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.
Kev-in Uk
You are so right . Just follow the money. I have said it many times that there would far fewer climate problems and threats if the free money were to suddenly dry up.
herkimer says
This may last for the next 20-30 years as they did from 1880-1910 .
henry says
You are right about the cooling being here, how did you come to this date?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Kev-in UK and herkimer:
The issue you are discussing is much, much more profound than ‘snouts in the trough’. Please read my post addressed to herkimer at September 30, 2013 at 6:14 am: this link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/to-the-ipcc-forget-about-30-years/#comment-1431752
Richard
HENRY P
You said
“You are right about the cooling being here, how did you come to this date?”
I use the the period 1880-1910 for my analysis since that period was the most recent period that had similar long term climate factors as we may have for the next 20-30 years , namely somewhat similar solar cycle phase [ three low solar cycles in a row ], an ocen cycle that was starting a cooling mode from 1880 to 1910 and in sync with the solar cycle [ both in decline mode] and a much colder arctic than normal [see Don Easterbrook garphs] . The cooling of the Arctic part is just starting but I think it will cool much more in the next 20-30 years . Parts of the Canadian Arctic are already showing some cooling the last few years.
richardscourtney: “The ’30 year excuse’ attempts to hide the fact that the AGW-hypothesis is falsified by the halt in global temperature change.”
But what is the AGW-hypothesis? Before you get a bee in your bonnet; Karl Popper had a few ideas on that. A valid hypothesis is one that is:
1) Accepted as scientific by the scientists in the relevant discipline
2) Falsifiable in principle
3) Testable now, or expected to be testable ‘at some point.’
This may be too fuzzy for your taste, but it does require that the thing be at least written down somewhere. Nor is there any need that there be just one. eg. Relativity used to have various frameworks from Newton, Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. But it does require that it is written down. And if there are more than one they require different names to distinguish them, even if it’s just bolting on the name of the fellow responsible for it or cheerleading it the hardest.
I don’t mention these things to pick on you. But if your argument is that ‘it has been falsified’ then your argument relies on both the hypothesis and the test of it. If either of those is improper to the task, then the conclusion doesn’t follow. But that requires that there be a specific hypothesis written down somewhere and attested to as valid by the climate scientists that you are arguing.
But what is it? If it exists and you didn’t provide it, then you haven’t produced a proper argument. If it doesn’t exist at all, or there’s not at least one scientific theory on the point, then there is simply no science. There is simply nothing to refute. And in either case, there is no necessity that AGW is falsifiable. Is it a general field of study or is it a single theoretical framework? It’s only in the latter that ‘AGW is falsified’ makes any sense.
Your burden, in making an argument about the theory, is only to reference the theory. But it is the burden of the climate theorists — whether under AGW or not — to write the theory down in a proper way and have it broadly accepted by their peers as a scientific one. With all that in mind it should be obvious that the cart is put before the horse if it is stated that something that doesn’t exist, isn’t written down, or is simply a general field of inquiry ‘is’ falsified.
Now models represent a hypothesis in their own way. But they need not bear any relation at all to a scientific theory. For example, lots of weather forecasting models include economics as a part of the model. One would hardly state that Federal Reserve policy on loose or tight money is causal to tornadoes. But that doesn’t mean that including Federal Reserve policy produces a model that is not capable at minimal skill in prediction.
But the issue with such forecasting models is that they are, often, purely unfalsifiable. They are not expected to be accurate. In fact, they are expected to get wildly out of joint with respect to reality over time. There whole worth is in how closely they approximate reality in the near term, and the degree in which they get out of whack in the long term.
But arguing that requires no foundation of science. It only requires that the given model has been tested against reality enough to be able to construct the actual error bounds over time. (Rather than any putative and non-empirical expectation.) Such that if it is stated that the model is to be good or used at decadal forecasts, then 10 years on: How off is it? Is it randomly distributed about the actual value or no?
So far as I know the conversation revolves around the skeptic side stating that the forecasting model disproves AGW. (Commonly, not solely.) But that supposes that AGW is a theory rather than a discipline. That there is a single scientific theory regardless. That the model can falsify the theory. And that the model has been run long enough to even get a grasp of its statistical properties in an empirical test.
