Reader Jimbo advises in WUWT Tips and Notes about something Dr. [Kevin Trenberth] wrote that makes you wonder what he’s talking about when there are so many uses of the word “prediction” in the IPCC AR4. It also makes me wonder what the Economist author Oliver Morton was doing running a blog by Nature. Is there no separation between science journalists and science journals?
Trenberth suggests that after the last report “…the science is settled or done and now is the time for action.”. Here we are six years later, and another IPCC report is coming out on that “settled science” and there is no successor to Kyoto. I wonder how many times the word “prediction” will be used in the upcoming AR5?
Jimbo writes: I stumbled on a quote from [Kevin Trenberth] over at the Nature Blog dated 04 Jun 2007.
Source: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html
I thought I’d take a look because I was sure I had seen the IPCC use the word ‘predict’.
[My bolding throughout]
This subsection focuses on the few results of initial value predictions made using models that are identical, or very close to, the models used in other chapters of this report for understanding and predicting climate change.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-4-11.html
—————–
…Some qualitative inconsistencies remain, including the fact that models predict a faster rate of warming in the mid- to upper troposphere which is not observed in either satellite or radiosonde tropospheric temperature records….
…The first IPCC Scientific Assessment in 1990 (IPCC, 1990) concluded that the global mean surface temperature had increased by 0.3 to 0.6°C over the previous 100 years and that the magnitude of this warming was broadly consistent with the predictions of climate models forced by increasing concentra- tions of greenhouse gases. However, it remained to be established that the observed warming (or part of it) could be attributed to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Some of the reasons for this were that there was only limited agreement between model predictions and observations,…
…However, models generally predict an enhanced rate of warming in the mid- to upper troposphere over that at the surface (i.e., a negative lapse-rate feedback on the surface temperature change) whereas observations show mid-tropospheric temperatures warming no faster than surface temperatures….
…..“historical” indicates the signal is taken from a historical hindcast simulation, “future” indicates that the pattern is taken from a prediction……
…Changes in the annual mean surface temperature were found to be highly significant (in agreement with previous results from Hegerl et al., 1996, 1997). The predicted change in the annual cycle of temperature as well as winter means of diurnal temperature range can also be detected in most recent observations….
…Estimation of uncertainty in predictions
The scaling factors derived from optimal detection can also be used to constrain predictions of future climate change resulting from anthropogenic emissions (Allen et al., 2000b). The best guess scaling and uncertainty limits for each component can be applied to the model predictions,……
… An example based on the IS92a (IPCC, 1992) GS scenario (whose exact forcing varies between models, see Chapter 9, Table 9.1 for details) is shown in Figure 12.13 based on a limited number of model simulations. Note that in each case, the original warming predicted by the model lies in the range consistent with the observations….
…The range is significantly less than one (consistent with results from other models), meaning that models forced with greenhouse gases alone significantly overpredict the observed warming signal….
…All but one (CGCM1) of these ranges is consistent with unity. Hence there is little evidence that models are systematically over- or under- predicting the amplitude of the observed response/ under the assumption that model-simulated GS signals and internal variability are an adequate representation (i.e. that natural forcing has had little net impact on this diagnostic)….
…Original model prediction under IS92a greenhouse+sulphate forcing…
…The SAR predicted an increase in the anthropogenic contri-bution to global mean temperature of slightly over 0.1°C in the five years following the SAR, which is consistent with the observed change since the SAR (Chapter 2). The predicted increase in the anthropogenic signal (and the observed change) are small compared to natural variability, so it is not possible to distinguish an anthropogenic signal from natural variability on five year time-scales….
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.PDF
——————-
…During the early summer season, October to December, both models predict drying over the tropical western side of the continent, responding to the increase in high-pressure systems entering from the west, with MM5 indicating that the drying extends further south and PRECIS further east….
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-2-3-2.html
——————-
…The IPCC commissioned a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). Four “marker scenarios” representing different world storylines are used to estimate emissions and climate change to 2100 (IPCC, 2000). Table 16-1 summarizes these climate projections for the polar regions. In almost all cases, predicted climates are well beyond the range of variability of current climate. …
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=599
——————-
…The chemical and physical properties of aerosols are needed to estimate and predict direct and indirect climate forcing….
…Modelled dust concentrations are systematically too high in the Southern Hemisphere, indicating that source strengths developed for the Sahara do not accurately predict dust uplift in other arid areas….
…For summertime tropopause conditions the range of model predictions is a factor of five for sulphate. The range of predicted concentrations is even larger for some of the other aerosol species. However, there are insufficient data to evaluate this aspect of the models….
The same goes for their defenders. Nick and DAV, you have no (scientific) credibility.
