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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Tom Jones:
At September 17, 2013 at 5:35 am you ask I assume not rhetorically
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
The rebuttal should have a graph showing the raw data versus the “adjusted” and “homogenized” data.
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”.
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.
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?
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.
Better to just scuttle the ship in deep water. VERY deep water.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thomas Beyer says: @ur momisugly 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
OPPS last graph was 21,000 years, Greenland and Antarctica Ice cores
J Martin says: @ur momisugly 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.
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
They just can’t give up ‘hiding the decline’ can they?
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.
Henry Clark says: @ur momisugly 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)
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)
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.