![ipcc[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ipcc1.jpg)
Guest Essay by Barry Brill
The timing couldn’t be worse.
On 23-26 September, scores of representatives of the world’s Environment Ministries are scheduled to meet in Stockholm to wordsmith the final draft of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the key WG1 (physical science) portion of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC).
The draft SPM, sent to governments on 2 August, is a 22-page condensation of 14 chapters comprising 1,914 pages of material discussing scientific papers that were published between 2006 and 15 March 2013.
This SPM is (or could be) a document of world-shaking importance. As Bloomberg points out – “it is designed to be used by ministers working to devise by 2015 a global treaty to curb climate change”.
The timetable for the global treaty was deferred at the Durban COP because developing countries (particularly China and India) felt that the 2013 SPM was an indispensable input to the negotiations. Governments need an authoritative up-to-date assessment of both the extent and the causes of the climate change threat, present and future.
But the SPM has been sidelined by momentous climate change events that occurred after its March cut-off date – and even after the date the draft was circulated.
Climate sensitivity
The “extent of warming” issue turns on how sensitive the planet is to increasing CO2 concentrations. Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) was crudely estimated by Charney in 1979 at 3.0 ±1.5°C and that range remained more-or-less constant through all four previous IPCC reports.
During 2012, several groups of researchers noted that recent data and modern diagnostics now showed that the 30-year old 3°C mid-point had been grossly over-stated. Peer-reviewed journal papers included:
• Ring et al: estimates of climate sensitivity ranged from 1.5 to 2.0°C.
• Van Hateren: millennium-scale sensitivity found to be 2.0 ±0.3°C.
• Aldrin et al: the 90% credible interval ranges from 1.2°C to 3.5°C, with a mean of 2°C
This, of course, led to great dissension and became the major challenge faced by the lead authors of WG1. Although we don’t yet know how they finally reacted, a leaked copy of the SPM draft suggests that they mainly held to the longstanding orthodoxy.
In January 2013, the British media reported that the UK Met Office was projecting a 20-year standstill in global warming by 2017. This ‘pause’ had not been predicted by climate models. In February, IPCC chairman Pachauri admitted that the temperature data had already been flat for 17 years, while opining that a standstill of 30 years would be required to rebut the previous consensus.
Both “cause” and “extent” issues are heavily dependent on the validity of climate simulations by the contemporary Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), as are all IPCC projections of future planetary temperatures and their impacts. Serious scientific doubts about either ECS-related inputs or the accuracy of temperature outputs would be fatal to the credibility of the AR5.
After the March cut-off date for WG1 papers, the following 2013 papers have strongly reinforced concerns regarding the exaggeration of climate sensitivity:
• Otto et al: the best estimate of sensitivity is 30% below the CMIP5 multimodel mean.
• Forster et al: analysis of CMIP5 shows that 2/3 are above the Otto ‘likely’ range.
• Masters: median estimate of ECS is 1.98°C.
• Lewis: improved methodology shows the mode and median to be 1.6K
In congressional testimony, Judith Curry cited the Hawkins graph depicting observed trends below 90% of CMIP5 projections, and notes that warming may not resume until mid-century. James Hansen attributes the ‘hiatus’ to a combination of natural variability and lower sensitivity but predicts “temperature will rise significantly in the next few years with the nex El Nino phase.”
Temperature standstill
The temperature standstill has been apparent in the data for many years, but the tribalism of climate science rendered it unmentionable until the public disclosures of early 2013. Once spoken, it demanded an explanation – and it then became clear there was a great dearth of research on the subject. By the time researchers were ready to fill this gap, the draft SPM had already been dispatched.
During August 2013, a flood of highly influential papers have appeared:
• von Storch & Zorita[1] found that observed temperatures 1998-2012 were not consistent with 23 tested CMIP3 and CMIP5 models, even at the 2% confidence level. The inconsistency increases rapidly with trend length and a 20-year trend (ie to 2017) would lie outside the ensemble of all model-simulated trends.
