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/
– – – – – – – – – –
That SOD figure 1.4 was abandoned and replaced in the final report with a different figure 1.4. It is unclear to me whether the the final figure 1.4 also has content that is not in the peer reviewed literature.
Is the IPCC being consistent in both draft and final figure wrt including non-peer reviewed content?
John
The IPCC has left itself open to a deadly counterpunch. A (Republican) House committee on the environment could invite critics and supporters of the chart to testify. Witnesses should be asked to remain in town to be available for second and third rounds of questioning, to respond to the testimony of other witnesses. In addition, experts on statistics and chartology should be asked to testify.
This event could decisively turn things around, by authoritatively discrediting the objectivity and trustworthiness of the IPCC, and by enhancing the credibility and newsworthiness of climate contrarians.
In addition, there are thin vertical bars to the right of the old chart that show the range of the spread for each of the ARs. These do not include the gray shaded patch.
Say, someone with chart skills should create a chart that shows only the IPCC’s Business-As-Usual projections. This would be more realistic–and more damning to alarmism. Witnesses at the Congressional hearing (that I suggested above) should present such chart and all other witnesses should be asked to comment on it.
As a necessary (?) prelude to getting this hearing scheduled, our side should start calling for one, organizing, petitioning, demonstrating, publishing a large ad in MSM papers signed by a lot of scientists, etc. Someone with a good talent for summing things up like Monckton should write a first draft of an appeal to congress for an inquiry and post it here.
Warmists have been blinded by the easy ride they’ve had so far and by their own hubris into failing to foresee the trap they’ve laid for themselves.
John Whitman:
You ask at October 2, 2013 at 12:53 am
The IPCC has no reason and no desire to be consistent “wrt including non-peer reviewed content”.
The IPCC only needs to be consistent with the decisions made by politicians when amending and approving the SPM. This is explained with quotations, references and links to official IPCC document in my above post at October 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/01/mcintyre-on-ipccs-switching-the-pea-under-the-thimble/#comment-1433281
However, your posts on other WUWT posts demonstrate that you refuse to accept the reality that the IPCC is a political organisation. You repeatedly proclaim the IPCC is a scientific organisation which has done bad science. So, I will spell out the fact that IPCC Reports are required – and only required – to agree with the political decisions.
When John Houghton was IPCC Chairman. He then decreed,
“We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. So, IPCC custom and practice dictate that the AR5 report will be edited to match the SPM. This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed.
Such adjustment of Reports to agree with the SPM is stated in Appendix A of the AR5. It says
I would be grateful if anybody were able to explain why some people want to think the IPCC is a scientific organisation when the purely political nature of the IPCC is declared by its name, its nature, its governing principles and its official procedures as stated in its own words in its own documents.
Richard
RE: RC Saumarez says:
October 1, 2013 at 9:10 am
“…I can only suggest that every scientist writes to their national academy and points out World policy is being made on the basis of scientific fraud and that they should perform an investigation…”
I agree. Until scientists themselves revolt, there are some policy-makers who think they can lie with impunity.
AndyG55 says: @ur momisugly October 1, 2013 at 7:03 pm
Bill, notice the name Stott on the third chart.
I’m guessing this is the guy who massively adjusted the Australia past temperature records….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Googling Stott turns up this interesting tidbit from The Official blog of Australia’s (AEC registered) NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party (NCTCS)
– – – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Appreciate your comment. Thanks.
When I asked that question about whether the IPCC also used non-peer reviewed literature in the final figure 1.4, I was well aware of Donna Laframboise’s two books on the IPCC ( ‘Dustbin’ and ‘Teenager’ ) which showed, with numerous extensively documented instances, that the IPCC uses a significant amount of literature that is not peer reviewed (grey literature). She importantly then emphasizes their PR often intentionally misleads the public to think that they use only peer reviewed literature in their assessments.
I still would very much appreciate help to get an answer to my question.. I am asking it so I can assess where their ‘puck***’ (‘pea’ in McIntyre’s words) is going to be come January 2014 when AR5 is formally final.
As to the part of your comment (quoted above) I have put in bold emphasis, here is my response. My concepts of the IPCC is as follows in italics. {Note it does not reflect your view of my concepts. Also, another note of thanks to you, richardscourtney, because you have given another fine opportunity to again express my concepts on this subject.}
While one of the necessary causes of the irrational basis of the IPCC behavior is political affiliation, it is not a sufficient cause; there are more fundamental causes that determine their irrational behavior that exist that are worthwhile for me to analyze. I have the concept that a sufficient cause of its irrationalism is the manifold epistemological theories in post modern philosophy that inform all aspects of the IPCC; including but not limited to its ‘scientific’ behavior and processes. Their political behavior is also formed by post modern philosophy as well. Premise detection 101.
