What People Will Read and See with the IPCC’s Lead-Off Illustration from the AR5 SPM

Anthony Watts published an illustration and an excerpt of the draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers due out later this month. See the WUWT post Excerpts from the Leaked Summary for Policy Makers. Included with his post is the IPCC’s Figure SPM.1. See my reduced size copy in Figure 1. Based on the numbering, that’s the first illustration policymakers and the public will see when they open the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers.

That lead-off illustration is obviously one of the IPCC’s focal points. It includes:

  • in the top graph of cell a, annual surface temperature anomalies from 3 suppliers (who all rely on the same source data, so it’s overkill) from 1850 to 2012;
  • in the bottom graph of cell a, decadal surface temperatures from the same suppliers for the same time period; and
  • in cell b, a surface temperature trend map on a Robinson projection, in which the contour levels have been tweaked so that it appears the Earth is ready to burst into flames.

ar5_spm_fig1 reduced

Figure 1

(Original from WUWT post is here.)

The IPCC then goes into a detailed discussion of the warming of global surface temperatures.

BUT

With all of the discussions of the recent hiatus period, this is what the public and policymakers will take away from their discussion:

Blah, blah blah.

And this is what the public and policymakers will concentrate on and understand from Figure SPM.1. (See my Figure 2)

ar5_spm_fig1 cropped

Figure 2

STATUS OF MY BOOK CLIMATE MODELS FAIL

I’ve redone about 40 graphs from scratch and completely rewritten 2 of 10 sections—all at the recommendation of the (non-technical) person doing the proofreading. And I’m more than halfway done incorporating the other recommended changes to the text, which make it much easier to read. (I’m having to tone down the language of the person doing the proofreading—she is becoming more and more critical of climate models being used by the IPCC as she progresses through the book and sees how poorly they simulate sea ice, precipitation and surface temperatures.) All in all, I believe Climate Models Fail will be published and available in pdf and Amazon Kindle formats before the IPCC releases their SPM for AR5.

Advertisements

77 thoughts on “What People Will Read and See with the IPCC’s Lead-Off Illustration from the AR5 SPM

  1. It is clear, once again, for the 10 to the 6th power time, that the CO2 drives warming religion will simply NOT die. This is a gunfight, stop bringing the knives to this shoot out. Somebody with DEEP pockets needs to start buying some national media time to expose the “church of global warming” ! Boy, would I love to win the Mega lotto drawing.. Next step would be to find a national right wing ad agency with some un booked time. After that, identify media that have been the least prone to spreading the lie, and start buying time.

  2. So they have pushed doomsday out 30 – 60 more years. What a bunch of unscientific nonsense. Cherry-picking the future, based on their past batting average of 0.000.
    It is more likely that global temperatures will decline over the next six decades. If so, where do taxpayers go for a refund?

  3. Bob (or anyone else), is there a good reason for why the decadal boxes are compacted post 1970?
    This gives the impression that something exceptional is going on for that period, though inspection of the line series shows the prior rise during the century’s first half is roughly on par.

  4. Aah the old – Lets wait a bit longer to see if it happens because in 60 years I will be long dead so no one can prove me wrong – meme. When will they roll over and admit that their pet theory is nothing but collective wishing for something to happen?

  5. Steve in seattle says “time to bring .”..agreed . I would love to see a temp chart from the lowest to highest temps. These one degree charts are misleading,

  6. Failed prophets always move the doomsday’s due date.
    The rent seeking climate clowns are a predictable shallow obvious group.

  7. The cooling from the 1940s through the early 1970s was far more than what they show, even globally. And, for the Northern Hemisphere, actual temperature history over the past century was like a double peak with recent years unimpressive, as implied by original thermometer readings like those in a 1976 National Geographic issue (illustrated about half-way down in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg ).
    Of course, anyway, media spin is what matters more for public perception than the IPCC report’s details, like Doran & Zimmerman 2009’s “97% consensus” 2-question trick poll reporting was successful since, as they presumably knew, not 1 in 100 people (doubtful if even 1 in 1000 amongst the total public) would actually look up and read the paper anyway, as opposed to just a media report of it.
    The media loves to drop out numbers except when particularly desired, so I bet a common spin will be like “perhaps a brief hiatus before global warming returns with a vengeance,” often giving no numbers for the length of the former and giving more specific doom predictions for the usual 2050-2100 A.D. years (set to be after the authors have retired and are forgotten about).