• von Storch & Zorita (the same paper) concludes that ‘natural’ internal variability and/or external forcing has probably offset the anthropogenic warming during the standstill. Overestimated sensitivity may also have contributed.
• Tung & Zhou[2] reported that the “underlying net anthropogenic warming rate has been steady since 1910 at 0.07-0.08°C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs ..”. The sharply increased CO2 concentrations of recent decades has not caused warming to accelerate, as was predicted by the models.
• Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Zie[3] plausibly found that climate models have vastly under-estimated natural variation. La-Nina-like cooling in the Eastern Pacific throughout the 21st century (since the PDO turned negative) has conquered the projected greenhouse warming. The 0.68°C warming trend during 1975-98 (when the PDO was positive) would have been[4] 0.4°C natural and only 0.28°C anthropogenic.
• Katz et al[5] says the critical uncertainty measures used by the IPCC are “out of date by well over a decade”. Modern statistical techniques could improve assessments “dramatically”.
• Fyfe Gillett & Zwiers[6] focused on the extraordinary gap between the temperature simulations of 37 CIMP5 models and the observed outcomes. Due to a ‘combination of errors’, the models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years and by 400% over the past 15 years.
Come the revolution…
These new papers devastate the IPCC orthodoxy that current and future global temperatures are mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, and will reach dangerous levels later this century. On the other hand, all older papers are blindsided by their apparent failure to take account of the recent data (standstill).
The IPCC’s 2001 report cautioned[7]: In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles.
The “dangerous anthropogenic global warming” (DAGW) hypothesis is based on a clear difference between CMIP5 runs with natural plus anthropogenic forcing, versus natural variability only. That difference now disappears when ensembles are adjusted to reflect current empirical data. It is quite conceivable that natural variabilty (including natural forcing) has historically dwarfed anthropogenic effects and will persistently do so in future.
In his seminal 1962 work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn persuasively argued that science does not progress through the linear accumulation of knowledge but undergoes periodic revolutions or ‘paradigm shifts’.
In Kuhn’s view, no evidence that is incompatible with the current paradigm will be entertained during long periods of normal science. However, as anomalous results build up, science eventually reaches a crisis which drives the necessary acceptance of a new paradigm, which subsumes both the old and new results into a new framework. Kuhn calls this transformative point, revolutionary science.
2013 is ushering in a long-delayed revolution in climate science. A new paradigm is demanded which recognizes that AGW is but one non-determinative component in a ‘non-linear chaotic system’.
Dealing to the paradigm shift
All of this leaves the IPCC in a terrible bind regarding its September meeting. Should it:
• rubber-stamp a SPM that has been overtaken by events?
• add a major caveat to the state of play in March 2013, promising an addendum will be issued to cover post-cut-off papers? or
• adjourn the meeting to accomodate a crash program to re-write both the WG1 Technical Report and the consequent SPM?
The business as usual course is the worst option. With tense international negotiations riding on this document, it is far better that it be delayed than wrong – or indefensible. No government can make far-reaching policy decisions on the basis of a report which is widely believed to be obsolete before it is released.
An interim report suffers from a similar credibility deficit. Already[8], Environment departments from the USA and the European Union have formally sought more clarity on the “warming hiatus” and have asked the IPCC to include full information in the SPM.
“The recent slowing of the temperature trend is currently a key issue, yet it has not been adequately addressed in the SPM,” said the EU.
Although the draft says the trend has tapered off, the implications are unclear – causing the US to comment “a bunch of numbers are [left] up in the air without a concrete conclusion.”
Several countries, including China, seek information on the heat uptake of the oceans or other natural variances which might have depressed climate change data.
The draft SPM apparently fails to mention[9] that 30-year warming trends have declined each year since peaking in 2003. Or that the latest 10-year period (2003-12) is the coolest decade[10] since satellite records began in 1979.