As to your appeal for helping you to understand in your concluding paragraph in your comment, I think the books of Donna Laframboise can help you. She proves that what the IPCC and the UN body that founded it actually says and does, in all vital aspects, has little resemblance to what it officially says and does; including what its charter says or what the UN says about their child the IPCC.
John
**** A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be. Wayne Gretzky
John Whitman says: @ur momisugly October 2, 2013 at 6:16 am ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You might be interested in what Pascal Lamy has said by way of recent international political history in Whither Globalization?
Lamy is Director-General of the World Trade Organization and before that “..former European Commissioner for Trade. Lamy is currently the Honorary President of Paris-based think tank Notre Europe….
When Delors became President of the European Commission in 1984, he took Lamy with him to serve as chef de cabinet, which he did until the end of Delors’ term in 1994. During his time there, Lamy became known as the Beast of the Berlaymont, the Gendarme and Exocet due to his habit of ordering civil servants, even Directors-General (head of departments) “precisely what to do – or else.” He was seen as ruling Delor’s office with a “rod of iron”, with no-one able to bypass or manipulate him and those who tried being “banished to one of the less pleasant European postings”” (WIKI)
Since CAGW is intertwined with international politics you need at least a smidgen of understanding of where the international politicians stand.
Approved Draft Fig. 1.4 is a “Hide the Hindcast”. feat of prestidigitation.
I am reading between the lines, but all this talk of the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations leads me to the jaw dropping conclusion that to make the models better fit the 1990-2000 observations, they have dispensed with model fit to 1970-1990 by separate DC shifts applied to each models output.
This is another “hide in plain sight” caper. Instead of erasing one inconvenient temperature decline, IPCC authors minimize the color saturation of all 39 models in the calibration interval. It is now impossible to track any one model through the calibration interval.
Very clever — while the eye is trying to trace out lines in the 1990-2050 with a deliberate obfuscating color map, the eye pays no attention to the training interval prior to 1990. We are meant to focus on the wrong area of the chart. Pure magic. Sleight of hand and line.
We are left to assume that they have been honest with the best fit of each model with the calibration interval of 1970-1990. However, if the fit of models to observations in 1990-2010 improves between SOD and Approved because of “shifted downwards” adjustments, then the fit to the training period must get worse. They are hiding the increase in hindcast error. They are hiding their abandonment of the model calibrations.
It is time to demand the R^2s of Each of the Models to the 1970-1990 observations, before and after the shifts made to create the Approved Draft Fig. 1.4. Each model should be plotted separately with before-shift (SOD) and after-shift (Approved) and watch what happens to fit in the 1970-1990 training interval. There is a smoking gun here — with 39 shell casings.
(This is an expansion of a cross-posting at judithcurry Spinning… model-observation comparison)
– – – – – – – – –
Gail Combs,
Thanks for the reference and I appreciate your comment.
I went through the linked article.
A SERIES OF RELATED QUESTIONS => Do you think, as I do:
1. That a person’s political views (political world view / political philosophy) are either explicitly or implicitly derived from their ethical views (ethical world view / ethical philosophy)?
2. That their ethical views are either explicitly or implicitly derived from both their views on the nature of reality (which includes mankind’s nature) and also their views on the nature of man’s knowing mind? Respectively, those are views related to metaphysics and epistemology in the field of philosophy.
I consider a person’s political views as end products which are derived from those other fundamental views in my above stated hierarchical order.
Therefore the political aspects of the IPCC Bureau’s intellects are not the most fundamental & sufficient causes of their irrational behavior. Their metaphysical and epistemological views are. : ) Likewise, the views of the IPCC Bureau’s intellects on scientific processes and behaviors are a derived from their metaphysical and epistemological views.
So I am looking at the post modern philosophy in total as a candidate for the basis of their irrational ‘scientific’ processes and behavior. NOTE => It could explain the IPCC Bureau intellect’s political views as well, which I think many on this thread are more interested in than I.
John
John Whitman:
At October 2, 2013 at 10:08 am you write.
No! Employees do what they are employed to do.
Civil servants are employed to operate the systems decided by the politicians who employ them. They get sacked by their employers if they allow their own opinions to decide their actions.
The IPCC is a purely political organisation run by politicians for politicians and operated by their employees (both directly and indirectly employed employees). I have repeatedly explained this to you and also in this thread at October 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/01/mcintyre-on-ipccs-switching-the-pea-under-the-thimble/#comment-1433281
But in this and other WUWT threads you persistently ignore reality and pretend the IPCC is a scientific organisation that has somehow gone wrong. Contrary to your propaganda, the IPCC is a purely political organisation which is doing exactly what the politicians have specified it should do.
