IPCC has never waited for 30-year trends, and they were right.
Guest essay by Barry Brill
Under pressure at a media conference following release of its Summary for Policymakers, AR5 WG1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker is reported to have said that “climate trends should not be considered for periods less than 30 years”.
Some have seen this as the beginning of an IPCC ploy to continue ignoring the 16-year-old temperature standstill for many years into the future. But even the IPCC must know that any such red herring is dead in the water:
1. When James Hansen launched the global warming scare in 1988, there had been no statistically significant warming over the previous 30 years and the warming trend during 1977-87 was 0.0°C. The IPCC was also established that year.
Source: Woodfortrees plot
2. At the time of the first IPCC report in 1991 (FAR), the warming trend was barely 11 years old.
Source: Woodfortrees plot
3. Most significantly, the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 adopted the UNFCCC treaty on the basis of a 30-year cooling trend followed by only 12 years of warming. That treaty dogmatically redefined “climate change” as being anthropogenic and eventually committed over 190 countries to combat “dangerous” warming.
4. The latest WG1 report bases its assessment of sea level rise and ocean heat content on the trend in satellite readings which have been available for only 19 years, coupled with ARGO reports for a period less than a decade. There is no apology for the short periods.
5. In 2007, the AR4 made much of the fact that the warming trend over the previous 15 years exceeded 0.2°C/decade. In 2013, the AR5 plays down the fact that there is no significant warming at all during the previous 15 years. (But AR5 cites 0.05°C/decade without mentioning that this figure is ±0.14°C).
6. If the IPCC wants to focus on 30-year trends, why did it make no comment on the fact that the current 30-year trend has fallen to 0.174°C/decade from the 0.182°C/decade trend that was the (1992-2006) backdrop to the AR4? Particularly, as the intervening 6-year period has been characterised by record increases in CO2 emissions.
7. Dr Stocker’s criticism of short-term trends as being influenced by start and end dates, ignores that long-term trends are similar. He picked a 60-year period (1951-2010) to produce a 0.12°C/decade trend, when a 70-year or 80-year period would have shown a much-reduced trend of 0.07°C.
8. WG1 scientists found it appropriate to include a statement in the AR5 SPM that
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
3 months later, this crucial sentence was disappeared by a secret conclave of politicians/bureaucrats – not by scientists.
9. Dr Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), told journalist David Rose that his question about the standstill was “ill-posed”. The WMO issues manuals on best practice for climatology and regards itself as the premier authority on measuring temperature trends. Here is what its manual WMO GUIDE TO CLIMATOLOGICAL PRACTICES (3RD EDTN) has to say about 30-year periods:
Chapter 4.8.1 Period of calculation“A number of studies have found that 30 years is not generally the optimal averaging period for normals used for prediction. The optimal period for temperatures is often substantially shorter than 30 years, but the optimal period for precipitation is often subtantially greater than 30 years.”And (at page 102):“The optimal length of record for predictive use of normals varies with element, geography, and secular trend. In general, the most recent 5‑ to 10‑year period of record has as much predictive value as a 30‑year record.”
Prior to release of the SPM, Bloomberg reported that some countries (notably Germany) wanted to wholly ignore the temperature standstill and pretend that the 20-year-old paradigm was still intact.
Few expected that would happen, predicting a sharply-reduced best estimate of sensitivity and rueful acknowledgment that natural factors had been under-estimated. The fact that days of debate culminated in this absurd canard about 30-year trends is a powerful indicator of just how desperate the climate establishment has now become.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
T o wait 30 years to be told an historical fact is ony of use to the historians . The science that can look at much shorter trends and make projections for the near term environment is what really matters . Would you wait 30 years before you are told that the market has gone down before you take action
Reminds me of the expression “don’t bother me with the facts”. It is amazing how all the hysteria is based on the warming during the 1980’s and a projection that rate would continue until doomsday. I find it unfortunate that most of the media is still buying the IPCC garbage as gospel. I saw that on the Weather Channel yesterday. Only Fox gets it right here in the US.
herkimer:
Sorry, but you completely fail to understand the existing situation when you make your post at September 30, 2013 at 5:59 am which says in total
The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then – and I have repeatedly said since – that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.
The ’30-year-excuse’ is provided by bureaucrats to ‘buy time’ which keeps the defenestrated chicken running while they rush to establish the bureaucracies before the ‘chicken’ falls over and stops moving.
Richard
AR4 says: “The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000”.
The earth’s albedo changes with the clouds from minute to minute, hour to hour and day to day. Their whole church is based on a constant albedo, but a quick look into the sky confirms that indeed clouds do form, dissipate and move about.
They fail by assigning a constant value to a dynamic variable: The albedo.
Their pseudo science has no answer to this, and neither have their activists. It’s a very basic, simple and devastating fault right in there at the core belief.
herkimer says:
September 30, 2013 at 5:59 am
From your post – it seems you are prepared to bet/accept policy on short term trends, yes? In that case, perhaps you can clear this with the alarmist crowd as a sensible approach because – lo and behold, we are in a flat/cool period, and fairly likely to cool further. Bingo ! – you have convinced me that AGW is definitely deceased and all the carbon environmental crapola is just that !
I’m late to this thread but I am hoping someone will see this and respond. Various time periods for the “no warming” trend have been put forth…… 10 year, 15 years, 17 years. Why is there no agreement on the length of the period?? Can someone explain ? Anybody……
“climate trends should not be considered for periods less than 30 years”.
===============
In that case, that would be the entire satellite record….
…and there has been no warming for the majority of the satellite record
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/no-warming-for-the-majority-of-the-satellite-era/
Sorry but you need to understand that the ‘time scale ‘ is itself a function of what the result does for ‘the cause ‘. Therefore, there is no ‘time scale ‘ requirement for that which supports ‘the cause ‘ while the time scale requirement for that which challenges it is 0 to infinite.
