Fixing the Facts – By Steve McIntyre
Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.
Here is Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft, showing post-AR4 observations outside the envelope of projections from the earlier IPCC assessment reports (see previous discussion here).
Figure 1. Second Order Draft Figure 1.4. Yellow arrows show digitization of cited Figure 10.26 of AR4.
Now here is the replacement graphic in the Approved Draft: this time, observed values are no longer outside the projection envelopes from the earlier reports. IPCC described it as follows:
Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments.
Figure 2. Approved Version Figure 1.4
So how’d the observations move from outside the envelope to insider the envelope? It will take a little time to reconstruct the movements of the pea.
Read more: http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
Does this apply to graphics?
Discrepancy is still there. Looks like they are buying some time by making the disconnect difficult to see for a few more years. The model failures will be impossible to hide in a few more years.
The IPCC spaghetti graph reminds me of that old Bob Marley track.
Jimbo:
At October 1, 2013 at 2:53 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/01/mcintyre-on-ipccs-switching-the-pea-under-the-thimble/#comment-1433256
you quote part of the “Role” of the IPCC and this
then ask you ask
If you had quoted the entire “Role” of the IPCC then you would see that the answer to your question is ‘Yes’. I explain this as follows.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says
So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.
The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “and options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
The change to the graph fulfils that Role.
The IPCC is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
Richard
Looks like MSM is onto this
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16643-top-scientists-slam-and-ridicule-un-ipcc-climate-report
They need to add SM latest assessment
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 1, 2013 at 9:44 am
KR says [emphasis in original]:
October 1, 2013 at 8:34 am
———————————————–
Willis, KR is referring to a post by Tamino who explains why this is necessary. Funny thing is, even with the shift the predictions don’t line up that well. I can’t track Tamino’s post but it would be worth a link (about 2 weeks ago). I’m in northern China with a crappy internet link.
Once again, the IPCC attempts to show global warming by lowering temperatures.
In the first instance, it was lower historical temperatures while leaving current temps where they are.
Second: Reduce all model predictions by 0.15C to show that current temps have risen as predicted.
This is deliberate fraud.
Since when did the climate modellers not know what 1990 temperatures were. Even the IPCC First Assessment Report forecasts were not produced until 1992 so they would have had the 1990 numbers.
Its a scam.
And I don’t know how we argue against 2,000 scientists and 100 million followers and 50 different governments around the world and 90% of the media who are perfectly willing to go along with a scam.
I do know that the media was not happy with the IPCC not addressing the temperature hiatus. If we can get them to start reporting the latest scam, maybe enough people will take notice and let their common sense take over.
In the first graph of this post, fig.1.4 of the 2nd. AR4 draft, what exactly are those wide grey bands supposed to be? They appear to have been dropped in the final AR4 but this is evidence that they were clearly experimenting with the best way to hide the decline.
The chart from Chapter 11 (unadjusted) seems to have got the baseline in 1990 close enough. Why do the predictions from the (low) scenario RCP 4.5 need to be adjusted lower.
http://s11.postimg.org/631eqngcj/IPCC_Chap_11_11_9.jpg
Bill, notice the name Stott on the third chart.
I’m guessing this is the guy who massively adjusted the Australia past temperature records.
One of Phil Jones’ students or something . Been taught the black art of temperature adjustment !
RE:KR says:
October 1, 2013 at 9:37 am
“. . . the observations should therefore be shifted ~0.1C higher in that figure.”
And there ya go, problem solved. It’s like you’re some kind of RealClimatologist. You crack me up.
It doesn’t matter… they can tell endless lies. The media won’t report it, the pols will pound their fists on the document claiming its fact, no investigative reporters will prod for the truth and the big corps will lobby the lies into their advantage. Those of us who live by the truth will be driven mad,
No matter how much you push the envelope, it is still stationery.
“…the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations”. From http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
Good find. If you missed the goal, simply move the goalpost afterwards to where your kick went. An enviable device for any NFL team.
@Mark Hladik –
I’ve been following the comments by readers on Yahoo News’s numerous alarmist stories for some time, and I’d estimate that 95 percent of them are from skeptics – and the alarmies who do comment can usually only resort to ad hominem name calling and insults, ad verecundiam appeals to authority, and citing of “facts” that are so ridiculous as to be laughable (as an example, one mollusk claimed that all the ice has melted on the Arctic Ocean – this in the face of the NASA photographs showing its greatest extent in many years).
It does offer hope that we’re winning the war through the Internet ands having some real success getting around the mainstream media’s (translate: der Fuehrer’s Ministry of Truth, a la Orwell’s 1984) censorship. So many of Yahoo News’s stories betray their ignorance and bias at every turn
you know I just love visiting this site, because it’s one giant own fest on the real climateers. Oh boo hoo, we had to change the baseline period of the graph, and that of course happened to change the graph in our favor. This graph that’s causing all the commotion has been out for months, the real climateers didn’t like how it was being vetted in the media, so they changed the whole thing. I’m no climate scientist, but it is easy to see who is right and who is wrong, when one side just constantly cheats. And the models really are stupid. When you have to factor something like cloud growth and formation, to think that you can predict it 100 years from now is idiotic.
And I believe I can speak for all the skeptics and deniers (I prefer denier…but I always clarify that I am a denier of the 300% positive feedback theory) when I say the skeptics have formed a consensus. We have formed a consensus that your consensus is nuts.
Their credibility is just absolutely shot.
That’s what I keep saying–only its not only them who use the corrupted data–we keep using it too, to make points. I wish we put the nosh on that and all use raw data–or pick some year when it may have made sense to adjust and only use that data and refuse to use the “updated” data. It makes my blood boil every time i see a graph that puts 1934 as slightly cooler than 1998–we all know that is not so. Now tell me why we continue to go along?
Frank, they are impossible to hide now! but like others say the media goes along and few call them out on it.
True true Mad Max.
Indeed. I have always thought they ceded far too much, and had no care for the rhetorical public consequences thereof.
There is NO real world data demonstrating atmospheric CO2 warming the surface.
They have also adopted the standard alarmist ploy of going back to the coldest point in the much adjusted Giss/HadCrud record.
ALL the data is from the upward arm of the natural climate cycle, and ALL has been adjusted to greatly increase the trend.
We are sooooo lucky the satellite record came along, otherwise, by now we would all be roasting (according to Giss/hadCrut)
Cooking the numbers, hiding the decline, falsifying the graphs. IPCC: the International Pushers of Climate Cheating.
Alternatively: The International Providers of Climate Cheats.
Lars,
its “Intergovernmental”
Please don’t leave the role of governments out !
Day by Day said…
“It makes my blood boil every time i see a graph that puts 1934 as slightly cooler than 1998”
SLIGHTLY ? They squashed the begeesus out of it !!
1934 to 1940 no longer exists !!