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.
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)
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When I see the graph with the 1870s on it I always notice:
Feb 1878 0.403
Feb 2013 0.479
Does the IPCC ever explain why it was so warm in 1878?
Thomas Beyer says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:27 pm
Not really, no…
Did you guys see this, the actual inside of the CERN Cloud Chamber Experiment toward the 2/3 of this video?
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.
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.
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.
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.
If they really do use that ridiculous ‘decadal average’ plot they really will be a laughing stock.
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!
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?
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
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 🙂
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.
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.
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.
michaelwiseguy says: September 16, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Interestng video – thank you.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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
Climate Models Fail looks to be a must read for me. Thank you for your efforts Dr Tisdale.
Credits (for animations linked above (September 17, 2013 at 4:25 am)):
1. The ocean significant wave height animation was assembled using Australian Department of Defence images developed from data provided by the GlobWave Project.
2. All other animations have been assembled using JRA-25 Atlas images.
lark says: @ur momisugly 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?