Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
I just updated my December 2012 IPCC “Arrows” animation based on the latest available IPCC AR5 (2013) Global Warming prediction for 2035. One good result is that the midpoint of the AR5 prediction range for 2035 is LOWER than the corresponding predictions for three out of the four previous Assessment Reports. Only the Second Assessment Report (SAR – 1995) has a midpoint lower than the AR5 2035 midpoint. The First (FAR – 1990), Third (TAR – 2001) and Fourth (AR4 – 2007) have midpoints for 2035 that are higher than the midpoint for the AR5 prediction! Thus, with AR5, the IPCC has, at least to some extent, “seen the light” and backed down a bit on their predictions of future warming.
On the other hand, the SLOPE of the AR5 prediction is about as steep as the slope of the FAR and AR4 predictions, and even steeper than the SAR and TAR. The reason for this fixation on very steep Global Warming increases is that ALL IPCC models are firmly wedded to ECS estimates at least twice (and possibly three times) as high as they should be. (ECS “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity” is how much temperatures are expected to increase due to a doubling of Atmospheric CO2.)
The animation:
(click image to start animation)
(A non-animated blow-up of the central portion of the above.) 
It appears the IPCC has learned very little from the abject failure of any of their previous Assessment Reports to comport with the actual temperature record that shows no appreciable warming for 17 years. Without a doubt, IPCC analysis methodology and computer models continue to be seriously flawed. They have way over-estimated the extent of Global Warming since the IPCC first started issuing Assessment Reports in 1990. When actual observations over a period of more than two decades, during which CO2 levels have continued their rapid rise, substantially contradict predictions based on a given climate theory, that theory must be greatly modified or completely discarded.
The Base graphic in the above animation is from the middle panel of TFE.3, Figure 1 (page TS-96) of the IPCC “WORKING GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT, CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS, Final Draft Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment. A report accepted by Working Group I of the IPCC but not approved in detail”, available here.
My animation consists of four frames: 1) Base graphic, 2) Black circles that indicate the official Temperature Anomalies (w.r.t. 1961-1990) for the years the FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4, and AR5 were issued. 3) Arrows from the temperature anomaly circles to the midpoints of IPCC predictions for 2035, and, finally, 4) my guess for 2035, which is no NET change from 2013.
IPCC PREDICTIONS FOR 2013 TEND TO BE HIGH
The non-animated graphic illustrates the failures of previous IPCC Assessment Reports. Look above the “AR5 2013” black circle that indicates the current temperature anomaly and you will see that the arrows all pass well above that circle, with the sole exception of the SAR arrow, which is pretty close, but still a bit high.
RATIONALE FOR MY “GUESS” THAT “NO NET CHANGE” WILL PROVE TO BE CLOSER TO THE TRUTH THAN ANY IPCC PREDICTION
I call my projection a “guess” because, as a non-expert on matters of climate, I do not pretend to really know what the future holds. I only wish the IPCC and their allied “Warmists” and “Alarmists” were as modest about their lack of real knowledge about the distant future.
My “guess” is based on four factors:
1) IPCC ECS estimates are two or three times too high. I believe the true ECS is closer to 1°C than the 2°C to 3°C claimed by the official climate Team. If I am correct about the true value of ECS, and if as expected CO2 levels continue their rapid rise (largely due to human activities such as unprecedented burning of fossil fuels), we will continue to experience substantially less human-caused Global Warming than calculated by the IPCC models. Given the stabilization of global temperatures for 17 years, in the face of the continuous rise in CO2 levels, it seems impossible that the claim that CO2 is the MAJOR cause of warming could be true.
2) Daytime clouds, thunderstorms and related natural phenomena have net cooling effects. The way these phenomena are modeled by the IPCC models is basically wrong. I subscribe to the Thermostat Hypothesis put forth in 2009 by Willis Eschenbach that these phenomena counteract some of the warming effects of greenhouse gasses. For example, thunderstorms tend to cool the Surface, daytime clouds increase the albedo (reflectiveness) of the Earth system, and, therefore, when thunderstorms and daytime clouds occur earlier in the day, or there are more of them, that regulates Surface warming to some extent.