WG1 has a track record of ignoring inconvenient research on grounds that it is ‘isolated’ or published in obscure journals. That can hardly be the fate of the August papers. All but one have been accepted by Nature Climate Change. Several of the authors are active contributors to IPCC reports, with Zwiers a current vice-chairman of WG1 and Fyfe a review editor.
Revolutionary climate science is under way. The question now is whether the IPCC is up to the challenge.
[1] http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
[2] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/22/1212471110.short
[3] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html
[4] See http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/pause-tied-to-equatorial-pacific-surface-cooling
[5] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1980.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309
[6] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309
[7] 14.2.2.2 WG1 TAR IPCC
[8] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/global-warming-slowdown-data-sought-in-un-climate-report.html
[9] http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/08/if-warmists-would-only-tell-the-truth
[10] http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
@- Babsy says:
“We don’t have to provide any alternative explanation. The onus is upon the warmists to prove their hypotheses, not upon us to prove them wrong.”
NO. As was established a few weeks ago, ‘proof’ is for maths and liquor.Science works by refutation and providing theories that best explain the observed data.
If you are unwilling or unable to provide a strong refutation or an alternative explanation then you are not engaged with the science.
We are all going to die eventually, but anthropogenic climate change isn’t going to feature on any of the death certificates.
>>> Grant A. Brown says:
August 31, 2013 at 9:05 pm <<<
Absolutely spot on! You've managed to exchange the words 'politically correct' for the word 'liberal' to describe the awful dysfunction apparent in too many modern brains. Bravo!
Thanks, Barry. Good article.
izen said:
“Science works by refutation and providing theories that best explain the observed data.”
Not much hope for AGW then is there?
It fails to explain the observed data so no need to propound any alternatives.
Jimbo says:
September 1, 2013 at 2:24 am
Follow the link in [10], it goes to a trend reporter, enter 2003, 2012, click calculate and it gives the trend of 0.005 +/- 0.288 C°/decade.
This is likely the lowest trend in the satellite record. Obviously it can’t be the coolest decade as others have noted.
If you go 2012-2013 and ignore the error range, you get a negative trend.
The basic reason for a continuation of the SPM’s alarmism is that it is edited by a majority of national governments, and that majority consists of developing nations that expect large transfer payments from a treaty on climate change.
izen says:
September 1, 2013 at 9:07 am
====
How about….it doesn’t work
A bit off topic, but, can somebody tell me whatever happened to methane?
izen says:
September 1, 2013 at 9:07 am
Science works by refutation and providing theories that best explain the observed data.
Yes, but unfortunately for you and your fellow True Believers, that has not been done by the CAGW camp. The “human fingerprint” on the warming has not been found. It is mere conjecture. Since the case for CAGW has not (and can’t be) been made, the null hypothesis, meaning natural variation stands.
I think it’s kind of cute.
izen:
In your post at September 1, 2013 at 9:07 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/can-the-ipcc-do-revolutionary-science/#comment-1405504
you say
Izen, anyone who has read your numerous posts on WUWT knows that science is difficult for you, but your point I quote here is scientifically illiterate even by your standards.
The Null Hypothesis applies. Therefore, nobody needs to devise an alternative unless and until the Null Hypothesis is overcome.
I explain the matter as follows.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 .0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
Richard
To mike g & dp:
I noticed a short comment by AW awhile back, that CG3 was a bust – nothing new found.
izen says…
Science works by refutation and providing theories that best explain the observed data.
======================================================================
The current theories posit that human generated CO2 is causing global warming at a catastrophic rate. The models are based on that theory and they are failing to track observations.
Therefore a better theory might be that human generated CO2 is a minor contributory factor in the changing climate and the sharp increase in temperatures observed in the 1990s was an anomaly for which we should be seeking a different explanation.
Do you agree?
Bruce Cobb says:
September 1, 2013 at 4:26 am
“Has the IPCC ever done science?”
