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….
I think you have serious comprehension skills. My point is simple. The IPCC has in the past made predictions. You have said nothing to show this to be false. You try misdirect, but it has failed. Any objective person that comes to this thread can see you are trying to misdirect.
I can go back as far as I like re the IPCC because my focus of attack is the erroneious Trenberth who said (I repeat AGAIN) that:
There was a prediction and you are now lying. “We predict” is clear. “Our predictions” is clear. Now clear your head. I know that climate model work is important and we all must eat and support our families Nick. But the truth has to come out on top. Your interests are not important when it comes to re-organising our entire energy system. By the way the temperature projections of the IPCC have failed.
THE IPCC MAKES PREDICTIONS and Nick Stokes has FAILED. Badly.
Fabi, you may have given the most concise analysis of these double talking, fork-tounged science-destroying demons yet.
They predict our future and we commoners must believe it will come true (Climate meltdown and their appearance as world saviors).
When their predictions come true we hoist them on our shoulders in glory and make them gods.
The end. So be it.
addendum: that which may not be uttered: Warning, do not read the following:
When their predictions don’t come true……uh, oh, wait, verboten. Forgot I said that. Cancel, erase.
Nick Stokes can you read? You said:
But you lie. You say if found 2. Here are my references.
Nick you remind me of a teenage driver trying to explain to the nice officer how the fire hydrant got hit without actually saying, “I hit the hydrant.”
Honest Nick’s first comment was:
We then found the quote he wanted We predict. I gave him a couple of bonuses with “our predictions”. Nick then misdirects and says they weren’t predictions and ‘what ifs’ and only one reference. This is a sign of a dishonest man. It never needed 100 papers to falsify any of Einstein’s theories, just ONE would do. We gave Nick more than ONE.
Would y’all please STOP CALLING HIM NICK!!!!
He earned his “nick”name honestly!! Call him RACEHORSE @SteveMc!!!
He is doing a great job of showing you how he earned that RACEHORSE “nick”name!!
richardscourtney says: August 26, 2013 at 2:12 pm
“The IPCC were endorsing what they think Hansen et al said by reporting it.”
They reported what McIntyre and McKitrick said too. That doesn’t make it their statement.
But the bottom line is, if you think they have made an unqualified prediction, what is it? What will happen when, exactly? And where did they say that?
If I see Nick Stokes back on this thread then I will be convinced that he is worried about his Nintendo model work. Unemployment is a serious thing and I feel for you Nick.
richardscourtney, Nick Stokes is attempting to misdirect you from his initial assertion which has been shown to be false.
He was shown to be wrong with at least 2 examples. He failed to acknowledge his failure and waved his arms and screamed. Nick Stokes is dishonest. When you are in a hole stop digging my friend.
The AGW theory has been PROVEN wrong already. It will be trashed before this decade ends.
SOME BASIC AREAS
AGW theory is wrong because AGW theory has forecasted the basic atmospheric circulation patterns wrong, it has forecasted the basic atmospheric temperature profiles wrong, it has forecasted the projected global temperatures wrong, it has projected ENSO wrong.
AGW THEORY called for +AO more zonal atmospheric circulation pattern ,reality -AO more meridional, atmospheric circulation pattern.
AGW THEORY called for lower tropospheric hot spot near equator plus increasing relative humidity in all levels of the atmosphere, reality no lower tropospheric hotspot near the equator lower relative humidity at all levels of the atmosphere.
AGW THEORY called for Global temp. to increase reality no global temp. increases, for 16 years and counting.
AGW THEORY called for more El Nino’s , reality less El Nino’s
AGW THEORY called for Stratospheric cooling (marked cooling) especially near the poles reality no such cooling
If AGW THEORY can’t call the basic atmospheric circulation patterns and temperature profiles correct , how could it possibly be correct on the climate?
The IPCC has based temperature projections going forward on what the global models have forecasted which is way off.
The IPCC is clueless.
Jimbo says: August 26, 2013 at 3:16 pm
“Finally, to find Trenberth’s statement false I only need ONE! Nick, you are now sounding desperate”
You consistently distort what Trenberth said. Let me quote it yet again:
“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.”
He is explaining what the IPCC actually does. All you come up with is gotchas whenever they use (maybe back in 1990) the word predict. But every substantive example of an actual prediction is exactly of the kind Trenberth described – based on a scenario. And it has to be. The IPCC is describing the results of computer programs that use supposed forcings as input. There’s no secret about that – they discuss it at length. If they stated a prediction without a scenario it just wouldn’t make sense.
But they don’t.
Nick, a prediction can be a trend calculated from a projection, or any single point on a projection. Again from education: “The actual trend line will be 1.2 additional correct words learned per week of supplemental instruction.” Or: “By the end of 3rd grade the student will be reading 99 correct words per minute.” These statements are commonly made based on a proposed improvement rate drawn with a projected trendline and is stated as a goal. It can be an end goal or an improvement trend. To be sure, projections are easy to make. Any duffus can make one. Predictions and how teachers manage them going forward are what separates quality teachers from not so good teachers. Might I say the same thing about the IPCC summary?
Nick Stokes:
Having demonstrated that you are sub-normal in literacy, and sub-normal in reading comprehension skills, at August 26, 2013 at 3:29 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/25/trenberths-ipcc-claim-of-no-predictions-by-ipcc-at-all-refuted-by-ipccs-own-words/#comment-1400637
you demonstrate that you lack both short-term and long-term memory.
You ask me
I have answered each of those questions five times in this thread.