3) We seem to be entering a downturn in the multi-decadal cycle of warming and cooling. There has been a general warming trend as the Earth recovers from the “Little Ice Age” which lasted from about 1350 to 1850. An approximately 60-year cycle of warming and cooling seems to be superimposed on that general warming trend and we appear to be near the beginning of a downward trend in that cycle, likely to continue for several decades.
4) The current Sunspot cycle is quite weak and may signal the start of a new cooling period similar to the Dalton Minimum. Cycle #24 has peaked at 67 in the summer of 2013, which is considerably lower than the previous cycle #23 that was nearly twice as strong and peaked in 2001. The Dalton Minimum, from about 1790 to 1830, had a series of low-peaking cycles which coincided with a period of cooling of about 1°C. If Sunspot cycles #25 and #26 are also weak, we may have entered a multi-decadal cooling period. According to Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory, changes in Solar activity that we observe as a series of stronger or weaker Sunspot cycles has an effect on cosmic rays which, in turn, has an effect on cloud formation. The net result is that weaker Sunspot cycles increase cloudiness, which, in turn, increases the albedo (reflectiveness) of the Earth system, which has a cooling effect. Thus, a series of weak Sunspot cycles could bring us some serious cooling that will counteract any Global Warming due to continued CO2 increases.
(NOTE: Back in 2006 NASA predicted that Cycle #24 would be stronger than #23 and would peak at 156 to 180! Then, in 2008 they reduced their prediction to 137 and in 2009 they reduced it further to 104, which would make #24 a bit weaker than #23. At that time, on my personal Blog before I became a Guest Contributor to WUWT, I predicted #24 would peak at 80. See my 2010 WUWT posting that recounts NASA’s Sunspot roller coaster!)
CONCLUSIONS
I’m optimistic about the future! Unlike some of the Alarmists and Warmists who actually hope for a climate catastrophe to justify their decades of shrill Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) warnings, I’d prefer a future without such problems. Indeed, I hope that the cooling trends listed above do not result in excessive cooling which would be far more dangerous than the moderate warming we have experienced over the past century.
Ira Glickstein
PS: For the record, the caption for the applicable part of the IPCC figure I used as the base graphic for my animation is:
TFE.3, Figure 1: …(middle: left) Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961-1990 (in °C) since 1950 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are harmonized to start form the same value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature anomaly, relative to 1961–1990, from three datasets is shown as squares (NASA (dark blue), NOAA (warm mustard), and the UK Hadley Centre (bright green) data sets. The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2035 for models used in FAR (Figure 6.11), SAR (Figure 19 in the TS of IPCC 1996), TAR (full range of TAR, Figure 9.13(b)). TAR results are based on the simple climate model analyses presented in this assessment and not on the individual full three-dimensional climate model simulations. For the AR4 results are presented as single model runs of the CMIP3 ensemble for the historical period from 1950-2000 (light grey lines) and for three scenarios (A2, A1B and B1) from 2001-2035. For the three SRES scenarios the bars show the CMIP3 ensemble mean and the likely range given by -40 % to +60% of the mean as assessed in Meehl et al. (2007). The publication years of the assessment reports are shown. (middle; right) Projections of annual mean global mean surface air temperature (GMST) for 1950–2035 (anomalies relative to 1961–1990) under different RCPs from CMIP5 models (light grey and coloured lines, one ensemble member per model), and observational estimates the same as the middle left panel. The grey shaded region shows the indicative likely range for annual mean GMST during the period 2016–2035 for all RCPs (see Figure TS.14 for more details). The grey bar shows this same indicative likely range for the year 2035. …
Terry Oldberg says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Blah blah blah… please go to the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .
Thanks for the laugh, Terry! In attempting to pwn the author in logic, you have demonstrated your own equivocation fallacy by calling your post a “peer-reviewed article”.
Bill Illis
. I agree with you. It is difficult to accept an ECS over 1 when every 60-70 years one sees a 30 year pause driven by ocean cycles as below . I tend to think that by 2100 the global temperature anomaly will still be below 1C as there is a possibilty that there will be two pauses of about 30 years before that date.
Graph is courtesy of Bob Tisdale and WUWT web pages
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-72.png
Terry Oldberg says: October 10, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Mario Lento says: October 10, 2013 at 10:16 pm
Mario is correct IMHO. Whether you call it a “prediction” or a “projection” or a “prophesy” or a “guess”, and whether or not it is justified in a strict scientific sense, and even if it does not come true in the end, it is still a foretelling of something in the future. And, if against all odds and reason, it comes true, the author of the prediction can rightly claim credit.
I read the link in Terry Oldberg’s comment and it seems to me he is engaging in a form of sophistry (Plausible but fallacious argumentation or a plausible but misleading or fallacious argument that leads the cross-discussion nowhere).
richardscourtney says: October 11, 2013 at 1:24 am
THANKS for the kind words richardcourtney!
In the past, I have engaged in useful cross-discussion with Terry Oldberg who, if I recall correctly, is a disbeliever in any form of warming due to CO2. Although he may never change his mind, I think these kinds of cross-discussions may convince some readers that so-called “greenhouse gases” are responsible for the Earth Surface being warmer than it would be otherwise and that therefore we humans are responsible for some small part of the moderate warming of the past century. Some of those on the other side confuse we Skeptics with the Disbelievers and I think it is important to make the distinction. For most of us here, our argument with the Warmists is not about the fact of the effect of greenhouse gases, or the role of human-caused Atmospheric CO2, but about the amount of warming we have caused and whether or not it has been harmful. We Skeptics tend to think human-caused warming is responsible for a fraction of the total warming and that it poses no real danger to life and civilization on Earth.
Ira Glickstein
izen says: October 11, 2013 at 2:48 am
THANKS for your comment. I will reply to each point in turn:
Ira replies:I’m not sure what you mean by “paleoclimate” but let us assume you are talking about the ice core data. The ice core data shows that temperatures INCREASE hundreds of years PRIOR to CO2 level increases. That is, temperatures start to INCREASE when CO2 levels are LOW. The ice core data also shows that temperatures DECREASE hundreds of years prior to CO2 level decreases. That is, temperatures start to DECREASE when CO2 levels are HIGH.
If the true ECS is as high as the official climate Team claims it is, how can we explain the ice core data? Furthermore, as everybody agrees, CO2 levels have continued their merry climb over the past 17 years, and, at the same time, there has been no appreciable warming. How can we explain that except by low ECS? It seems clear that NATURAL phenomena are counteracting the “greenhouse” warming due to increasing CO2. The IPCC models did not predict the stabilization in global temperatures over the past 17 years because their ECS values are so high that they overcome NATURAL phenomena.
Ira replies:OK, others figured out the truth before our dear Willis. But it is still true, and I thank WIllis for pointing it out to me and others here at WUWT. Please provide more information on Lindzen and the iris hypothesis. I respect Lindzen and would like more info on how the iris hypothesis contradicts the net negative feedback of daytime clouds and thunderstorms.
Ira replies: The LIA ended well before humans were capable of burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels. Therefore, at least the initial hundred years of gradual warming we have seen since the LIA must have been due to NATURAL causes.