  8. They want what ? 60 More years to build their hypothesis ? Your time is up, SS CAGW, please return to port.

  9. I would like to see some commentary on those temperature series, comparing them to others, and to the unadjusted numbers. Clearly, this decade was not dramatically warmer then the 1930s. We all know that, so these series must have some fun number fiddling.
    The second thing I noticed was the scale. This is the first time I have seen a -0.6°C – +0.6°C scale. This is the smallest scale I have seen yet. Of course, using this small scale makes everything so much worse. While it looks very dramatic, it is what, 0.7°C warming total over 100 years? Not quite the 4° they keep ranting about.
    Thirdly, we are talking about 0.7°C when we have all seen from Anthony’s Surface Station project that these station’s sighting likely make them off by degrees. The likely error is well in excess of the claimed warming.

  10. The trick in communicating climate science is to frame it. Not to presenting the data in an objective way. So how do they hide the recent period of no global warming? They trick the viewers, which are politicians, business people and journalist by hiding the recent none warming period, Tehy do this by showing the previous rising points as straight lines giving these straight lines the same length as the last period. This is hilarious.
    They most have hired creative psychologists to come up with this inventive way to present data.

  11. Small random observation to add, something I just noticed:
    Their plot shows cooling in the North Atlantic over 1901-2012 (probably since too much to eliminate). IIRC, the North Atlantic is where there has been a much hyped substantial increase in storms, which alarmists love to cherry-pick and misleadingly present as if representative of the rest of the world (while, in reality, hurricanes have gone down over recent decades in many other places). That fits cooling increasing the temperature gradient relative to the equator, driving extra convection and extra storms. As usual, it is cooling, not warming, which tends to increase mid-latitude storms more.

  12. This report whilst it will be published in 2013, is in fact going to be judged in 2015 when the next climate conference takes place. It will be then that the battlegrounds and negotiations will take place.
    So much will depend on how the next two years pan out. Will the temperature hiatus continue? Will global temperatures begin to show a slight fall? Will there be an ENSO event that will push up temperatures (but with warmists will align with AGW)? Will Arctic ice show even more of a recovery? Will the Northern Hemisphere continue to experience cold winters, and will these put a strain on energy demands? ETC.
    Of course 2 years is not that long, but in 2015 we may be coming close to 20 years without warming (may be even longer with some data sets especially if temperatures begin to fall slightly) and one can envisage that there will be further papers between now and 2015 discussing climate sensitivity and these new papers (assuming that the temperature hiatus continues) are likely to suggest a lowering of climate sensitivity.
    I foresee quite some difficulties for the 2015 conference, not least that China in Rio stated that it was going to do nothing before 2020, and because it is likely that the economic woes of the developed world will not have been cured by the time of that conference so the developed world will not be flush with cash to give away.
    Time (and it would also appear nature) is not on the IPCC’ s side and we have probably already withnessed peak climate alarmism.

  13. Streetcred,
    Our engines are dead and we are taking on water. Unable to comply with request to return to port.

  14. Face it. We are in a marketing war. Scientists generally do not make good salesmen. It is an entirely different mindset. Charlatans make good salesmen, because they can infuse belief into their own self interest.

  15. One degree charts are absurd, but that’s not all … the sea mostly shows up the same as the land.
    Suspending disbelief, I zoom in to my corner of the planet (west Pacific Ocean). Willing to accept that average temperature at my nearest station has gone up 1 degree since 1953. It is at the airport. Surrounding population has increased 5 fold, every few minutes a jet aircraft instead of the occasional propeller rig. Thing is, the above image has the ocean, out to about 1800 km east, showing the same temperature. RSS indicates that the Pacific hasn’t warmed for 20 years, and 70% of the airflow to the measuring station comes from this direction.
    This is now the fifth time this scam has been presented? Why not I suppose – the scam that keeps on paying out.

  16. I was carrying-out a water control test in the power station I was commissioning, I had a graph up that I had zoomed in on so I could better see what was happening, a clients engineer came by and asked for a print out, my boss came in later and said the client was not happy and the control needed working on and a new test, I said wait a moment, I clicked on the graph zoomed out elongated the time scale, printed it out and handed it to my boss.
    My boss came back to me a couple of days later, and said okay the client has agreed that it is fine now, we had a chuckle together, the exact same data but a different presentation.