No sir. The IPCC is a political body,agenda driven. They seek and subsidize the “science” that serves the agenda. They have many friends These friends consider themselves the “elite” among us They represent much but not all of”the Political Class”. They are bent on creating a social order that leaves them in charge.
With the rest of us minding our carbon footprints while heating stones in a backyard fire to take to bed for warmth.
In my view, these “Progressives” (read communists) do not care about the Earth. They only strive for power. They lead droves of toady do-gooders who know how to change the climate and they also know what’s best for you and me, for all of us Prols
I highly recommend Donna Laframbois’s book The Delinquent Teenager.
It’s an informative look at that august body, The IPCC.
Tom in Texas says:
September 1, 2013 at 10:01 am
Then it should be released for crowd sourcing. If there is nothing there, it should not be a problem to release it in it’s entirety.
It may not matter too much where the science goes on this. The prescriptions that the warmists have forced on us are proving totally unaffordable anyway. The sad thing is that we will pay for their folly with higher energy prices for a long time:
http://www.thegwpf.org/benny-peiser-europe-pulls-plug-green-future/?NewsWatchCanada.ca
“On 23-26 September, scores of representatives of the world’s Environment Ministries are scheduled to meet in Stockholm to wordsmith the final draft of the Summary for Policymakers”
—
And if there WAS a global warming crisis – the first thing these guys would be doing is cancelling their flights and arranging a conference call.
But where’s the fun in that….
izen says:
September 1, 2013 at 8:46 am
/////////////////////////////////////
Izen
The sartellite data (which spans some 33 years) shows no first order correlation between CO2 and temperature.
It shows that there has been no steady temperature rise, but instead a one off and isolated temperature shift in and around the Super El Nino of 1998. Unless that Super El Nino was in some way caused by the then prevailing CO2 emissions, one is left to conclude that based upon the satellite data Climate Sensitivity is zero or so close to zero that it cannot be measured/observed with the limitations imposed by the sensitivity, resolution and errors of our current best measuring devices.
The advantage of the satellite measurements is that they are not adversely affected by UHI and poor siting issues (although just like all data sets in Climate Science they have some issues of their own).
I think that the point being made is that between 1979 and say about 1996/7 temperature anomalies are essentially flat by Satellite measurement, ie., that there was no warming see http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1996
whereas the land based thermometer record such as Hadcrut4 suggests that there was some warming during this periodhttp://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1996
One possible exoplanation for the difference between these two sets of records is that the land based thermometer record during this period has become polluted due to UHI, poor siting issues, and screen maintenance issues and/or it has become basterdisation due to biases and errors creeping in incidental to station drop outs and countless adjustments/homogenisation the need for which and accuracy thereof being moot..
In other words, it may well be the case that in truth (ie., reality) there was very little (if any) global warming between the late 1970s and 1996/7 and that the impression that there was some warming during this period is due to problems with the land based thermometer record which has resulted in apparent warming which is an illusion not reality.
izen says:
September 1, 2013 at 9:07 am
I hate to bust your bubble, bud, but what you describe ain’t how it werks….
Joel, you write “A bit off topic, but, can somebody tell me whatever happened to methane.”
I dont understand you question, but nations all over the world are using as much methane as they possiby can, subject to normal economics
The corruption of WG1 by WG3 fixers on display!
If natural variation ever dominates, it always dominates.
richard verney;
+1, every word. Well spoke.
izen says:
September 1, 2013 at 9:07 am
“Science works by refutation and providing theories that best explain the observed data.”