Ira replies:Please read up about Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory. It DOES NOT have anything to do with the relatively small energy change in Solar output over the course of a Sunspot cycle. It has to do with the effect of cosmic rays from Space causing the formation of clouds. According to Svensmark’s theory, as I understand it, a series of low Sunspot cycles is indicative of a reduction in Solar magnetic activity. Apparently, this Solar magnetic activity is responsible for deflecting cosmic rays away from our Atmosphere. When this Solar activity reduces, more cosmic rays strike the Atmosphere and create more clouds.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
Ira Glickstein
In Scotland a poor marksman may well be defined as unable to hit a barn-door. The IPPC prior to AR5 had clearly demonstrated that unfortunate trait.
Thanks to the new assessment this venerable body can now hit the target. Not that their shooting has improved however but because they’ve made the barn-door much, much larger!
If AR4 was memorable for GlacierGate then surely its successor will become famous for BarnDoorGate.
As Curry notes, “all the models run hot”. I’d be very interested to see the ECS plug used in the ones at the lower fringes of the spagetti graph.
The sad thing is the IPCC continues to issue reports that hide the decline in evidence that’s even slightly alarming behind vague pronouncements from authority designed to allow the alarmists to quote the purposely vague IPCC reports in order to justify more and more ridiculous policy decisions and erect more and more layers of bureaucracy while deriding those skeptical of global catastrophe. The poor people of the world suffer under the bureaucracy boot heel and most of the people of the world are at least inconvenienced by bureaucratic nonsense (but at least get the benefit of a world that is slightly warmer than it otherwise would be). Alarmist foot soldiers like Lewandowsky and Cook still get away with and applauded for slandering those skeptical of global catastrophe even as the IPCC produces reports that don’t implicitly endorse catastrophism but remains vague enough not to implicitly endorse reason. Just like Ehrlich they’ll be spewing their nonsense for years to come without ever being held to account for why nothing they say is actually True.
How did that soapbox get in here and why am I standing on it?
Then you would be perpetuating the CAGW scam. Why would you want to do that?
[Amatør1: Catastrophic CAGW is a scam, but AGW is a fact. Since the Industrial Age got into high gear, human activities, including unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and land use that reduces the Earth’s Albedo, have indeed been responsible for some small part of the measured warming. It may only be 0.2°C to 0.3°C (out of the 0.5°C to 0.8°C total warming since 1880), but that small part is due to human activities. The key Skeptic argument is that the amount of human-caused warming is small, that the danger is negligible and that human activities that result in moderate warming and increased Atmospheric CO2 may turn out to be net beneficial. Ira]
Dr. Glickstein: Nice graphical representation of the -AR prediction/prognostication/whatever. The explanation also works well.
Thanks Ira.
I would like to propose my own definition.
Each computer model is a projection. When you group them into a mean you create a prediction. I believe Gavin puts a high value on a model mean.
PS – Thank you Ira Glickstein
izen says:
October 11, 2013 at 8:22 am
“…There is certainly no evidence that the MWP was globally synchronous, or that these ‘cycles’ are any more regular in period and magnitude than the ENSO fluctuations that are inherently unpredictable but thermodynamically neutral.”
+++++++++
Hold on… This statement requires a comment. Are you saying ENSO fluctuations cancel each other out –and that there is no evidence? Some here would beg to differ.
Ira Glickstein,
Your article helps see where the pea (McIntyre’s phrase) is going to be in AR5, thanks.
When I saw McIntyre’s original post on comparing AR5 SOD figure 1.4 to the final figure 1.4, the SAR’s prediction range and centering seemed very incongruously small/low compared to that of the FAR and TAR and subsequent ARs.
Are you aware if there is any backstory about why SAR predictions were like that?
It is as if there was some coordinating lead author revolt for less alarmism or something that yielded the SAR lower range and centering. . . just wondering.
John
Glad to see you back Ira. We have to keep exposing and dismantling the “AGENDA”. I have a prediction that is not a projection: The IPCC will be folding its tent after this issue. They have iterated the same stuff five times and, like their steep curves in the face of even stoppage of warming for ~17 years (after only 17 years of warming that has caused all this fuss and expense), they are going to stall out. Even some of the notable CAGW proponents lined up at the gravy boat have started to see IPCC’s uselessness.
http://junkscience.com/2013/09/04/warmist-kevin-trenberth-ipcc-has-outgrown-its-usefulness/
It begs the question: useful how? Maybe Trenberth is really saying “It was a good run while it lasted.”