  17. Sadly, they will just keep keepin-on till the very end. Everyone loves that feel-good save the world mantra.That is until the cost of this folly finally impacts the average Joe. And it finally is.
    Even more sad is the fact that the general populace will turn on the warmists, not because of their fraudulent science, but because they don’t like the feel of another hand in their pocket.

  18. Even ignoring the required manipulation of recorded temperatures: they still had to remove the first 50 years in Cell B to get the required scary red colours. They show the trend between 1901 to 2012. In Cell A, the dates were between 1850 to 2012.

  19. Others have mentioned this, but the weakest point in AR5 is the 95% certainty.
    Everyone should keep asking, “What did you measure to get that number?”
    Of course, they didn’t measure anything. The number is fabricated (aka a lie) by unknown persons.
    I feel this is an easy concept to get across to people without a science background.

  20. From the chart: “HIATUS COULD LAST FOR 3 TO 6 SIX MORE DECADES”
    It will, even longer, the rise and pause we see and say is a hiatus is purely from adjustments to the temperature records. Why do you belive they are ever going to return? Seriously. Think they (“climate scientists” and agencies) are going to start making adjustments in the opposite direction bringing them back to where they began? Raise back the century old records? Lower back down more recent records… dream on! The temperature record has no reason to ever return.

  21. I beg to disagree, whst most politicians and policy makers (and media) will see is confirmation that global warming is going ahead full steam. Thay will focus on the cell b figure and assume it’s going to keep on rising,the details and hiatus only become apparent if you bother to go in to the material in more depth. There’s a very good reason the IPCC have chosen decadel average. It’s all about presentation.

  22. So natural climate cycles – the real cause of most of the modest amount of global warming witnessed over the past 150 years – remain the IPCC’s Number 1 heresy.
    Unfortunately, the type of spin shown in these charts will be swallowed hook, line and sinker by the goofy and the gullible.

  23. This is no longer anything to do with science or climate or economics or even with the skills of the propagandist, it is now all about jobs and funding. These poor sods are fighting for their lives and their families. If AGW were to fail to frighten people, funds would dry up and the CVs of all these researchers would be in tatters. “So you wasted ten years after graduation, researching climate change on a computer all for nothing but a PhD in what? Climate change – you’re joking! Now you come looking for a real job – well you fail. I would not trust your judgement to give me the correct time of day”.
    As the AGW bubble bursts, as the man on the top of the Clapham omnibus realises that he has been milked to pay into a scam, like his forefathers paid into the South Seas Bubble, mention of AGW will elicit FURY. So how do you doctor your CV to prevent anyone discovering that you were one of the alarmists? Your silly papers are on record. Your mentors have departed to give lectures on how they always had doubts about AGW and now these have been verified. So where does it leave you – highly qualified in a discredited discipline? Talk about unintended consequences!

  24. I have a PhD and Thirty years environmental science experience. It took me approximately 2 minutes to see through that graph. Unfortunately I think for many it will not be clear. Is that deliberate?

  25. Paul
    They wont be a laughing stock as those reading it will take the graphs at face value.(and probably WANT to)
    What is interesting is that the Northern Hemisphere has been warming since around 1700 so Hadley/Giss are merely staging posts and not the starting posts of the warming.
    I’ve never seen any research on the reasons for this, or perhaps we should just be grateful and unsurprised that its slightly warmer now than during the little ice age.
    tonyb