Also, so far as I know, that last part hasn’t been accomplished. And seemingly the modelers have no intention of accomplishing it. After all, if it were otherwise, we wouldn’t be talking about reality being outside the a priori error bounds of the model. We’d be talking about the error bound established at X years in the future produced by the difference between the model and reality. And from that we can begin to speak of what may or may not be falsified, if anything, and the utility of the model, if anything.
None of which is meant to pick on you are be derogatory in any sense by responding to your post in particular.
richardscourtney says:
September 30, 2013 at 11:34 am
Richard, Sir – with respect, I do agree with your observations – however, the bullet point still remains – many people are feeding from the AGW trough and have wholly invested their careers in the continued promotion of the scam instead of practising science. They are so far in it that they simply cannot back down – whole careers have been built on this frenzied feeding trough. As long as there is a chance, they will fight – and if that means moving the goal posts; they will do that too!. I reckon it will take another 10 to 20 years for the major players to be retiring, with their fat pension funds, and ‘acquired’ Nobel status and after dinner speaking engagements ! Until then, the feeding will continue.
Personally, I’d line ’em all up against a wall……..for the scientific shame alone. As for the grant grabbing lying sh$tface academics masquerading as ‘scientists’ – well – I’d just throw them to the freezing poor people and see how they explain to them why they are freezing in fuel poverty!
Jquip:
I am replying to your long post at September 30, 2013 at 12:15 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/to-the-ipcc-forget-about-30-years/#comment-1432043
I do not intend to get involved in a philosophical discussion in this thread. I write to answer your specific question, viz.
The AGW hypothesis is the idea that anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) emissions of greenhouse gases GHGs) notably CO2 will enhance the radiative greenhouse effect (GE) of the Earth to raise global temperature in a manner which will provide risk of harmful global warming (GW).
This hypothesis is implicit in all IPCC Reports and was the reason for the Kyoto Protocol which attempted to limit emissions of a “basket” of 6 GHGs.
You claim that for the hypothesis to be “valid”
No, it only requires that the hypothesis is understood and agreed, but a formal statement of it is required for its falsification. And that formal statement is provided by the emulation of the AGW hypothesis written as the climate models. Hence, as I said, falsification of the predicted “committed warming” falsifies the AGW hypothesis. Any dispute of this is merely semantics.
Please note that I don’t think you are “picking on me” and I do not know why you suggest I would think that. Perhaps it is because you know I would be very tempted to ‘bite’ the ‘red herring’ of a discussion on the philosophy of science. This thread is NOT the place for a debate about the philosophy of science and I reject the strong temptation to ‘bite’ that ‘red herring’ which would deflect the thread from its subject.
Richard
herkimer saisys
Parts of the Canadian Arctic are already showing some cooling the last few years.
henry says
in fact temps. in Anchorage dropped by as much as 2 degrees C since 2000.
Nobody noticed????
to counter your arguments
a) solar observations of those times are dubious
b) my current observations of drop in maxima show a 90-100 year weather cycle as most probable
I would much appreciate your comment (s) on my final report on this
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/is
@herkimer
sorry
correct link is
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Moreover, 30 years is just about the worst possible timeline to choose when there is a clearly evident 60-ish year cyclic component in the data.
richardscourtney: “This hypothesis is implicit in all IPCC Reports ” versus: “No, it only requires that the hypothesis is understood and agreed, but a formal statement of it is required for its falsification.”
Which is one of my points. To state that the AGW hypothesis is ‘implicit’ is to state that AGW is not a science, whether it is a field of study or a single theory; it’s simply not science. So while you are correct to state that a model is a theory unto itself, that only speaks to the model itself.
“Any dispute of this is merely semantics.”
Well yes, obviously. We’re not quibbling over syntax and spelling errors. But if you’re keen to state that meaning (semantics) are meaningless, then that’s a dive in the Humpty Dumptser I’m not going to participate in. Especially not when your statement is that the ‘implicit scientific theory’ of AGW can be divined from the semantics of the IPCC report.
“Please note that I don’t think you are “picking on me” and I do not know why you suggest I would think that. ”
Just covering my bases as there are a lot of hypersensitive folks involved in this debate. If you’re not one, then kudos, ignore it.
