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….
“…think…” I hate windows 8.
The situation we have [now] is not unlike back then. I think we all know that scientists have to be careful what they say about climate change. Bars are as fearful as loss of grant money.
Hey Dav…
While we are throwing around “P” words. There is another that it popping up frequently: potential’
If:
“An example of a projection: It’s cloudy so it might rain soon.
An example of a prediction: It will rain soon.”
Then
An example of potential: The sky is clear, but it might get cloudy and then it will rain. or….The sky is clear, but it will get cloudy and then it might rain.
Sounds like the local version of the old saw: If you can’t see Mount Hood it is raining and if you can see Mount Hood it is about to rain. ….In other words: IT IS A JOKE!
The AMA read the IPCC report an came away with these conclusions:
“Supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant. These climate changes will create conditions that affect public health, with disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and the poor.”
…catch the “will”…the doctors at the AMA think the IPCC made a prediction, and they respond with “potential”:
“Supports educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects…..
https://ssl3.ama-assn.org/apps/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=%2fresources%2fdoc%2fPolicyFinder%2fpolicyfiles%2fHnE%2fH-135.938.HTM
reminds me of:
Stepmother: Well, I see no reason why you can’t go… if you get all your work done.
Cinderella: Oh, I will. I promise.
Stepmother: And, if you can find something suitable to wear.
Cinderella: I’m sure I can. Oh, thank you, Stepmother.
[she exits]
Drizella: Mother, do you realize what you just said?
Stepmother: Of course. I said, “If.”
da[g]nabit! Can’t type today!
[ 8<) Mod]
Now let me put this to Nick Stokes. First I will show you Trenberth’s clear statement. Then I will show you what the IPCC says in it’s Policymakers’ Summary.
Game, set, and match. Trenberth was making stuff up. And so were you Nick. This is the power of the many over the few – crowds.
As they say: The truth will out. LOL.
“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been.”
From the IPCC:
“Projection
The term “projection” is used in two senses in the climate change literature. In general usage, a projection can be regarded as any description of the future and the pathway leading to it. However, a more specific interpretation has been attached to the term “climate projection” by the IPCC when referring to model-derived estimates of future climate.
Forecast/Prediction
When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.”
http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/definitions.html
They do both.
The issue isn’t whether you call them predictions or projections; the issue is that, whatever you call them, they are wrong — 100% of the time. The question then becomes what value are these projections? Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars, when you can obtain equally (in)accurate results playing the Sims game on your Xbox.
By design, the models will always be wrong, because the purpose is not to project the future, the purpose is to create doomsday scenarios. This is why they have started pushing the timelines of their “projections” out to 50 or 100 years.
DAV says:
August 25, 2013 at 4:00 pm
“… (IOW: puffery).”
So your contention is that Trenberth is telling the truth because the IPCC lies.
OK I’ll buy that. The IPCC lies.
Pamela Gray said @ur momisugly August 26, 2013 at 9:18 am
What bars on his window? What is it you do not understand about house arrest? Kepler’s Astronomia Nova was published in 1609 and Kepler sent a copy to Galileo while he was teaching at the University of Padua. In June 1633, a quarter of a century later he was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. However this was commuted to house arrest on the following day. In 1619 when summoned to Rome for the debate over Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium Galileo had complained bitterly about being forced to leave his home and travel because of his arthritis.
August 26, 2013 at 9:18 am
I also hate Office 2013!
Galileo never showed the slightest sign of fear when insulting all and sundry in his day. While he thought he could get away with insulting the pope, this turned out to be… a turning point and he was punished. His attacks on Orazio Grassi and Christopher Scheiner are to say the least bizarre. Galileo insisted that comets were an atmospheric phenomenon; Grassi and Scheiner’s observations indicated that they occurred in the space between the moon and the sun. As was usual with Galileo he never attacked their science; he much preferred insult and polemics.
The situation back then was quite different to today, but that’s a whole other topic that I will not pursue here.
Nick Stokes:
I am replying to your post at August 26, 2013 at 4:14 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/25/trenberths-ipcc-claim-of-no-predictions-by-ipcc-at-all-refuted-by-ipccs-own-words/#comment-1400220
Either you need to take an elementary course in reading comprehension or you are providing a deliberate falsehood.
You say to me
NO! That is a falsehood.
For the third time I make the same quote from I quoted IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
That quotation says
Nick, since you claim you lack sufficient literacy to understand that, I will parse it for you.
Nick, that means a group of people (i.e. Hansen et al.) did a calculation which they reported in 2005.
They did NOT use any projections or any assumptions about future “emissions”. They did their calculation on the basis of what then existed.
And their calculation showed “the current energy imbalance of the Earth”. By “current” they meant what then existed. They did not make any projections or assumptions about what would happen to the energy balance in the future.
This calculated energy imbalance of itself “implies” (i.e. indicates with low certainty) that the “unrealised global warming” is about 0.6°C. In other words, there is a clear suggestion but with unstated confidence that global warming of “about 0.6°C” will occur.
That is a clear prediction of global warming that is “implied” by the then existing situation and “without any further increase in radiative forcing”.