  26. I suggest that the Surface Temperature datasets exhibit a significant warming bias and should not be used as-is for rational discussions of global warming.
    In the USA, it appears that the warmest years in the modern data record occurred in the 1930’s. This may be true globally as well. Hadcrut3 probably has a warming bias of about 0.2C since ~1980 and this warming bias may extend back several more decades.
    Global temperatures have bounced up a bit since these posts were made in 2009.
    Regards, Allan
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/05/fear-and-loathing-for-california/#comment-82359
    Hi Ric,
    Please look at the first graph at:
    http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
    This graph suggests there has been no net global warming since 1940, despite an ~800% increase in humanmade CO2 emissions.
    I used Hadcrut3 ST from 1940 (despite of its warming bias), and UAH LT thereafter.
    This is the result when one plots the FULL PDO cycle, instead of attempting to extrapolate the WARMING HALF-CYCLE, as many warmists do.
    I suggest it is no more valid to extrapolate temperatures since ~1980 rising into the future, than it is to extrapolate temperatures falling into the future since 1998. These practises simply extrapolate one segment of a natural cyclical parameter, and are unlikely to have any long-term validity.
    What do you think?
    Regards, Allan
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/05/fear-and-loathing-for-california/#comment-82453
    John Philip (04:22:04) :
    Allan said:
    This graph suggests there has been no net global warming since 1940, despite an ~800% increase in humanmade CO2 emissions.
    I used Hadcrut3 ST from 1940 (despite of its warming bias), and UAH LT thereafter. What do you think?
    JP says: I think you have spliced together two anomaly time series with different baselines [UAH is the anomaly from 1979-1999, Hadley from 1961 – 1990], and therefore drawing any conclusions drawn from the graph is as valid as comparing the heights of two people when one of them is standing on a box.
    Allan says: You are wrong JP. The different anomaly baselines don’t matter here, since there is no net warming from ~1940 to ~1980 in the Hadcrut3 Surface Temperature (ST), and no net warming in the UAH Lower Troposphere (LT) temperature from ~1980 to present.
    My statement that there has been no net global warming since 1940 is even more likely to be correct, since the ST data has been demonstrated to have a significant warming bias (~0.2C since ~1980, and probably another ~0.2C for the previous 40 years). Therefore, it is probable there has been minor global cooling since 1940, but this is well within the range of data uncertainty (as is the entire AGW hypothesis).
    To demonstrate warming, your side chooses to extrapolate the warming half of the last climate cycle (since ~1976). I choose to show the entire cycle, since ~1940, and it shows NO NET GLOBAL WARMING SINCE ~1940.
    The need to splice datasets is justified in this case since there are no satellite temperatures before 1979, and the ST datasets have many quality problems including poor spatial coverage and the aforementioned warming bias.
    In general, I do share your concerns about data splicing.
    There was, for example, no valid reason for Mann to splice together 2 datasets (dendro temperatures and ST’s ) in his famous 1998 “hockey stick” paper. Perhaps he spliced in the ST data to avoid the “Divergence Problem” (a DOWNWARD-SLOPING hockey stick blade), which would have shown global COOLING since the 1970’s. Google “Divergence Problem” for more info.
    Another more recent example with Mann as co-author was Steig’s hypo (unlikely to be true, imo) about western Antarctic warming – where some of the evidence of warming was provided by erroneously splicing together ST datasets from two distant locations “Harry” and “Gill” and representing it all as “Harry”. Harry is located far inland, while Gill is on the coast. The jury is still out on whether this datasplice significantly affected the results, but it was certainly an error. See wattsupwiththat or http://www.ClimateAudit.org for updates on the “Harry met Gill” saga.
    JP – if you wanted to make a valid point about the dangers of datasplicing, why didn’t you just use these two fine examples of Mann-made global warming?
    Regards, Allan 🙂

  27. They wont be a laughing stock as those reading it will take the graphs at face value.(and probably WANT to)
    Even before Australia ditches Kytoto, countries with 85% of global CO2 usage have decided they want nothing to do with fossil fuel usage limits.
    The only purpose of these yearly climate meetings is to keep a whole bunch of society busy with something meaningless … who if they weren’t attending these meetings would be in some camp somewhere trying to stop something they have no idea what it really is except someone told them it was “bad”.
    Likewise the IPCC … put all the nutters in one place, let waste years formulating the one massive report and that way you only have one report to ignore every few years.

  28. Per Strandberg (@LittleIceAge) (September 16, 2013 at 8:45 pm) wrote:
    “The trick in communicating climate science is to frame it. Not to presenting the data in an objective way. So how do they hide the recent period of no global warming? They trick the viewers, which are politicians, business people and journalist by hiding the recent none warming period, Tehy do this by showing the previous rising points as straight lines giving these straight lines the same length as the last period. This is hilarious.
    They most have hired creative psychologists to come up with this inventive way to present data.”

    On the upside, the graph brings clarity — it clarifies exactly what kind of people we’re dealing with.

  29. climatereason (September 17, 2013 at 2:17 am) wrote:
    “[…] the Northern Hemisphere has been warming since around 1700
    […] I’ve never seen any research on the reasons for this”

    It’s downright creepy Tony.
    Each day it sinks in more deeply exactly how dark are the agents running this show.