Jquip:
This is my last reply to your twaddle and it is made in response to your post at September 30, 2013 at 1:06 pm.
I suggest you find an Open Thread and go there to discuss your irrelevant hair-splitting with Terry Oldberg and John Whitman. The three of you can then go round and round in circles to your hearts’ content.
But leave this thread alone. Your so-called logic has no place on this thread.
Richard
Author Barry Brill says, “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.”
Thomas Kuhn’s “paradigm shift” is the new basic unit in science. Never mind Popper, stated hypotheses, or falsifiability. Let’s spot the paradigm.
The article continues: “When James Hansen launched the global warming scare in 1988…” The details are conveniently filled in later by armies of experts but the “paradigm shift” is handed down from the “community” of “researchers.” These researchers control and shape what questions are asked, how to interpret data, and which tools are used to gather the data. – That is why so many of NASA’s stated missions include “understanding climate change.” This allows paint-by-number science and calls for progressive policies (the need for these is immediate, action is required now).
Free Gratis, here is an example in agronomy, to see if you can spot the paradigm shift:
Good luck! And don’t expect too much of yourself at first (;
jquip,regardless of models. the hypothesis is widely understood to be,from a laypersons point of view,that increased emissions of co2 from the burning of fossil fuels will create unnatural runaway warming of the atmosphere that will be catastrophic to life on earth.
every single layperson i have spoken to about this issue has roughly the same definition. their,and my definition has been reached as a result of information broadcast and printed through the mainstream media.
argue semantics all you like,the simple fact is the general populace have been misinformed,indeed i believe lied to,in the quest to demonise ordinary people for making their way through life as best as they can.
these same ordinary people are the ones that will decide which policy makers sit in governance the world over. the ordinary australian people have already made their decision. the way the mainstream parties in the uk are running scared of new comers like ukip is an indication they realise the electorate are getting restless .
again ,you can argue the semantics,but richard s courtney is absolutely correct in the statement that the hypothesis is not only well defined,understood AND agreed by a wide cross section of the populace (academics are a very small sector of this populace,fortunately in the case of those promoting cAGW),it is also widely recognised by that populace that the hypothesis appears incorrect,as it has indeed been falsified by several metrics,not least the lack of tropospheric hotspot,no increasing trend in atmospheric water vapour,the halt in warming despite increasing co2 emissions and no increase in severe weather events.
current statements from climate “scientists” ,that the heat has gone into the deep ocean,indeed the deep ocean between 2000 m and 3000 m,and 3000 m and below, are not sceintific,they are pure conjecture,or in laypersons terms,straw clutching.
looking at the examination of the supporting “science” section in the IPCC report,to my uneducated and untrained eye there are several glaring errors. i look forward to seeing those errors highlighted and disseminated on this very blog,after which i forecast many more straws being clutched at from the IPCC.s “scientists”
(apologies in advance to richard s courtney if i have attributed anything beyond the intentions of his previous post to jquip in the fourth paragraph of this post)
bit chilly:
Please be assured that you have no need to apologise to me for anything you said in your post at September 30, 2013 at 2:29 pm . Indeed, if you have managed to halt the side-track into sophistry then I am grateful.
Richard
Climate trends should not be periods less than 60 years as these lengths alway have a cooling and warming cycle within them. Stick by this rule then the AGW rubbish would have never been mentioned in the first place. It should be a period of warming overall over 60 years, for anything that may be different from natural climate. All we are seeing now is this expected 60 year cooling and warming cycle continuing similar to what it has always done.
The alarmists can’t be hypocrites though and suggest something that they didn’t meet in the first place.
bit chilly: “the hypothesis is widely understood to be,from a laypersons point of view …”
And I think that’s an accurate statement about laypeople. But that says nothing about what the scientific hypothesis, or hypotheses are; presuming any exist. Nor does it say anything about what is necessary in stating that an experiment has falsified a scientific hypothesis.
“argue semantics all you like,the simple fact is the general populace have been misinformed …”
It is my personal belief that the populace has been misinformed. And I assert that this has been done by dressing up rhetoric that is none of logical, empirically based, or scientific as science.