Since nature is refuting the AGW theory all by itself, why should anyone outside of proponents get in the way. There is no need to offer alternative theories to the null hypothesis. An explanation by skeptics for the fact it is not warming anymore would only be necessary if we believed the “A” to be a significant factor in the warming. Indeed, it is unfolding correctly (if belatedly) with proponents running around trying to shore up what they, the creators of the theory, have come to realize is a failing theory. Would the UK Met Office be holding pow wows of the committed to explain why their forecasts, even of quarterly weather are so dismally opposite to what actually transpired. Would Trenberth be looking for the missing heat lurking in the deep oceans if there was no missing heat? Or his latest “unpredictable” hotspot that caroms from one continent to the other across the grain of the planets weather (USA today, Australia tomorrow) as patchwork repair of the CAGW theory? No, my friend, the ones you are cheering for are in this panic for a good reason without skeptics’ help. We did our full job dismantling the bad science. Or perhaps there are some facts that you want skeptics to explain – comon’ out with them.
Izen;
If there were no other factors in play then there is no reason to expect any ‘recovery’ from the LIA, the climate should have continued to cool.
Don’t be daft. The world has been both warmer and cooler than the present, long before any human activity could have been a factor. There is no more reason to expect cooling post LIA than there is to expect warming. What we do know is that it has warmed since the LIA, and more or less at the same pace despite dramatically increased levels of CO2 in the last few decades.
The only way it could warm is if more energy is retained by the climate system, and that requires a causal explanation.
There is one very obvious source for this extra energy in the rising CO2. You need to both find an alternative explanation for the source of the energy, AND an explanation for why the energy from CO2 is NOT a factor if you wish to reject AGW theory.
For someone who insists that the physics behind AGW theory is well known, you exhibit a startlingly poor understanding of same. In the brief sentences above, you managed to conflate energy, energy flux, and heat as if they were one and the same thing and called them all “energy”. They are not the same thing at all. Further, the physics which you claim is well known in regard to AGW theory refutes, rather than supports the concept of any catastrophic or even (the new buzz word) dangerous levels of sensitivity.
1. At equilibrium, the amount of energy flux coming into the earth system and exiting the earth system are exactly the same. For a doubling of CO2, the amount of energy coming into the system changes by exactly zero. Hence, at equilibrium, doubling of CO2 changes the outgoing energy flux by…. exactly zero.
2. There is an increase in energy retained in the system as heat stored in CO2 molecules as after doubling there would be twice as many of them storing such energy. At 400 parts per million in an atmosphere that itself has a heat capacity less than 1/1000 of the rest of the system, this is a rounding error at best, too small to even measure.
3. What does changes is the temperature profile from earth surface to TOA (Top of Atmosphere) with the top becoming cooler and the bottom becoming warmer. However, the magnitude of this change is defeated entirely by the very physics you claim are so well known:
a) CO2’s effects are logarithmic. Beyond 400 ppm, the effect diminishes so fast that any additional CO2 at this point is immaterial.
b) Temperature does not have a linear response to increased CO2 which can be measured in w/m2 (watts per meter squared). P(w/m2) varies with T raised to the power of 4. Hence, when we speak of “average” temperature increases, we are glossing over the fact that most of the warming across the globe will be exhibited by increased night time temperatures in cold regimes, and very little by increased day time temperatures in warm regimes. As an example, the 3.7 w/m2 putated increase from CO2 doubling would increase temperature at -40C by 1.3 degrees, but at plus 40C, the increase would be less than 0.6 degrees.
c) Given the well known physics of a) and b) above, the only way for anything dangerous to occur is if feed backs are highly positive, which is the assumption of the IPCC. The physics demands the opposite to be true. Positive feed backs are extremely rare in natural systems. Further, if feed backs were high, the climate would be incredibly unstable due to natural variability alone, and it isn’t.
d) Beyond that, the bulk of the positive feed back assumed by the IPCC is based on increased water vapour. All the data we have to date suggests that the increase in water vapour is absent, the accompanying feedback is absent, and the combined feed backs are in fact negative.
So by all means Izen, let’s bring the actual science back into the discussion. An understanding by the public of the basics would bring down the CAGW meme faster than any other mechanism I can think of. Which is precisely why the alarmists refuse to discuss the physics, and instead wave it away as being settled science.