  30. If it bleeds, it leads. Clearly this is not a science document, but a propaganda piece.
    Still what this does is make it easy for skeptics to debunk alarmists. And that is like poking a hornet’s nest. Look for more calls for the mass extermination of doubting Thomas’.

  31. Can anyone do similar charts for 1900 – 1940 ? I’m pretty sure that both the pre-1940 and current ones would look pretty much the same.

  32. 3 questions for policymakers:
    1. What is depicted in these animations?
    a) http://imageshack.us/a/img850/876/f0z.gif
    b) http://imageshack.us/a/img109/1479/lq2.gif
    c) http://imageshack.us/a/img856/1999/01u6.gif
    2. How is it affected by the solar cycle?
    3. How has ENSO interfered with awareness of this?
    I would neither be looking for an argument nor expecting good answers. Rather, the aim would be to simply provide policy makers with an opportunity to establish with crystal clarity (literally in the form of mathematically rigorous proof) that they are dark agents of ignorance &/or deception.

  33. Just over a year ago a group of sceptics contributed to a discussion from which we drew up what must be the only authoritative statement of our views. It will be interesting to see how far (if at all) the IPCC have moved toward our views!
    The Sceptic View (May 2012)
    Full document
    * Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has been increasing. In 1960 it was 0.032% of the atmosphere, today it is 0.039%.
    * There has very probably been warming of average global temperatures in the last 150 years.
    * There is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The best scientific estimate of this effect (for doubling CO2) is about 1C warming.
    * People think there are mechanisms that could increase warming further than the direct effect of CO2. This is not supported by the evidence.
    * Current estimates of about 0.8 C temperature rise in the past 150 years are very likely too high. There is compelling evidence of malpractice, urban heating and poor instruments & siting. A figure of 0.5-0.6C warming appears more likely.
    * Man-made sources have increased global levels of CO2, however scientific analysis shows part of the increase is natural and no one is certain how much or little of this rise is man-made.
    * Water in the atmosphere is far more important than CO2 in determining global temperature.
    * The harmful effects of warming have been exaggerated as shown e.g. by the absence of substantial evidence for increasing weather extremes.
    * Known benefits have been hidden. It is estimated there are more than 20,000 extra winter deaths each year in the UK and increasing fuel costs will make this worse. CO2 is essential for plant growth and increasing levels are beneficial to plants.
    * Even under the worst case scenario warming, when the usual method of comparing the cost and benefit of policy is used, it is more cost effective to deal with any problems that occur than to pay to try to stop them.
    * Climate proxies are not reliable. If we consider all the evidence including historical records, the evidence suggests the world was warmer during the “medieval warm period” as well as being cooler during the “little ice age”.
    * Climate varies naturally. Most of the CO2 rise occurred in the latter half of the 20th century. If this change were man-made the global temperature change for the early and latter 20th century should be very different. They are not. This suggests a natural cause for much of the 20th century warming.
    * In 2001 the IPCC stated with a high degree of confidence that global temperature would warm. It has not. In science a theory is not valid unless the data supports it. Climate scientists must accept this theory is not validated and acknowledge that the IPCC confidence in warming was greatly overstated.
    * We condemn the many instances of malpractice seen in climate science and those who condone them.

  34. “I’m having to tone down the language of the person doing the proofreading—she is becoming more and more critical of climate models being used by the IPCC as she progresses through the book and sees how poorly they simulate sea ice, precipitation and surface temperatures.”
    I have to laugh. My mother was a proofreader. As such she was always the first (and often one of very few) who would *carefully* read a MS. She loved the work, she said, because she *always* ended up learning something important, even if it was something about the author rather than the content.

  35. Cynical Scientst says:
    September 16, 2013 at 8:22 pm
    Amazing how much colder the 1930′s and 40′s have gotten over the last couple of decades.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    Oh yes.
    Jo Nova’s comparison of three GISS (Hansen) Global temperature charts (1980, 1987, 2007) shows the results of the artistic adjustments used to supply the ‘Data’ showing temperatures are increasing instead of cyclical.link That these adjustments are bogus Is shown in the Köppen climate classification system a” widely used, vegetation-based empirical climate classification system developed by German botanist-climatologist Wladimir Köppen. His aim was to devise formulas that would define climatic boundaries in such a way as to correspond to those of the vegetation zones (biomes) that were being mapped for the first time during his lifetime.”
    Here are the boundary movements by decade of the US Midwest. MAP

  36. lark says: @ September 16, 2013 at 8:29 pm
    The cooling from the 1940s through the early 1970s was far more than what they show, even globally….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Lark, why am I getting a pop-up saying SAVE THE ENVIORNMENT USE WIND ENERGY on your site?