And if your statement is that we ‘should’ dispense with any issue of science and logic and produce rhetorical arguments for the sake of the rhetoric itself, then that’s fine. I’m not going to sign onto it in general, or specifically for a discussion about science. But it’s a rather normal course of things in politics and various religious disputes.
If this is not your argument, but you wish to carry your water on the idea that the people have been ‘duped’ by the use of rhetoric that is contrary to science then I would ask you to explain why the preference should be to ‘dupe’ them in the same manner to a different conclusion. Or, as a separate question, duping them into an awareness of science so that scientific conclusion can follow thereafter.
[1] eg. The hypothesis must necessitate an outcome, and the experiment must succeed or fail on the necessitation only. Which says nothing about the illogical notion that a lack of failure demonstrates that the underlying metaphysical model is both complete and inarguably true.
– – – – – – – –
Jquip,
I see richardscourtney(September 30, 2013 at 1:15 pm) has included me in your dialog with him. Thanks richardscourtney.
Out of civility, I had previously hesitated to interrupt your comments directed specifically to richardscourtney and with his subsequent replies specifically to you.
I see you have some interest in the use of AGW ‘theory’ refered to on this thread in discussion of the ’30 year is climate’ topic. It looks like your interest comes from a context of science history & science epistemology versus current climate science.
As you have done, it is important to ask fundamental questions as to what are the clear meaning of the things we consider so highly important to discuss at this venue.
I am responding to your initial inquiry to richardscourtney about what is stated in writing as a AGW theory.
Often skeptics are presented with a series of sequential statements, which when taken together are implied to be the AGW theory.
Here is an example:
A composite of statements often implied as the AGW theory roughly goes like this: a) the Earth-Atmosphere System (EAS) has warmed; b) CO2 gas will produce a ‘greenhouse’ effect in the EAS; c) CO2 from fossil fuel burning has a significant contribution to EAS warming; d) EAS warming will continue in step with fossil fuel burning.
So what do you make of that as a valid theory?
I think it isn ‘t even an argument, much less a theory. : )
John
HENRY P
You have clearly put a lot of thought and analysis into your findings . Far be it for me to find fault in it as I am researching this topic myself and I do not have the total picture either. You are also projecting cooling as opposed to warming which shows that your analysis is taking you in the same direction as mine and that of many other climate researchers.It would help however if you highlighted clearly the key findings or projections that you are making in a summary way in the front or back of your article well highlighted and you could show more clearly the years on your graph. Glad to see that you doing your own number crunching rather than blindly accepting what some biased or politically controlled scientist might say
John Whitman — “Out of civility, I had previously hesitated to interrupt your comments directed specifically to richardscourtney and with his subsequent replies specifically to you.”
No worries, it wasn’t intended to be specific to richardscourtney. Though I seem to have failed to make that distinction properly.
“Often skeptics are presented with a series of sequential statements, which when taken together are implied to be the AGW theory.”
As a general consideration, even purely rhetorical and counterfactual arguments are a series of sequential statements. The interest is a dedicated dissembler is to make as long a chain as possible, with the first mis-step occurring as early as possible. With the hope that argument can be restrained to valid arguments from false and unknown, or unknowable, premises.
Staying strictly within the bounds of your implicit-AGW exemplar. Both c) and d), as presented, rely on the both of a) and b). But a) is largely independent of b). If b) is correct, to whatever degree, then it is not necessary that a) is the case. So the presentation as given isn’t suitable on it’s own.
When the game isn’t going like you want… MOVE THE GOALPOSTS!
The choice of showing 1/1/1977 to 1/1/1987 apears to me as cherrypicked to start at the beginning of a year that was warmer than nearby years, and to end at the end of a year that was cooler than nearby years.
The “natural variability overwhelmed AGW recently” means it is potent enough to do so. Since it is hopelessly implausible to suggest natural variability itself has recently varied upwards, that means natural variability has always been dominant.
In short, if ever, then always.
Jquip.. you sound like a politician , buzz off.
I think you missed the major motivation of the IPCC. By moving the goal posts, they make themselves relevant for 15 more years, allowing them to legally steal our money for 15 more years.