I think this quote from Trenberth could be very useful in court cases against the EPA. After all, the EPA has stated that they have based their decisions on the IPCC reports. If the IPCC doesn’t make any predictions then what possible reason could the EPA have to enforce CO2 emission limits?
One has to wonder if this isn’t part of a general retreat by certain climate scientists.
“Golly gee, it was never us making claims of future catastrophic warming, That was some (unnamed) group of alarmists that must not have understood what we were telling them. We can’t be blamed for the politicians listening to these non climate scientists.”
Look out Romm, Cook, McKibben, Gleick, et al. The climate scientists just took one big step backwards and left you hanging in the wind.
Anthony, you need to correct the spelling of from Dr. Kenneth Trenberth to Kevin.
[Revised in story section. Thanks to all for pointing this out. Mod]
Warmers are predicting, projecting, injecting and ejecting all at once.
Theo Goodwin says: @ur momisugly August 25, 2013 at 5:52 pm
…….Physics is a highly ramified context. In that context, the word ‘prediction’ does not have the same meaning as it has for the man in the street. Kepler’s Three Laws of Planetary Motion allowed him to predict the motions of the planets. Galileo used those laws and his telescope to predict the phases of Venus. Newton could predict. Einstein could predict. But the claim that you will become transgender tomorrow is not a prediction and cannot be for the obvious reason that it is based on no laws of human nature……
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nice catch-22. The PROJECTIONS are IF-THEN statements made by the models.
The IF part of the statements are:
# 1. No change in CO2 emissions – status quo.
#2. Some modification of human behavior, less CO2 emissions than in #1
#3. Major Modification of human behavior, much less CO2 emissions than in #2.
…..
Special Note
A Climategate e-mail from Anne JOHNSON has Subject: new IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft ….a copy of Ged Davis’ IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft on storylines and scenarios… The e-mail was sent to a long list of IPCC authors. Since Shell’s VP, Ged Davis [d]uring the late 1990s, …served as Director of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Global Scenarios and as Facilitator and Lead Author of the IPCC’s Emission Scenarios, it is a wee bit tough to try and say IPCC was not neck deep in the climate modeling.
…..
The THEN part of the statements for initial condition #1 (no change in emission habits) for all the IPCC reports are shown in this GRAPH.
As Thomas Traill says: @ur momisugly August 25, 2013 at 1:49 pm
However the THEN part of the “Projection” becomes a “Prediction” once those “conditional statements (“what if”)” are met and the IPCC crows about reality meeting the “Prediction” made dependent on the “conditional statements” (No change in human behavior/ CO2 emissions)
However now that the PREDICTIONS of models based on scenario #1 are failing Trenberth/IPCC are backpedaling and hand waving for all they are worth.
…..
I do not care how they slice and dice the language, their actions and hard copy words stand. This type of semantic game playing is the first refuse of rogues and liars. The change from “Global Cooling” to “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” to “Climate Disruption” or “Weather Weirding” or what ever the jingle of the day is shows they are flimflam artists not scientists.
For a discussion of this (artifical in my view) attempt to distinguish between a “prediction” and a “projection”, see these papers
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2002: Overlooked issues in the U.S. National Climate and IPCC assessments. Climatic Change, 52, 1-11. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-225.pdf
MacCracken, M., 2002: Do the uncertainty ranges in the IPCC and U.S. National Assessments account adequately for possibly overlooked climatic influences. Climatic Change, 52, 13-23. http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/maccracken2002.pdf
Also, see the post and comment discussion in the weblog post
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2013/07/prediction-or-projection-nomenclature.html
Roger Sr.
Nick has become very silent after Thorsten proved him wrong. Be a good sport, Nick, and admit you were blinded by your uncritical admiration for the IPCC.
I am aware of the CURRENT situation regarding what the IPCC calls projections, scenarios and ‘what if’. I don’t care about the current situation. They could play with Voodoo dolls for all I care. My comment was concerning Trenberths clear statement in 2007 that the IPCC has never made predictions. Then we find the IPCC themselves saying very clearly: “The SAR predicted an increase in the anthropogenic contri-bution to global mean temperature……” Either Trenberth is wrong or the IPCC wrong but the can’t both be right.
Example: I have never been to Spain. Then along comes a commenter showing me in an unaltered photo at a famous Spanish landmark back in 2007. What would people call me?
Please no one tell me that the IPCC makes projections / scenarios, I know what they do NOW and in the present. I expect Nick Stokes along any minute now to repeat what the IPCC does and ignore that the IPCC itself said The SAR predicted…… Sheesh!