  37. So the IPCC are still clinging to the try and scare the politicians into knee-jerk anti co2 measures business as usual theme.
    They are gambling against any cooling happening. If we do get cooling and it is enough to be obvious to everyone including the politicians and the MSM, then it would seem that the IPCC in not allowing for this possibility have left themselves no exit strategy. Cool.

  38. Bob
    You are correct about the length past pauses. I too noted these
    No net warming 1880-1930 [an extended 50 years net pauses]
    Warming 1930-1945 [warming for 15 years]
    No net warming 1945 -1980[another 35 year extended pause]
    Warming 1980-2000 [warming for 20 years]
    No net warming 2000-2010
    So in a period of 130 years there was only warming for about 35 years or 27% of the time . Yet IPCC is saying 15 years is typical that they say is normal

  39. And the meaning of decadal averaging is ..? The generally accepted dogma of forcing balance produces a net thermal forcing instantaneously. Yet averaging over ten calendar years is supposed to demonstrate something. Why not the running average over the last 39 years of every third year? The physics underlying that is just as clearcut as a decadal average.

  40. Brilliant! 30 to 60 years for doomsday to start again. That’s way too far out for anybody to verify and when the experts are wrong, few of them will still be around and most of the public won’t remember. It gives them plenty of time to sell their snake oil to us and when the predicted catastrophe doesn’t happen, they can claim it’s because we didn’t wait until it was too late.

  41. Tom Jones:
    At September 17, 2013 at 5:35 am you ask I assume not rhetorically

    And the meaning of decadal averaging is ..? The generally accepted dogma of forcing balance produces a net thermal forcing instantaneously. Yet averaging over ten calendar years is supposed to demonstrate something. Why not the running average over the last 39 years of every third year? The physics underlying that is just as clearcut as a decadal average.

    I answer.
    The unaltered data set shows the pause.
    The decadal averaged data does not show the pause.
    Any data can be processed to show – or not show – whatever the processor wants to show.
    Graphs are presented of both the unaltered data and the decadal averaged data. Associated text can refer to either and can emphasise either, but any objection to inclusion of either can be negated by mention that the other was included.
    The “physics underlying” each graph is not relevant. The IPCC is the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change. Governments are comprised of politicians , and politicians use scientific information and scientists as tools for their political actions. If the “physics underlying” political information is useful then they will mention it, and if it is not politically useful then they will ignore it.
    Richard

  42. The rebuttal should have a graph showing the raw data versus the “adjusted” and “homogenized” data.

  43. Even with all the Hansenising to the past centuries worth of data, all you have to do is extend the decadal graph back to the MWP (Lamb graph accepted by the IPCC in ~1990 as the best estimate of global temperatures for the past 1000+ yrs ) and the whole scare goes away, the temperature “roar” turns into a “meow”.

  44. Bob
    Your comment that the hiatuscould last for 3 to 6 more decades . This is also apparent in one of your previous graphshttp://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-72.png
    I see many similarities between 1880-1910 and 2000 -2030. Both the ocean cycles and solar cycles have just peaked and could be heading for a trough in 30 -35 years like 1880-1910.. So hiatus could easily extend to 3 decades.

  45. I posted the IPCC mission statement on another forum stating that the IPCC was doing exactly what they said they would.
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
    And now I’m labeled as part of a conspiracy by implying they would do what they said would do. I suppose common sense went out the window for alarmists?

  46. Actually Hansen was quite smart and got out early
    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/
    I think you will shortly *(within 6 months at most) see Mann, Jones etc resigning or getting “retired”. This time the IPCC report will not “make it”. It’s too late… too many people, governments, organizations are coping on to the scam. I think many of the believers/investors in AGW will actually be very angry that they were conned so badly and will be the most vociferous against those scientists and organizations and media pushing the AGW BS.

  47. Streetcred says:
    September 16, 2013 at 8:37 pm
    They want what ? 60 More years to build their hypothesis ? Your time is up, SS CAGW, please return to port.