So not only can they do this, they already do, the massive hypocrisy this involves them in means nothing to them. For after all their ‘saving the planet ‘
They aren’t just moving the goal posts, they’ve broken out the camo paint.
David in Michigan:
At September 30, 2013 at 6:30 am you ask
I answer:
It is because there are several data sets which attempt to determine global temperature using different methods so they differ, and they each provide a different time from now since when there has been no discernible trend (at 95% confidence) in global temperature.
This cessation of discernible (at 95% confidence) in global temperature change is the halt (often misleadingly called the “pause” or the “hiatus”). The different estimates of global temperature provide different indications of when the halt initiated which are all in the range of 17 years to 22 years.
So, either it is accepted that
(a) the halt to changing global temperature started at least 17 years ago and has yet to end
or
(b) it is not possible to determine global temperature change with useful confidence.
Either possibility indicates there is no valid reason for the scare concerning anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW)..
Richard
– – – – – – –
Barry Brill,
Your essay is a source of excellent intellectual ideas. Thanks for your work.
If the bold part of your above quoted paragraph (the last paragraph of your essay) is a conclusion by you, then I do not see how it necessarily follows from your essay.
I offer a different conclusion that perhaps is closer to necessarily following from you excellent essay. I offer as an alternate conclusion the following.
CONCLUSION proposed by JW:
The IPCC Bureau is proclaiming its explicit irrationality, finally, and displaying it as a requirement for exclusive membership in its post-modern based ideology.
John
“AR5 cites 0.05°C/decade (warming) without mentioning that this figure is ±0.14°C”…
This illustrates yet again why Climastrologists should never, ever be referred to as scientists. Real scientists understand that measurements that fall within the uncertainty (or variation) of the measuring device are meaningless. “Real Climastrologists” are simply be alarmists with Ph.Ds.
If there is a 56 or 58 or 60 year natural cycle, as some see in the records, then a policy of 30 years would be maximally foolish.
I agree. They will keep pushing because this thing has become to big to fail, but what else can we do? This is a behemoth that is being chipped away at bit by bit. The consensus if cracking, the media are now asking better questions etc. But I agree that even if we went into 15 years of cooling they would not surrender. A paper would be rushed out to say that 30 years of no temperature increases are not unusual, forgetting our co2 was supposed have driven surface temps higher.
What will stop this, as you say, is voter backlash against high energy bills.
If you are a climate scientist reading this: please think about your future reputations. Dr. Judith Curry will come out of this relatively unscathed as she saw the light just in time.
PS What did Dr. Gavin Schmidt say about the period of time that would elapse for him to reconsider AGW?
Kev -in-UK
You said
“lo and behold, we are in a flat/cool period, and fairly likely to cool further. Bingo ! – you have convinced me that AGW is definitely deceased and all the carbon environmental crapola is just that !”
You are right on!
Three major long term climate forcing factors like the sun , the oceans and the Arctic are all pointing to global cooling and are already into their cool cycle mode , so IPCC may very well be toast as Judith Curry so well stated . Looks like it will take some very cold winters to make the rest of the world to see it as well. These cold winters are just around the corner starting in this decade.This may last for the next 20-30 years as they did from 1880-1910 .
if indeed the effect of C02 is logarithmic shouldn’t we be about done with any athropogenic contribution to the warming anyway? Clearly natural forces are in control.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
– – – – – – –
herkimer,
If your screen name is associated with your location, then I might be within 50 miles of you.
: )
John
herkimer says:
September 30, 2013 at 7:37 am
My apologies – I misread your initial post to take it you had an alarmist stance! (at least it seemed that way to me!)
richardscourtney says:
September 30, 2013 at 5:21 am
I have repeatedly said the need now is to mobilise people with real expertise in political activity (e.g. Lords Lawson and Monckton, Senator Inhoffe, ex-President Klaus, etc.).
Mr. Courtney
Peter Lilley is well known moderate sceptic, active member of the UK Parliament, currently on the Energy and Climate Change Committee, hence well position to make an impact on the government climate policy.
This inconsistency in the requirement for long trends, and in particular the short trend before James Hansen’s 1988 Congressional testimony, has been pointed out before at numerous times and places. Have main stream media and popular science publications ever taken note?
vukcevic:
At September 30, 2013 at 9:01 am you say to me
Yes, and other AGW-sceptic politicians exist in several countries. They need our help, support and encouragement.
Importantly, and as I tried to say, people with political experience need to be mobilised to publicise the truth about the IPCC, its nature, Role and lack of veracity. We have won on the science, and now we need to stop the political agenda for which ‘science’ was always merely a front.
Richard
John Whitman
We may be neighbours . I live in Southern Ontario, Burlington.
Kev-in UK
I accept your apology. The point that I was trying to make is that one does not have to wait 30 years to see a different developing trend already happening like the last 16 years and take what ever action[ or no action ], if any, as neccessray . In addition the next 30 years may have very little to do with the factors that affected the weather in the past 30 years , so relying only on the trend of a past 30 year period becomes meaningless if the factors causing the trend are changing significantly. It is like predicting fall or winter based on the trend of the summer, it does not work.. With the IPCC forecast , they are trending their 100 year prediction based on trend of a cyclic pattern that was just in the warm mode, yet totalling ignoring that long range factors that cause global cooling have already started with our 16 year pause and the past 30 years is no indication of the future. So what is the sense of waiting for 30 years to get old weather data .
herkimer says:
September 30, 2013 at 11:11 am
”So what is the sense of waiting for 30 years to get old weather data .”
Oh, that’s easy – it’s because ‘waiting’ for the data enables a sh$tload of extra snaffling at the AGW feeding trough!