reduce the green burden on its citizens. A government could immediately withdraw all green subsidies, stop all green levies and taxes, if it so desired.
The costs of electricity supply in Spain could be halved (since more than 50% of the total bill is taxes and subsidies) if only there was political wherewithal to achieve that goal. I do not know what rebate industry gets but unless it gets a substantial concession, Spanish industry will inevitably be uncompetitive in the global market. Cheap abundant and stable energy should be the goal of any sensible elected government. It benefits the consumer and industry alike.
The politicians bear a heavy responsibility for the present economic depression and the woes of the typical citizen which have been greatly exacerbated by green taxes and levies on almost every day to day item.
“If I could figure out how to make the wft background clear, I could paste it onto the ipcc graph to illustrate.”
I can do it in Excel for you if you like, in fact I have already done that for the top chart. You will find most of the monthly numbers do not even fall in the ranges they have pre 1999. They all are much higher then their shaded areas from the IPCC graph. Shows hindcasting not so good???
I will now do one for the bottom graph. I can send them to you if you like to post em (not sure how to get your email address). Or I can tell you how to do it in Excel if you like.
correction: The anomaly baseline is shifted upward with your graph compared to the IPCC graph. So the baseline years being compared for the anomaly are different. But shifting down is easily done. Not sure what the correct number should be by i biased your WFT graph by -0.25 as an approximated delta between baselines.
Figured a way to post the images myself for David Hoffer’s what if. These show the overlay of wood for tree graph from David link above superimposed on the two IPCC charts:
http://postimage.org/image/ddlfsi72j/
http://postimage.org/gallery/3ij1j9ik/2f7b2055/
Go Home
http://postimage.org/image/l7m1dwevf/
http://postimage.org/image/ddlfsi72j/
Try again
Martin van Etten says: December 31, 2012 at 4:13 am
my purpose to participate was to look inside the climate modelling world and to see and to see what is happening there;
====================================
Thank you for your contribution.
Global climate models are simply contrivances that are devised to project an indefinite warming trend, as per the AGW theory algorithmically incorporated into the models. They cannot forecast climate and the modelers will admit this if you pin them down, yet at the same time the modelers demand that these dubious charts should be the basis for policy decisions. What do you think?
$ Billions in funds were squandered in making these. In fact, climate modeling has become a major source of employment for theoretical physicists, who otherwise would have no work prospects. The spaghetti graph you see represents those $ billions. Those billions would have brought much benefit if put to good work in some other type of research. While pondering the significance of the colorful spaghetti, you might consider that you, yourself, could draw a squiggley line for much less than what the modelers charged.
The last warming trend ended in 1997 and a definite cooling set in some ten years ago, and the modelers have accomodated that by increasing the amplitude of the squiggles. Thus climate modeling and the AGW scare. Happy New Year, stay warm,
mpainter
David M Hoffer…
Once again without the provocative ads. If Mods want to delete previous posts with other links, please feel free to do so. Sorry for trashing this with to many bad posts. Have not much experience in picture posting.
These show the overlay of wood for tree graph from David link above superimposed on the two IPCC charts. I biased Dave’s WFT graph by -0.25 as an approximated delta between anomaly baselines between WFT and the IPCC charts.
http://s9.postimage.org/ktkpeaurz/IPCC_Pic_1.png
http://s9.postimage.org/bztsx77tb/IPCC_Pic_2.png
Dear Martin, you write:
“…it was designed to give upper and lower boundaries of the outcome of model runs that predict future climate AND that were able to calculate the actual climate (now) from an initial state with parameter set to the beginning of the 20 th century, lets say 1910”
Please can you give a reference for any paper published before 2000 that correctly predicted the actual climate now? Retrofitted models do not cut it, they are just smoke and mirrors and anybody with any sense at all knows it.
http://s1.postimage.org/fmklky2bz/IPCC_Pic_2a.png
IPCC figure 2 with the following superimposed on the graph:
WFT monthly values from 1986-2012.
WFT Trend line from 1986-2012 projected to 2050
WFT Trend line from 1998-2012 projected to 2050 (my cherry picked numbers)
[the effort is appreciated . . mod]
Why do people assume that because a green house gas is increasng then so should temperature follow this increase exactly?
The GHE is small but insidious.
Look on it as a drip of water entering a jacuzzi with no safety overflow – if the jacuzzi is switched off then a slow rise in water height can be measured. Switch on the turbulance. Does this stop the drip?
The water level will now move up and down at random but – if you measure the height you may decide that the water level is flat or even falling – but is the total volume really static?
Can you leave it dripping an go away for a year? Or will it eventually overflow id the jacuzzi is off orON?
I have made a totally nonscientific, non-predictive simulation of hadcrut3v temperatures using sine waves. This shows that a 60year cycle is on its way down and this is more than capable of holding the temperature increase due to GHGs – BUT the GHG effect is still there and on the next upswing the temperature starts to rise wit a vegance.
the plot is here:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VItxmWK-bl4/UMfNxjy1XgI/AAAAAAAAAv8/07LyxuZ7GLQ/s1600/reconstruction+using+trend.jpg
but remeber this is simply showing that an underlying trend can be masked by a sinusoid with no trend – it is not meant to predict temperatures!!