Richard
@richardscourtney 10:25 am, @John Whitman 10:08 am
You are both right. Employees are paid to do what they are told by their employers. However, an employee could not long serve an employers if the employee’s ethical and epistemological foundations were incompatible with those of the employers.
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but in my opinion they shouldn´t have used HadCRUT4 data since this data set was not available when the models were run.
Stephen Rasey:
Your post at October 2, 2013 at 10:41 am says
I agree the pedantic point you make.
However, if those employees left because they were morally challenged by the activity then other people would take their places. It is a pointless and trivial side-track to discuss what may or may not be “the employee’s ethical and epistemological foundations”. That side-track obfuscates the fact that the employees are fulfilling political and NOT scientific duties.
All that matters is that the IPCC is a political organisation run by politicians for politicians who employ people to fulfill the required functions.
Richard
and
– – – – – – – –
Stephen Rasey & richardscourtney,
Hey, Stephen Rasey, nice to hear from you. Thanks for commenting. And also a pleasure to engage richardscourtney, thanks .
I think we should consider that an organization, whether government owned or privately owned, pays a certain type of person(s) in their organization to be a fully empowered functional owner of a certain part of the organization and to have a kind of intellectually influencing leader of other members of the organization. These line managers or directors or bureau members, call them what you will, are paid specifically to not have a classic employee mentality. They are paid as leadership professionals as owners of an entire self contained area and of its employees.
It is those kinds of people I was talking about in my quote used by richardscourtney. They are paid by the owners of the org to act as owners of parts of the org and their performance is measured that way ; they are the leadership brains or org intellectuals if you will.
Among the many nuanced perks of those kind of people is to influence the org’s process of evaluating / hiring / firing the rest of the org’s personal; they by their choices decide what org values and what supporting org philosophy is predominate.
Also, in the development and interpretation of the org’s plan and in decisions that involve situations that no plan can anticipate, there is much opportunity for significant intellectual type discretion of those roles.
I hope this helps to further an interesting discussion.
NOTE: I was somewhat in one of those types of roles in a Fortune 500 company (I may be wrong, but I think it is the only one of the original Fortune 500 companies to still be on the list today) for a significant part of the 30 years I was paid by them. Most of the customers I dealt with were huge government owned and government operated utilities and institutes and agencies, so am somewhat familiar with management dynamics of public bureaucracies. I could pretty much fundamentally influence the org by who I hired, indeed the company looked for that kind of intellectual ownership in further promoting leaders. It was a blast!
John
PS to richardscourtney => as to your comment about my ‘persistence’, well we are rather identical in that regard. N’est ce pas? : )
PSS to richardscourtney => again remember what the IPCC is supposed to be and what it says it is, per Donna Laframboise’s two books, has little conformity to what it actually is and does. Likewise what other UN bodies say the IPCC is and has the same problem.
John Whitman:
re your post at October 2, 2013 at 12:13 pm.
Yes, I am “persistent” in condemning obscurantist trivia intended to deflect from subjects under discussion.
As I concluded in my post at October 2, 2013 at 11:00 am in reply to Stephen Rasey
I have repeatedly explained that to you with quotations, links, and references to the IPCC’s own documents which explicitly state it. But you repeatedly ignore it and persist in your propaganda claiming the IPCC is a scientific organisation that has – and has made – a few mistakes.
I will persist in refuting your propaganda if you keep promoting it.
Richard
@John Whitman 12:13 pm
These line managers … are paid specifically to not have a classic employee mentality. They are paid as leadership professionals as owners of an entire self contained area and of its employees.
I’ll agree, with the proviso that the owners are concerned with what is most valued on the “balance sheet” and “P&L statements” of the organization.
If it is a retail organization, it is what sells and cost of goods sold.
If it is an engineering firm, it is risk and reward with nature itself keeping everyone honest.
If it is a political organization, it is ‘Yessir, yessir, three bags full, sir!” It is whatever it takes to keep the contract services renewed, to keep the position of power, ultimately decided by another political animal.
I reject the notion of a “classic employee mentality.” The population of employees in any organizaiton is not static. The organization self-filters for employees with ethical and epistimollogical foundations compatible with the owners and filters out those with conflicts.
richardscourtney on October 2, 2013 at 12:51 pm
@John Whitman on October 2, 2013 at 12:13 pm.
Yes, I am “persistent” in condemning obscurantist trivia intended to deflect from subjects under discussion.
As I concluded in my post at October 2, 2013 at 11:00 am in reply to Stephen Rasey
All that matters is that the IPCC is a political organisation run by politicians for politicians who employ people to fulfill the required functions.
I have repeatedly explained that to you with quotations, links, and references to the IPCC’s own documents which explicitly state it. But you repeatedly ignore it and persist in your propaganda claiming the IPCC is a scientific organisation that has – and has made – a few mistakes.