Nick, you really need urgent medical treatment if you need to ask that question. It is clear that your mental faculties are deteriorating at an alarming rate.
But, so it cannot be thought that I am being evasive in response to your evasiveness, I will answer.
Q1.
if you think they have made an unqualified prediction, what is it?
A1.
“the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing.”
n.b. This eventual temperature rise is a prediction (not a projection) that is based on an estimate of “the current energy imbalance of the Earth” and not on any scenario.
Q2.
What will happen when, exactly?
A2
“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”
n.b. This rate of temperature rise between 2000 and 2020 is also a prediction (not a projection) that is based on the same estimate of “the current energy imbalance of the Earth” and not on any scenario.
Q3.
where did they say that?
A3.
In IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
So, Nick, I have yet again given you the information you seek, and it saddens me that the memory problems you say you have will again prevent you from remembering it.
Richard
Pamela Gray says: August 26, 2013 at 3:47 pm
“Nick, a prediction can be a trend calculated from a projection, or any single point on a projection.”
I’m sure it can, but what has this to do with the IPCC? In this case, the issue is that they can calculate projections, or predictions by whatever method, but they don’t know the decisions that will be made in future about emissions. So they have to allow for a range of possibilities, which they state.
richardscourtney says: August 26, 2013 at 4:02 pm
“Q2.
What will happen when, exactly?
A2
“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” “
So are you saying that the IPCC is predicting warming of 0.1°C per decade for 2001-2020?
I worked as a camera operator on a movie called The English Patient. The film won an Oscar for best picture. Following Trenberth and Mann’s leads I am now going to claim to have won an Oscar. When people ridicule me I’ll simply point to the AGW scientists and say it was their idea. What’s good for the goose…
Nick Stokes:
Your post at August 26, 2013 at 4:11 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/25/trenberths-ipcc-claim-of-no-predictions-by-ipcc-at-all-refuted-by-ipccs-own-words/#comment-1400671
yet again demonstrates your urgent need to obtain medical treatment.
In response to my answering your questions with verbatim quotes from the IPCC together with a reference to – and a link to – where the IPCC wrote them, you ask
No, Nick, I quoted a prediction the IPCC made in their most recent ‘scientific’ report.
I quoted the IPCC’s own words.
And I cited, referenced and linked those words.
Furthermore, previously in this thread I explained the meaning of those IPCC words and their context; see August 25, 2013 at 2:30 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/25/trenberths-ipcc-claim-of-no-predictions-by-ipcc-at-all-refuted-by-ipccs-own-words/#comment-1399910
Your questions to me have all purported to be discussion of that explanation.
Nick, seek the medical treatment now. You clearly have very great and urgent need of it.
Richard
Nick Stokes said the following (with my bolding):
What follows is my rebuttal taken from the IPCC itself thanks to various commenters.
Now read what Nick Stokes recently said [with my bold]
Does anyone on this thread stand by Trenberth’s statement?: [My bolding]
By the way Nick Stokes, are you a climate modeler? Do you still stand by all of Trenberth’s last quoted statement?
I’m going to move on now. Let’s hope Nick Stokes experiences honesty.
See scenarios and scenario as well as prediction.
The IPCC has made at least one prediction based on certain scenarios. Nick Stokes needs to seek urgent medical attention for his mental state.
From The Concise Oxford English Dictionary:
prophecy
noun (plural prophecies) a prediction. the faculty or practice of prophesying.
prophesy
verb (prophesies, prophesying, prophesied)
1 predict.
2 speak or write by divine inspiration.
ORIGIN
Middle English: from Old French profecie, via late Latin from Greek propheteia, from prophetes (see prophet)..
Perhaps Nick Stokes and Trenberth prefer to distance themselved from the religious connotations in the word “prediction”
Should read “prefer to distance themselves”.
At a late 1970s American Bar Association seminar in New York, famous Texan criminal defense attorney Richard “Racehorse” Haynes explained how to plead in the alternative:
“Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense:
My dog doesn’t bite.
And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night.
And third, I don’t believe you really got bit.
And fourth, I don’t have a dog.”
Nick Stokes says: August 26, 2013 at 2:38 pm
Clear but wrong. Just look at how your first “we predict” statement starts:
“Based on current model results, we predict:
Nick, aren’t all “predictions” based on something. The fact that the IPCC identified what they based its prediction on doesn’t change the fact that THE IPCC PREDICTED.
I make an appeal to the readers of this thread. Let’s give Nick some better reasons for sticking with his claim that the IPCC “never predicted” anything. I have a few.
(1) Misuse of capitalization.
(2) Someone hacked into the IPCC and changed the document without the IPCC’s knowledge.
(3) The IPCC misspelled “project”.
(4) IPCC is singular, not plural. A singular entity wouldn’t use the plural “we” when referring to itself.
(5) The IPCC author who wrote “we predict” was stoned out of his/her mind at the time.
(6) Nothing the IPCC writes should be taken as written. If you want to know what it meant to say, consult Nick Stokes.
If the IPCC doesn’t make predictions, then it’s not scientific, but unscientific, indeed anti-scientific.
If however its “most likely” projections are, as any rational person would conclude, in fact predictions, then the forecasts have been falsified & the assumptions & models upon which they were made have been shown worse than worthless GIGO.
milodonharlani, the IPCC says that when a projections is labelled “most likely” then it becomes a prediction.
So in TAR they have defined ‘prediction’ for us, yet they have never made any predictions according to Trenberth. So why did they define what prediction is?