Hi Ira. Haven’t seen you here for a while. Hope you’ll forgive me for placing some ‘rock n roll (the eyes)’ into your thread but whenever I see IPCC temp chart for the umpteenth time I have to stop and let off some steam, relax, before taking a more serious and restrained view of what they have done to it this time. Really appreciate those animated views you created. I’m sure that took some real time.
Just to give you a totally different tack to consider, I’ll break ranks. You might not take this seriously or preposterous but random data does in fact do so to a high degree if random.
Years ago and related to the markets, what?, the data on the world can compare to markets. Well yes, to a degree. It is said that the public in general always assumes the wrong assumptions following the then accepted recently formed consensus that the sharp uptrend is going to continue on, look at what it hasbeen doing, and they are the ones nearly always buying at a top. I’m sure you have heard of that saying.
I spend over a year studying random data, or better forced random bounded data and how it ‘acts’, and if our world’s averaged global temperature (not a real temperature) is just that, unknownst to most, forced random bounded data it might lead to some surprises. I’m betting that Al Gore since he is so deeply embedded into markets and Wall Street may very well have known it was the opportune time to release his book and movie, always thinking timing. The signatures are all there and if our world’s climate system is in fact not dictated by the some 0.0000016 (~0.4%) human fraction yearly increase in the 0.0004 fraction level of carbon dioxide they may have very well done just that, bought in at the top. By that meaning the public bought the IPCC script, naturally, at the top. This characteristic is well known to some who study it.
Only more time will tell but don’t be surprised by some small false upticks that just end up dropping to even lower levels than before, that is perfectly normal in such data types and to a great degree that is what past temperature graphs look like… forced random bounded data. Such patterns are very recognizable and always repeat at all time scales, though rarely some are false reads and that is natural, remember it is still random based, like from a chaotic system and no set rules are strictly followed.
wayne says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:17 pm
“Only more time will tell but don’t be surprised by some small false upticks that just end up dropping to even lower levels than before”
Interesting idea wayne, only I suspect the false uptick will be in the form of Hadcrut 5, sure to be in the works.
Gary Pearse says:
October 12, 2013 at 6:21 am
Interesting idea wayne, only I suspect the false uptick will be in the form of Hadcrut 5, sure to be in the works.
Ahhh…, those kind of “forcings”. 😉
Yes, I’ve seen what is happening there too. In a comment to Dr. Spencer, Joe Bastardi explained why he thought we would see temps not too far down the line back at the 1978 level and had to comment back and disagree with him –because of the unnatural adjustments made to the temperature records as they are now reported–. Sad state of affairs.
Gary Pearse and wayne:
Thanks for your kind words.
I agree that the IPCC has lost much of its credibility, but I do not think well-funded, politically embedded organizations are likely to fade away quite as fast as we’d like. Unlike commercial corporations that depend on profit for survival, non-profit-dependent entities can go on way past their just expiration dates.
That said, I am sorry that I have to differ with some of what Gary Pearce and wayne wrote on technical, scientific and philosophical grounds.
TEMPERATURE RECORD: I am encouraged that technological advances, such as the satellite-based mean global temperature records, have kept the official climate Team from “cooking” the data as much as some of us believed they did in the past. They have, IMHO, cooled down much of the pre-1970’s thermometer record and cooked up some of the post 1970’s data, which has (again IMHO) added a data bias of several tenths of a degree to the supposed warming since the 1880’s. But, with the advent of worldwide satellite data, they are limited in how much they can distort the recent past and the future with what you call “false upticks”.