    Better to just scuttle the ship in deep water. VERY deep water.

  48. Here’s how to instantly undermine the psychological impact of the decadal chart. Someone here with charting skills should add a short-length block to the chart that shows the 3.5 years from 2010 thru June 2013. It will be below the block from 2000 thru 2009, indicating the warm has turned.
    This block should be extended every six months to keep the follow-on chart up to date.

  49. They can’t find the modeled tropospheric hot-spot with both hands. Kevin Trenberth scratches around to find a bit of ocean where his missing heat might be plummeting down a hole…
    …Yet they present us with a graph detailing what they knew sea-surface temperatures were over much of the Southern Oceans in 1901?!
    For a bit of historical perspective, the first confirmed landing in Antarctica was only 6 years prior that.
    Boy, they sure got those satellites up there more quickly than I realized.

  50. Gail Combs says:
    September 17, 2013 at 4:58 am
    Thanks for the link to Jo Nova’s comparison of the graphs. The IPCC graph reproduced above is an outright lie. There are no legitimate reasons for someone to claim that the 1930s were cooler than recent decades.

  51. Cynical Scientst says:
    September 16, 2013 at 8:22 pm
    “Amazing how much colder the 1930′s and 40′s have gotten over the last couple of decades.”
    This was the first thing I noticed! The 1915-1945 warming trend just keeps getting cooler and cooler over time, amazing! The 1880-1915 cooling period appears to have been adjusted as well.

  52. The data are meaningless without error bars. And, the error bars for everything preceding 1900 are so huge that the data there are meaningless. Take away that part of the graph, and there is nothing of any significance beyond a slow general trend, superimposed with an approximately 60 year cyclicality, to see. All natural. Indeed, the steady repeating pattern since 1900 argues against humans having had any influence at all.

  53. Bill Marsh says: “Climate Models Fail looks to be a must read for me. Thank you for your efforts Dr Tisdale.”
    Thanks for the kind words, but, FYI, there’s no Dr before my name.
    Regards

  54. Thomas Beyer says: @ September 16, 2013 at 8:27 pm
    so, is it getting colder or warmer ?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    Compared to what?
    We are about 8C warmer than the Wisconsin Ice Age.
    We are about 2-3C cooler than the Holocene Optimum.
    We are about ~1C warmer than the Little Ice Age….. As long as temperatures are cyclical, and they are you can say what ever you want and prove it!
    Greenland Ice Core last 10,000 years 21,000 years, Greenland and Antarctica Ice cores

  55. J Martin says: @ September 17, 2013 at 5:22 am
    ….They are gambling against any cooling happening. If we do get cooling and it is enough to be obvious to everyone including the politicians and the MSM, then it would seem that the IPCC in not allowing for this possibility have left themselves no exit strategy. Cool.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    YES!
    So let’s pray (I am an agnostic) that the next two years have the most snowy cold and downright miserable winters and cool summers imaginable.
    Mother Nature seems to be in a cooperative mood. We had a minimum temperature of 35F (1.6C) here in mid NC and the leaves are starting to turn north of us in Raleigh-Durham area.

  56. they make those graphs give the appearance of a HUGE swing in temperature, when reality is their scale covers 1.2 degrees C……..from the bottom to the very top is only a 1.2 increase……on a 1000 year graph those would show a FLAT line……..and the graphs are based on an anomaly which assumes there is a normal temperature that we are deviating from which is simply FALSE

  57. climatereason says:
    September 17, 2013 at 2:17 am
    What is interesting is that the Northern Hemisphere has been warming since around 1700 so Hadley/Giss are merely staging posts and not the starting posts of the warming. I’ve never seen any research on the reasons for this, or perhaps we should just be grateful and unsurprised that its slightly warmer now than during the little ice age.
    Actually it has been studied and explained but just in a CAGW-movement-inconvenient underreported manner which many take extreme care to avoid conveying. See http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg — including, about 60% of the way down, the Kirkby illustration for the LIA period. And there are more research papers beyond those mentioned there, such as http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N25/C1.php for instance.