All the figures for this are availble as a spreadsheet.
Just because temperatures and GHG levels do not follow each other does not mean that the undelying temperature trend does not match the insiduous drip, drip, drip of a trend caused increasing GHGs.
This is not rocket science. It is just logical!
Looks like the Met Office continues to predict very high global temperatures. The prediction for 2012 was 0.48 C. The hadcrut3gl actual is 0.417 C to the end of November. The prediction for 2013 is to be between 0.43 C and 0.71 C with best estimate of around 0.57 C. This would be highest temperature yet . Their decadal forecast is about 0.8 C by 2020. So their forecasts continue to be high year after year and it can only be perhaps deliberate in my opinion as no weather organization can be off that often due to incompetence alone . This is the same organization that predicts the global temperatures to rise by 4C by 2060
Since these models can’t make predictions, only projections, and since that means they can’t ever be falsified or validated either way as Terry Oldberg has pointed out on this thread and others (having done some 4 years of research into the modelling system I believe he said), how does the IPCC even get away with incorporating them in their reports as such am important part of the overall process?
I guess I am only echoing here Richard Verney’s comment, but I would also like to suggest something. It was mentioned how built into the models is the fundamental assumption that as CO2 rises, temperatures will rise. Why not build in a different fundamental assumption into a different model – that CO2 will not have any effect on the future temperatures. Have the same interactions of other climate forcings and variables in both the CO2 and non-CO2 models. Then make projections using both, and see which ends up being closer in the future.
Before anyone says “well they won’t do that because the entire IPCC mandate is based on CO2 controlling temperature” – why couldn’t it be done outside of the IPCC? Surely climate modellers dont HAVE to do it all one way, or am I being incredibly naive (I probably am).
Why stop at just a CO2/non-CO2 comparison? Make 1000s of different models with different configurations, with different forcings as the “primary variable” if you like. Then in the future just see what’s worked out the best!
Not that this would replace the scientific method in any way. It would just be using the models in an objective way, for their intended use (surely?) In other words if the model configuration that produces the closest result to the observed temps over time also most closely relates to the current understanding of the climate at that time (some point in the future) then you have some corroborating “evidence” to support that understanding of the climate as being likely correct. Keep the projections running. Which one is still right in 30/60 years time? Are any of them? Use them as a tool to assist the scientific method but definitely NOT as a means for policy makers to make decisions.
From the UK Met Office, we now have “retrospective forecasts”:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
“During 2012 our decadal prediction system was upgraded to use the latest version of our coupled climate model. The forecasts and retrospective forecasts shown here have been updated to reflect this change.”
George Orwell wrote: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” The nightmare predicted for 1984 did not happen. But now it has.
Antony, you may wish to expose this fraud to the world.
@ur momisugly Roger Longstaff
we are discussing this article and the claim hiding the declime, me nothing else;
@ur momisugly Go home
nice try, it fits somehow …. the ‘red’ line, trend, we will see;
we are starting now the New years eve here in my country (Holland);
regards;
{ Is the first graph serious? 154 data plots all scrambled together are supposed to have some meaning? }
That’s their representation of a chaotic non-linear system, don’t ya know?
It is no use to correlate,. say, sunspot numbers with earthly quantities since the effect of the sun is opposite in Gleissberg maxima and minima. The outcome is either zero or insignificant.
{ thefordprefect says:
December 31, 2012 at 8:24 am }
If your non-scientific sine wave doesn’t come close to matching empirical observations from 1929-1950, why the H… shouldn’t we consider it as nothing more than cherry picked worm tracks?
{ Martin van Etten says:
December 30, 2012 at 5:29 pm }
Do you not get the point? What good does it do to link to a graph which states we are warming faster than the 1961 – 1990 mean… and then have the model projected results only dating from 1980???
What are you hiding?
I’d like to quote from Edward R. Tufte’s “The visual display of quantitative information”, the Chaper on Graphical Excellence concludes with the following which I think apply to the graphs described here:
Graphical excellence is the well-designed presentation of interesting data – a matter of substance, of statistics, and of design.
Graphical excellence consists of complex ideas communicated with clarity, precision and efficiency.
Graphical excellence is that which gives the viewer the greatest number of ideas in the shortest time with the least ink in the smallest space.
Graphical excellence is nearly always multivariate.
And graphical excellence requires telling the truth about the data.
Go Home;
Excellent work, thanks!
All, if you want to see the most recent data superimposed on the IPCC graphs, Go Home has does a first rate job of doing exactly that.
http://s9.postimage.org/ktkpeaurz/IPCC_Pic_1.png
http://s9.postimage.org/bztsx77tb/IPCC_Pic_2.png
http://s1.postimage.org/fmklky2bz/IPCC_Pic_2a.png