I will persist in refuting your propaganda if you keep promoting it.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Appreciate sincerely your comment development as it often does.
As to your last comment ‘s claim that you are “‘persistent’ in condemning [my-John Whitman’s] obscurantist trivia intended to deflect from subjects under discussion”, I think you should reconsider that claim because you were the very first person on this thread to introduce that very subject in your comment addressed to me (richardscourtney on October 2, 2013 at 3:33 am). I had not previously discussed it on this thread.
Please reconsider your logic. You are introducing a topic addressed to a specific person then after that person engages with you on your initiated topic you claim that person is “deflecting from subjects under discussion” on this thread.
Finally, as to your last comment to me quoted above, please consider that I am personally somewhat hurt by your non-benevolent initiation of pejoratives in response to my sincere and civil comments to you.
John
@urederra October 2, 2013 at 10:46 am
I can’t see a problem in using a newer temperature data set for evaluation purposes if that data set is an improvement for describing the state of the real world and/or the previous version of the data is no longer available. However, choosing a specific data set solely for the purpose of improving your results would be a no-no.
John Whitman:
In your post at October 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm you say to me
That is a lie. You introduced it.
This link jumps to my post at October 2, 2013 at 3:33 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/01/mcintyre-on-ipccs-switching-the-pea-under-the-thimble/#comment-1433671
That post answered your question; i.e.
I there explained
You then tried to switch back to your assertions of the IPCC being a scientific organisation, and you introduced discussion of what you called “metaphysical and epistemological views” of IPCC employees. No way did I or would I introduce such nonsensical and irrelevant trivia.
You are trolling. Stop it.
Richard
Not sure this will post properly but …
These are the multi-model means from IPCC AR5 RCP 4.5 scenario for 2013.
2013 0.744629
2013.083 0.759308
2013.167 0.729889
2013.25 0.697327
2013.333 0.675629
2013.417 0.69928
2013.5 0.707489
2013.583 0.736572
2013.667 0.761047
2013.75 0.812653
2013.833 0.823792
2013.917 0.827026
And the numbers from IPCC AR4.
year Hadcrut4 20C3M commit B1 A1B A2
1990 0.291 0.291 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999
1991 0.253 0.211 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999
1992 0.102 0.055 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999
1993 0.143 0.168 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999
1994 0.203 0.22 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999
1995 0.324 0.253 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999
1996 0.179 0.308 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999
1997 0.392 0.326 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999
1998 0.531 0.347 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999
1999 0.301 0.383 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999 -999.999
2000 0.294 -999.999 0.4 0.424 0.429 0.445
2001 0.437 -999.999 0.43 0.418 0.423 0.455
2002 0.492 -999.999 0.444 0.443 0.461 0.451
2003 0.503 -999.999 0.425 0.481 0.505 0.446
2004 0.445 -999.999 0.445 0.522 0.513 0.494
2005 0.539 -999.999 0.454 0.509 0.528 0.538
2006 0.495 -999.999 0.484 0.512 0.551 0.561
2007 0.483 -999.999 0.498 0.552 0.59 0.562
2008 0.388 -999.999 0.534 0.56 0.624 0.576
2009 0.494 -999.999 0.535 0.548 0.603 0.565
2010 0.547 -999.999 0.519 0.602 0.597 0.612
2011 0.406 -999.999 0.533 0.689 0.628 0.645
2012 0.448 -999.999 0.517 0.678 0.705 0.65
2013 0.468 -999.999 0.486 0.659 0.694 0.649
The problem isn’t that either the prediction is falsified or the prediction is trivial. With that kind of error range, there is nothing inconsistent with the party line. Of course, since nothing can disprove it, nothing proves it either.
So which is it? False, Trivial, or both?
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Here we are again, it is an opportunity for stimulating ideas. Thanks for your comment.
On this thread you introduced us to your political view of the IPCC in a comment to me (richardscourtney on October 2, 2013 at 3:33 am). Prior to that in your comment ‘richardscourtney on October 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm’ you also introduced us to your political view of the IPCC.
Up until your unilateral initiation into this thread of your political view of the IPCC, the thread and McIntyre’s lead post was rather consistently about the content of AR5 and the scientific concepts of the IPCC’s processes and possible philosophy of science basis it has used or will use. Prior to your interjection of political views of the IPCC, the thread had a non-political flavor and focus.
After your initiation of political views on this thread, I responded in an active dialog with you that was critical of your political views of the IPCC by expressing my non-political views of the IPCC . . . now you call me a troll. Nah.
As to your accusation of lying. Nah.
Persistently, I remain benevolently inclined to be civil with you.
John