  58. Henry Clark says: @ September 17, 2013 at 8:50 pm
    And there are more research papers beyond those mentioned there, such as http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N25/C1.php for instance.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The actual paper is ON A COMBINED INFLUENCE OF LONG-TERM SOLAR ACTIVITY VARIATIONS AND GEOMAGNETIC DIPOLE CHANGES ON CLIMATE CHANGE
    Dergachev, V.A., Dmitriev, P.B., Raspopov, O.M. and Jungner, H. 2006. (Russia)

    Abstract. The influence of variations in galactic cosmic rays (GCR) on climate change has been analyzed for the time intervals of thousands and tens of thousands of years. It has been shown that in the last millennium quasi-two-hundred-year variations in the GCR intensity (variations in the cosmogenic 14C isotope concentration in dated tree rings) modulated by solar cyclicity (the ~210-year cycle) correlated well with climate change (temperature and precipitation variations). The correlation coefficient between variations in GCR and climate parameters for different regions of the Earth has been found to range from 0.58 to 0.95. Analysis of variability in the concentration of the cosmogenic 10Be isotope (that also reflects the GCR flux variability) in Greenland ice for the time interval from 20,000 to 50,000 years ago has revealed that the 10Be concentration is modulated by the quasi-two-hundred-year solar cycle. Comparison of variations in the cosmogenic 10Be isotope concentration with changes in the magnitude of the virtual axial dipole moment (VADM) of the geomagnetic field has shown that the envelope of the 10Be concentration amplitude correlates well with the VADM variations. Thus, it can be concluded that long-term solar activity and geomagnetic dipole variations exert a combined influence on the GCR fluxes that enter the Earth’s atmosphere and affect the climate. A decrease in the geomagnetic dipole leads to an enhancement of the total GCR flux on the one hand and an increase in the depth of modulation of the GCR fluxes caused by solar activity variability on the other hand.
    Introduction
    The problem of the influence of variable cosmic ray fluxes on atmospheric processes and meteorological and climatic parameters has been intensely studied in recent years….
    The goal of our paper is to consider a combined effect of long-term variations in solar activity and changes in the geomagnetic dipole on climate….
    Conclusions
    Experimental data and simulation have shown that changes in the geomagnetic dipole magnitude and long-term variations in solar activity exert a combined effect on climate change and, hence, confirm the idea of the influence of cosmic ray fluxes on climate change.
    The work was supported by the Presidium of RAS (Program “Environmental Change and Climate”), Presidium of St.-Petersburg Science Centre of RAS and Russian Foundation for Basic Research…

    Somehow I do not think the Russians are going to be very impressed with the IPCC report since ‘Warming’ is the least of their worries.
    (Thanks for the pointer)

  59. Gail Combs:
    Indeed — and, for this, placing that in the context of what would thus be expected from the large, up to tens of percent, change in cosmic ray flux from the LIA to the 20th century estimated in Be-10 and C-14 reconstructions (such as in the earlier-referenced Kirkby plot).
    Incidentally:
    Something I was noticing recently is how, although solar activity has been weak recently by the standards of modern times, actually the average this year (2013 up to now) for neutron (cosmic ray) count is only 0.9% different than the average since 1964, so far still not remotely near Grand Minimum / LIA levels:
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=1&startmonth=01&startyear=2013&starttime=00%3A00&endday=19&endmonth=9&endyear=2013&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
    = 6202.71 average count rate
    versus
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=1&startmonth=01&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=19&endmonth=9&endyear=2013&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
    = 6144.8 average count rate
    Naturally that is since we are currently still in this solar cycle 24’s maximum, a weak maximum but a maximum nonetheless. The significance, though, is how future years might see a prolonged period of a number of times greater difference in cosmic ray flux from 20th century levels than experienced now, than experienced yet. Whether or not somewhat near-future solar activity will return to near Maunder Minimum levels or not seems hard to know but appears a possibility.
    So, to use an old saying, possibly “we haven’t seen nothing yet.”
    Of course, you already know the general picture (as I know, having seen you post before excellent and extensive reference collections). I just wanted to highlight that specific figure since I found it of interest.

  60. (In the preceding, “since 1964” is a somewhat arbitrary example for comparison, with 1964-onwards in particular chosen since the convenient oulu.fi online calculator has its data start then, but the point is presumably apparent).

  61. The takeaway from this single graphic is irrelevant. The big question is whether people can compel responsible leadership from the ruling class. The assumption that ecological reality will suffer irresponsible financial growth has to die for humanity to survive.

Comments are closed.