I wonder if Nick S. would debate what the definition of “is” is.
beng says:
August 26, 2013 at 7:23 am
“Warmers are predicting, projecting, injecting and ejecting all at once.”
you forgot “And SEE-LEC-TING” (apologies to Arol Guthrie)!
What the IPCC/ Climate Scientists are saying is “We projected using our handy dandy models that with the worse case CO2 emissions the temperatures would climb.” The CO2 emissions as measured have climbed as projected by the temperature has not.
There is no problem, we can all go home now. (Given it was 49F in mid NC this morning and I am wearing a sweat shirt in AUGUST, their credibility has sprung a huge leak.)
What I find hilarious about Nick is that he is attributing emotion to the connotation of prediction (as if it is a bad thing to do compared to making a projection). In climate science there is no emotional color to it. You build a model, project it forward, and then make testable predictive statements -the hypothesis- about your projection. The solar folks did it. Some models were better than others. But I don’t hear Hathaway saying, “I didn’t make a prediction, I made a projection”. He fearlessly made a prediction (maximum SSN would be thus and so) based on how he thought his model would work going forward (the projection of the model) in terms of cycle 24.
IPCC took the projections from the various scenarios and made predictive statements of how things would look in the future and at certain times in the future (IE “…when projected out to year 2100, the mean global temperature will have risen by,,,”). These predictive statements were then placed in the summary for use as guidelines for policy and program development. They didn’t have to say the words “we predict”. They didn’t have to. It is obvious. A prediction is the word that best describes the statements made by IPCC about future conditions as shown by model projections. And I would lay a bet that Nick is far more into this discussion of whether or not IPCC did or did not make predictions than the science panels themselves are.
What I find interesting about the early projections is that the null hypothesis projection was not included. That was a huge failure on the part of Hansen in my opinion. He did not build a model that was the null hypothesis (IE without the anthropogenic fudge factor going forward even though the hindcast would have sucked). He should have done it anyway with that caveat.
Basic tenet of climate science: never do or say anything which can be falsified. (For obvious reasons).
If you say that something is a prediction, that something can be compared with subsequent observation.
Hence, if you are wily climatologist you strive to obscure predictions which might otherwise disturb the tranquil luxury of your ignoble field.
Here is a quote with the words “we predict” from the IPCC. [my bold]
As far back as the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990 , IPCC said in their Executive Summary for the Policymakers, Summary of the WG1,
“Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years; under other … scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls, rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0.2 oC [to] about 0.1 oC per decade.”
Clearly they used the word “predict” from day one and now to claim otherwise in the face of failing predictions seems dishonest and will further erode any credibility that they may have left. Instead of simply admitting that they made a mistake and correcting their work [ which by the way , most scientists make one time or another] , they have chosen the denial game which gets them into even a worse situation.
Whatever. They have no projective power either.
Unfortunately although WE know Trenberth is playing word games (and outright lying) it is he not us that gets the media coverage so the BIG LIE becomes TRUTH. That is the reason propaganda works so well.
(Thank goodness for the internet and WUWT so at least some reason manages to leak out.)
Trenberth appears to find logic as elusive as his notspot.
Thorsten says:
August 26, 2013 at 6:25 am
I just realised you already found the same thing before me. I was commenting and searching. So Nick, what you say about WE PREDICT?
Lord Haw Haw
Tokyo Rose
Pyongyang Sally
Baghdad Bob
Travesty Trenberth
“philincalifornia says:
August 26, 2013 at 8:59 am
Lord Haw Haw
Tokyo Rose
Pyongyang Sally
Baghdad Bob
Travesty Trenberth”
And
Racehorse Stokes.
The IPCC is an unscroupolous organisations. The Policymakers’ Summary is littered with predictions yet the IPCC does not make predictions. Trenberth claim in 2007 is false. Nick Stokes has lost the argument. I counted 62 mentions of the word predict and variations thereof.
Here is a sample
“……regional climate changes different from the global
mean, although our confidence in the prediction of
the detail of regional changes is low For example,
temperature increases in Southern Europe and central
North America are predicted to be higher than the
global mean accompanied on average by reduced
summer precipitation and soil moistuic There are
less consistent predictions lor the tropics and the
Southern Hemisphere….”
“There are many uncertainties in our predictions
particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and
regional patterns of climate change, due to our
incomplete understanding of…”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
Theo Goodwin said @ur momisugly August 25, 2013 at 5:52 pm
Tosh! Galileo refused to read the book that Kepler had sent him. Galileo (like Copernicus) insisted that the planets could only move in perfect circles because that was the will of God. He never used Kepler’s Laws.
Git, don’t you [think] it was possible that Galileo was mincing words due to the bars on his window?