SCIENTIFIC: Sorry wayne, but I do believe that the increase in Atmospheric CO2 from about 270 to the present 400 ppmv has had a measureable effect on mean global warming since 1880 of at least 0.1°C and perhaps as much as 0.3°C, and that most of that increase is due to human activities, primarily unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and land use that has decreased the Earth’s Albedo. The poorly named “greenhouse” effect is real and although CO2 only amounts to 400 parts per million, and other “greenhouse” gases such as water vapor contribute more to the warming, human-caused warming is also real.
The two key Skeptic arguments are:
(1) The human contribution to warming has been over-estimated (by the official Climate Team) by a factor of at least two and possibly three, and,
(2) The resultant moderate rise in global temperatures and CO2 levels are not at all dangerous and may turn out to have net beneficial effects.
PHILOSOPHICAL: I Googled “forced random bounded data” and found nothing that I understood. I’d be pleased if you (wayne) would enlighten me.
However, on the issue of “random”, on a philosophical basis I happen to be a strict determinist (along with Spinoza and Einstein). I do not believe there is any such thing as “random”. Random is merely a word we use when we are confronted with a complex system where we lack complete details about the input and output data and the processes and are therefore forced to use statistical methods.
There is nothing wrong with using statistics because most real-world systems, such as financial markets, weather, and, most of all, Climate, are just too complex and have too many inputs and outputs for us to understand them well enough to use deterministic methods. So, I along with everyone else, use statistical analysis.
Ira Glickstein
Ira says:
“…I do believe that the increase in Atmospheric CO2 from about 270 to the present 400 ppmv has had a measureable effect on mean global warming since 1880 of at least 0.1°C and perhaps as much as 0.3°C, and that most of that increase is due to human activities…”
Ira, I appreciate your using the words “I do believe”.
Because, Ira, there are no testable, empirical measurements conclusively showing that CO2 is the cause of any global warming.
[I also happen to ‘believe’ that the rise in CO2 has caused a minuscule part of global warming. But in reality, there are no verifiable measurements showing conclusively that AGW is a fact. Thus, AGW remains a conjecture.]
Otherwise, I agree with your comments.
“An approximately 60-year cycle of warming and cooling seems to be superimposed on that general warming trend ”
How come nobody seems to know that this is just the 61-year solar barycenter motion?
““…I do believe that the increase in Atmospheric CO2 from about 270 to the present 400 ppmv has had a measureable effect on mean global warming since 1880 of at least 0.1°C and perhaps as much as 0.3°C, and that most of that increase is due to human activities…””
Any possible CO2 component of the temperature rise recently observed has not been scientifically quantified. There is also considerable doubt about the accuracy of the ice core proxy ‘measurement’ of 270ppm quoted here; and even more doubt that the supposed increase to 400ppm was anthropogenic.
1000frolly (YouTube)
Ira, I think you took me terribly wrong.
“The poorly named “greenhouse” effect is real and although CO2 only amounts to 400 parts per million, and other “greenhouse” gases such as water vapor contribute more to the warming, human-caused warming is also real. ”
Of course it is real. IR radiation in our atmosphere is isotropic, it is I bet I think the “greenhouse effect” is much higher that what you hold is true. Well, I might ask, do you still think it is 33°C? If so my view is it is much higher than that. My advice is don’t speak of others as if you know what other may currently think, some of those people actually progress over time far from what may they may have been said years ago that is when you first started writing here at WUWT.
The statement you make “human-caused warming is also real” is unanswered to me yet unless you say our cities are warmer than outside in rural areas, that is proven, no doubt there. Or you might think all increase in co2 is human caused, I don’t see the conclusive evidence on that either though a portion is most likely in the reported increase.
Seems you always want to put me in a labeled box and stick me on the shelf, careful, I change with the evidence as it comes in as I see it as correct and I have spent literally thousands of hours investigating this topic and far into the radiative physics aspects involved and always from various universities. Part of what drove me to delve so deep are some of your early posts and I’ll thank you for that push.