Nick, the “committed warming” is a clear prediction, and – contrary to your falsehood – it is NOT “conditional on future emissions”.
Also, the IPCC’s stresses that the direct “committed warming” IS A PREDICTION by following that statement with this addition of another prediction then a projection which I also quoted.
The additional prediction says
and the projection says
Richard
Has anyone already predicted there will be more predictions. If not, I predict there will be.
The scenarios and projections are the kettle of fish they brought to the table. And now they are being cooked in it. The only reason why they are waiting to jump out is the hope that Mother Nature will develop a strong El Nino before the water gets too damn hot.
@Pamela Gray
The scenarios and projections are the kettle of fish they brought to the table. And now they are being cooked in it.
Someone is going to be served for dinner. The IPCC is hoping we taxpayers are the ones on the menu. “To Serve Man.”
richardscourtney says: August 26, 2013 at 11:46 am
” I will parse it for you.”
You can’t parse. Here’s your quote:
“Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing.”
Firstly it’s Hansen et al, not the IPCC. But look at the proviso, which I bolded. The number is from a zero forcing increase scenario. You could even ponder the word “unrealised”. That doesn’t sound like something you’d say about a prediction.
In fact the term “committed warming” is used to partition the heat components calculated by models. It is certainly not a prediction of temperature at some future point in time (what time?). It might be considered a lower bound for something, but the IPCC (and certainly Hansen) are not expecting zero further increase in radiative forcing.
Well, neo-marxists and post-modernists (the ideology behind most climate alarmists) like to play loose with words because they think that words create reality.
However many of them have become delusional, some consciously dishonest.
Good to see you back Nick Stokes. As you can see we found your “We predict” and a few “our predictions” as a bonus. My statement is clear: Trenberth was wrong when he said:
Ooops. The last paragraph should not be indented, its from me.
Nick Stokes:
Following your having demonstrated you cannot read, at August 26, 2013 at 1:23 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/25/trenberths-ipcc-claim-of-no-predictions-by-ipcc-at-all-refuted-by-ipccs-own-words/#comment-1400548
you demonstrate you cannot understand.
You say
No, Nick, it was the IPCC I quoted and not Hansen et al.
The IPCC were endorsing what they think Hansen et al said by reporting it.
The IPCC used their words to state the prediction they agreed and endorsed.
So, the IPCC made the prediction in their own words.
Nick, you need medical treatment if you cannot understand that.
Then you say
No, Nick, that is wrong on two counts.
Please read my post you are attempting to reply. It is at August 26, 2013 at 11:46 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/25/trenberths-ipcc-claim-of-no-predictions-by-ipcc-at-all-refuted-by-ipccs-own-words/#comment-1400486
I quoted the IPCC saying “the number” is NOT from any “scenario”.
It is from “the current energy imbalance of the Earth”.
And your failure to understand the word “unrealised” is astonishing: it means the warming has yet to happen. It is exactly what one says about a prediction: i.e a prediction is what is expected to be realised so – at present – it is unrealised.
Nick, the IPCC is making a prediction when it says
Then they said – and I quoted – how they expected their prediction to be realised; i.e.
Then you make these nonsensical assertions,
If it is “not a prediction of temperature” then what is the “about 0.6°C”?
And how does it provide
“The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans.”?
The “what time” is “over the first two decades of the 21st century”.
The predicted “lower bound” is “about 0.1°C per decade” and – as they say and I quoted – the SRES projections provide a projected lower bound which is double that predicted lower bound.
And there is no suggestion of a predicted “zero further increase in radiative forcing”. That is a ‘red herring’ which deserves to remain as a stinking fish on the floor: I certainly will not touch it.
Nick, I don’t know what you are trying to gain here, but you are losing what little credibility you may have had.
Richard
If someone found a quote in an official IPCC document that said: “…we predict …”, Nick Stokes would still argue that he was correct because the “W” is “we” wasn’t capitalized.
Ooops! Reading all the comments, apparently someone has found a “….we predict…” phrase in an IPCC document. Nick, please feel free to use my rationale to climb down from the hook you currently find yourself on.
And the warmists say that we “deniers” are the ones who “argue
like lawyers, not scientists”!
Nick
You are trying to fit yesterday’s lies into today’s realities
Jimbo says: August 26, 2013 at 1:37 pm
“As you can see we found your “We predict” and a few “our predictions” as a bonus. My statement is clear: Trenberth was wrong when he said:
‘In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.’ “
Clear but wrong. Just look at how your first “we predict” statement starts:
“Based on current model results, we predict:
• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)”
Very first thing they do is state the emissions scenario (the “what if”), just as Trenberth said. And OK, they used the word “predict” rather than the term “project” that they later adopted as standard. You had to go right back to the 1990 FAR to find that one. And to find the second, which is simply the use of the word predictive as an adjective. No prediction stated there.
If all this tree-ring divining ‘science’ is all merely about ‘projections’ and not ‘predictions’ then why the heck are they so certain of the very existence of AGW, the continued warming, the influence of mankind, et cetera? And allowing others to attempt to alter the course of world economic history using their ‘science’? Fools and knaves. This is both disingenuous and disturbing.